[HoutHans]

I use some of my older (takumar, K- and M-series) lenses for astrophotography. I'm always amazed at how well they do and astro is pretty tough on lenses. Obviously, they're not as fast as some of the modern lenses and they need a bit of stopping down but at 1/2 of 1 stop down, they provide very decent IQ. Mostly, I just enjoy the manual and tactile expercience of using older lenses. They are just such a joy to hold and operate.

[MSL]

I just enjoy the manual and tactile expercience of using older lenses.

I think more than anything that is the appeal for most users. There's nothing to compare holding a solid hunk of metal and glass in comparison to modern plastic lens. The movements can be so smooth and there's a sense of being a more active photographer since it is more hands on. Of course after you lug it around for a few hours, you start to crave a DA40 pancake, but that's a different matter

[richard0170]

Some of my vintage lenses perform excellently on my K3 and KP cameras, others are just good and some are distinctly average. The excellent ones are the K 28 f3.5, K30 f2.8, K50 f4 Macro, K55 f1.8, K 135 f2.5, A 50 f2.8 Macro, F 28mm f2.8, Auto Revuenon 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 72B 90mm f2.8 Macro. Many of these lenses have no direct modern equivalent so any comparison is impossible.

A lens I would describe as good - the M 35mm f2.8 - I have compared to both the DA 35mm f2.4 and HD DA 35mm f2.8 Macro. When used at its wider apertures the M is definitely softer @ f 2.8 or 4 compared to its modern brethren. When you get to f 5.6 or beyond its is very hard to tell the difference, except when it comes down to colour rendition. I can always tell the difference between the DA and Ltd lenses at any aperture via this, but the difference between my M and Ltd at f8 is non existent to my eyes.

Another lens I would describe as good is my M 100mm f4 Macro. It is clearly not as competent as my recent acquisition - the WR 100 f2.8 Macro, however it has a different look about its images which create their own appeal and make up for any lack of sharpness which you can only really detect if pixel peeping anyway.

Interestingly, and I have not done any deliberate testing, I have noticed that a lens which is only average on my K3 or KP - M 200mm f4 - rises to being good on my Fujifilm X-T1. Why this should be or whether it is just this lens I do not know. Further experimentation is in order.

As a matter of taste, I consider modern lenses like the 50 and 55mm f1.4 models from various manufacturers not particularly good at all. To my mind they are large, fat and heavy bloated (and very expensive) creatures which are overkill for most normal photography, only really being worth having if you are going to be shooting at f1.4 or 2. They need to be this size to stick in all the glass necessary to correct chromatic aberrations. The trouble with this is that more glass = less light transmission and inter tonal detail. A good, if extreme, analogy is between that of comparing a line drawing to a painting. This is all very well if that is what you want from a picture, but how many of us want this? Also, although it is fun to try and take pictures of every thing wide open and close to get subject separation and bokeh, I find too many do this too often and the effect becomes boring through over use. A bit like my own fault of under exposing and boosting saturation and contrast too often, or another of maximizing a picture's dynamic range all the time, not something I do but see far too often.

[stevebrot]

As a matter of taste, I consider modern lenses like the 50 and 55mm f1.4 models from various manufacturers not particularly good at all. To my mind they are large, fat and heavy bloated (and very expensive) creatures which are overkill for most normal photography, only really being worth having if you are going to be shooting at f1.4 or 2.

I bet they really rock for reprographic work...


Steve

[HoutHans]

I bet they really rock for reprographic work...


Steve

LOL. And they allow for some stunning subject isolation. I remember a photo taken with the new 50/1.4 and that an absolutely amazing 3D pop to it whilst being ridiculously sharp as regards the subject (a dog if I'm correct).

[stevebrot]

LOL. And they allow for some stunning subject isolation. I remember a photo taken with the new 50/1.4 and that an absolutely amazing 3D pop to it whilst being ridiculously sharp as regards the subject (a dog if I'm correct).

My Helios 44M 55/2.0 is the same way.


Steve

[normhead]

My Helios 44M 55/2.0 is the same way.


Steve

How would it compare to the DA*55 1.4 ?

[stevebrot]

How would it compare to the DA*55 1.4 ?

Dunno...


Steve

[Gary H Perth]

I would love to see a comparison with the 7 element tak, however I don't think it'd be as dramatic as that example because of the radioactive doping. I'd assume the 1.4s became worse around the k to m series onwards.

What I think is kind of interesting is just how much worse the FA 50 1.4 is at f2 compared to the 55mm f2 tak in both center sharpness and edge sharpness.

I think the moral of the story is just buy Taks.

I have what seems to be a good copy of the FA 50 f1.4, