Is the Super Takumar 50 1.4 better than the Tamron 28-75 2.8?

justtakingpics · 04-24-2011, 05:44 PM

Because I have considered selling all my super taks lenses to get the tamron. I know some really like the manual lenses but I'm really wanting a good quality zoome for the price. I've read lots of good things on here about the Tamron. I've seen the images from my super taks and they look great when you get everything right. Just wanted opinions.

edit: you can also put the 17-50 (also like the 90 macro) in the mix. very nice images on that one too.

Last edited by justtakingpics; 04-24-2011 at 05:54 PM.

keyser · 04-24-2011, 06:25 PM

Well, it stands to reason that the Tak will be faster and sharper... but I'm guessing that the Tamron is auto-focus, so if you get a sharp f/2.8 at the 75mm end, I'd be tempted to keep it.

Fast MF lenses aren't that hard to come by. The Helios 44-2 can be had for cheap enough that you can have that AND your 28-75!

justtakingpics · 04-24-2011, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by keyser

Well, it stands to reason that the Tak will be faster and sharper... but I'm guessing that the Tamron is auto-focus, so if you get a sharp f/2.8 at the 75mm end, I'd be tempted to keep it.

Fast MF lenses aren't that hard to come by. The Helios 44-2 can be had for cheap enough that you can have that AND your 28-75!

I understand the faster as 1.4 is faster than 2.8 but why sharper?

dgaies · 04-24-2011, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by justtakingpics

I understand the faster as 1.4 is faster than 2.8 but why sharper?

I've never used a Tak, but in general it stands to reason that a prime lens, stopped down 2 stops, would be sharper than a zoom wide open. Now, the Tamron 28-75 is quite sharp wide open, so the difference may not be much either way.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 04-24-2011, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by justtakingpics

I understand the faster as 1.4 is faster than 2.8 but why sharper?

Faster lenses peak in resolution earlier. There are exceptions, of course, but this rule generally holds.

sterretje · 04-24-2011, 10:41 PM

The satisfaction of getting it right with an old lens is great, but if that hardly ever happens it spoils your fun in photography.

So I would in that case go for the zoom, regardless of the quality. Which one? For you to decide based on your way of shooting. If you need the wide side, 17-50; less wide and a bit more aiming towards portraits, the 28-75.

Your signature states an 28-70 lens. Try that for a while and see if you're missing the wide side.

And a note on the macro:
best macro results are often obtained using manual focus

If you want to use the macro as tele as well, AF comes in handy for you.

PS I would not sell the Taks; just keep practicing

Hound Tooth · 04-24-2011, 10:56 PM

What an odd question... is an old, fast, manual focus prime lens better than a newer, slower, AF zoom lens?

May as well ask if celery is better than an orange.

Could Tarzan beat Xena in a fight?

Can Ford compete with Harley Davidson?

Does it really matter what's "better"? It's pretty clear that "better" won't really mean squat in this case. What you should be asking yourself is "which will be more useful to me?"

Indoor portraits of static subjects? Probably the Super Tak.

Outdoor images of moving subjects at varying distances? Probably the Tamron.

And there are many degrees in between those two extremes.

pinholecam · 04-24-2011, 11:36 PM

I don't have the Tak 50/1.4, but I do have the A50/1.4.

Here is a center sharpness shot of the two at f2.8

A50/1.4 @f2.8

Tamron 28-75mm at 50mm f2.8

Don't forget that the 50/1.4 is already 2 stops down and the 28-75 is wide open. Its certainly no slouch.

Frogfish · 04-25-2011, 12:06 AM

I don't see the point of comparing a classic A50 1.4 with the 28-75 when the OP has a Super Tak 50/1.4 !

The Taks do vary in sharpness - quite a lot (relatively) I believe. I have the SMC Tak 50/1.4 which is different to the S.M.C Tak 50/1.4 which is different to the Super Tak 50/1.4 (I believe but I'm not certain - this is the runt of the litter). Where is Palio Pete when you need him !

However for me it's no contest. I've looked into the 28-75 a lot and it's very much near the top of my current Wish List. Superb lense (check out the Tamron Lense thread - the 28-75 shots will blow your socks off).

If you really need a low light lense then stay with the Tak 50/1.4 (or buy the SMC or S.M.C version to improve it) otherwise it's a no brainer.

Pentaxor · 04-25-2011, 12:14 AM

depends on your need for fast lens. if you don't need it, then sell it.

**Porga** · 04-25-2011, 12:40 AM

This is my post from Takumar club, and it is about my experience with SMCT 50/1.4 and Tamron 28-75
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1453828-post7819.html

Quote:

Thank you.
..I had pause too, I was using Tamron 28-75 for few months. But, to be honest, although Tamron is great lens, I like the photos taken with Takumar lenses much more. Regardles of not being AF like Tamron, and my focusing errors (I don't have focusing creen or magnifier)my keeper rate for Takumar photos is greater than keeper rate for Tamron photos.
Looking forward to seing your photos. ...

justtakingpics · 04-25-2011, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Porga

This is my post from Takumar club, and it is about my experience with SMCT 50/1.4 and Tamron 28-75
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1453828-post7819.html

Why was you keeper rate higher with the 50?

justtakingpics · 04-25-2011, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Hound Tooth

What an odd question... is an old, fast, manual focus prime lens better than a newer, slower, AF zoom lens?

May as well ask if celery is better than an orange.

Could Tarzan beat Xena in a fight?

Can Ford compete with Harley Davidson?

Does it really matter what's "better"? It's pretty clear that "better" won't really mean squat in this case. What you should be asking yourself is "which will be more useful to me?"

Indoor portraits of static subjects? Probably the Super Tak.

Outdoor images of moving subjects at varying distances? Probably the Tamron.

And there are many degrees in between those two extremes.

Sorry. Not following much of any of this.

alper · 04-25-2011, 08:18 AM

This one may be helpful:

My Homemade 50mm sharpness test.
:]

-Not the 28-70, but the 17-50 Tamron-
(Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF)

Details:

- Canon 550D .. oops! :]
- Iso 200, Tripod, no filter, no hood,
- Manual focus with Live view 1/1
- Post processing: Crop (1/1 center), White balance, Desaturate, Convert (Raw>Jpg)

justtakingpics · 04-25-2011, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by alper

This one may be helpful:

My Homemade 50mm sharpness test.
:]

-Not the 28-70, but the 17-50 Tamron-
(Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF)

Details:
- Canon 550D .. oops! :]
- Iso 200, Tripod, no filter, no hood,
- Manual focus with Live view 1/1
- Post processing: Crop, White balance, Desaturate, Convert (Raw>Jpg)

Thanks. To my eyes the tak was just a hair sharper at 2.8 but the rest were all the same. I suppose it comes down to if you need AF and/or below 2.8.

04-24-2011, 05:44 PM	#1
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288	Is the Super Takumar 50 1.4 better than the Tamron 28-75 2.8? Because I have considered selling all my super taks lenses to get the tamron. I know some really like the manual lenses but I'm really wanting a good quality zoome for the price. I've read lots of good things on here about the Tamron. I've seen the images from my super taks and they look great when you get everything right. Just wanted opinions. edit: you can also put the 17-50 (also like the 90 macro) in the mix. very nice images on that one too. Last edited by justtakingpics; 04-24-2011 at 05:54 PM.

04-25-2011, 12:06 AM	#9
Frogfish Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Shanghai Posts: 4,490	I don't see the point of comparing a classic A50 1.4 with the 28-75 when the OP has a Super Tak 50/1.4 ! The Taks do vary in sharpness - quite a lot (relatively) I believe. I have the SMC Tak 50/1.4 which is different to the S.M.C Tak 50/1.4 which is different to the Super Tak 50/1.4 (I believe but I'm not certain - this is the runt of the litter). Where is Palio Pete when you need him ! However for me it's no contest. I've looked into the 28-75 a lot and it's very much near the top of my current Wish List. Superb lense (check out the Tamron Lense thread - the 28-75 shots will blow your socks off). If you really need a low light lense then stay with the Tak 50/1.4 (or buy the SMC or S.M.C version to improve it) otherwise it's a no brainer. Last edited by Frogfish; 04-25-2011 at 12:17 AM.

04-25-2011, 08:18 AM	#14
alper New Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: NJ Posts: 2	This one may be helpful: My Homemade 50mm sharpness test. :] -Not the 28-70, but the 17-50 Tamron- (Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF) Details: - Canon 550D .. oops! :] - Iso 200, Tripod, no filter, no hood, - Manual focus with Live view 1/1 - Post processing: Crop (1/1 center), White balance, Desaturate, Convert (Raw>Jpg) Last edited by alper; 04-25-2011 at 08:38 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 18-125mm, Tamron SP 90mm macro, Super Takumar 50mm F1.4, and film bodies	jackmao	Sold Items	8	12-04-2010 09:35 AM
For Sale - Sold: Takumar: Super Takumar 135mm f3.5 includes case, hood and caps	Peter Zack	Sold Items	7	05-17-2010 07:12 PM
Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5 and Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8	Fixcinater	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	08-30-2009 09:34 AM
For Sale - Sold: Super Macro Takumar 50mm, Super Takumar 200mm, F 35-80mm Lenses	Nick Siebers	Sold Items	4	02-01-2009 08:56 PM

04-24-2011, 06:25 PM	#2
keyser Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Tsawwassen, BC Posts: 376	Well, it stands to reason that the Tak will be faster and sharper... but I'm guessing that the Tamron is auto-focus, so if you get a sharp f/2.8 at the 75mm end, I'd be tempted to keep it. Fast MF lenses aren't that hard to come by. The Helios 44-2 can be had for cheap enough that you can have that AND your 28-75!

04-24-2011, 06:33 PM	#3
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288 Original Poster	Originally posted by keyser Well, it stands to reason that the Tak will be faster and sharper... but I'm guessing that the Tamron is auto-focus, so if you get a sharp f/2.8 at the 75mm end, I'd be tempted to keep it. Fast MF lenses aren't that hard to come by. The Helios 44-2 can be had for cheap enough that you can have that AND your 28-75! I understand the faster as 1.4 is faster than 2.8 but why sharper?

04-24-2011, 06:35 PM	#4
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by justtakingpics I understand the faster as 1.4 is faster than 2.8 but why sharper? I've never used a Tak, but in general it stands to reason that a prime lens, stopped down 2 stops, would be sharper than a zoom wide open. Now, the Tamron 28-75 is quite sharp wide open, so the difference may not be much either way.

04-24-2011, 10:29 PM	#5
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by justtakingpics I understand the faster as 1.4 is faster than 2.8 but why sharper? Faster lenses peak in resolution earlier. There are exceptions, of course, but this rule generally holds.

04-24-2011, 10:41 PM	#6
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	The satisfaction of getting it right with an old lens is great, but if that hardly ever happens it spoils your fun in photography. So I would in that case go for the zoom, regardless of the quality. Which one? For you to decide based on your way of shooting. If you need the wide side, 17-50; less wide and a bit more aiming towards portraits, the 28-75. Your signature states an 28-70 lens. Try that for a while and see if you're missing the wide side. And a note on the macro: best macro results are often obtained using manual focus If you want to use the macro as tele as well, AF comes in handy for you. PS I would not sell the Taks; just keep practicing

04-24-2011, 10:56 PM	#7
Hound Tooth Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Williston, VT Posts: 268	What an odd question... is an old, fast, manual focus prime lens better than a newer, slower, AF zoom lens? May as well ask if celery is better than an orange. Could Tarzan beat Xena in a fight? Can Ford compete with Harley Davidson? Does it really matter what's "better"? It's pretty clear that "better" won't really mean squat in this case. What you should be asking yourself is "which will be more useful to me?" Indoor portraits of static subjects? Probably the Super Tak. Outdoor images of moving subjects at varying distances? Probably the Tamron. And there are many degrees in between those two extremes.

04-24-2011, 11:36 PM	#8
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	I don't have the Tak 50/1.4, but I do have the A50/1.4. Here is a center sharpness shot of the two at f2.8 A50/1.4 @f2.8 Tamron 28-75mm at 50mm f2.8 Don't forget that the 50/1.4 is already 2 stops down and the 28-75 is wide open. Its certainly no slouch.

04-25-2011, 12:14 AM	#10
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	depends on your need for fast lens. if you don't need it, then sell it.

04-25-2011, 12:40 AM	#11
Porga Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Photos: Albums Posts: 476	This is my post from Takumar club, and it is about my experience with SMCT 50/1.4 and Tamron 28-75 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1453828-post7819.html Quote: Thank you. ..I had pause too, I was using Tamron 28-75 for few months. But, to be honest, although Tamron is great lens, I like the photos taken with Takumar lenses much more. Regardles of not being AF like Tamron, and my focusing errors (I don't have focusing creen or magnifier)my keeper rate for Takumar photos is greater than keeper rate for Tamron photos. Looking forward to seing your photos. ...

04-25-2011, 05:51 AM	#12
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288 Original Poster	Originally posted by Porga This is my post from Takumar club, and it is about my experience with SMCT 50/1.4 and Tamron 28-75 https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1453828-post7819.html Why was you keeper rate higher with the 50?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-25-2011, 07:36 AM	#13
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288 Original Poster	Originally posted by Hound Tooth What an odd question... is an old, fast, manual focus prime lens better than a newer, slower, AF zoom lens? May as well ask if celery is better than an orange. Could Tarzan beat Xena in a fight? Can Ford compete with Harley Davidson? Does it really matter what's "better"? It's pretty clear that "better" won't really mean squat in this case. What you should be asking yourself is "which will be more useful to me?" Indoor portraits of static subjects? Probably the Super Tak. Outdoor images of moving subjects at varying distances? Probably the Tamron. And there are many degrees in between those two extremes. Sorry. Not following much of any of this.

04-25-2011, 08:31 AM	#15
justtakingpics Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 288 Original Poster	Originally posted by alper This one may be helpful: My Homemade 50mm sharpness test. :] -Not the 28-70, but the 17-50 Tamron- (Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF) Details: - Canon 550D .. oops! :] - Iso 200, Tripod, no filter, no hood, - Manual focus with Live view 1/1 - Post processing: Crop, White balance, Desaturate, Convert (Raw>Jpg) Thanks. To my eyes the tak was just a hair sharper at 2.8 but the rest were all the same. I suppose it comes down to if you need AF and/or below 2.8.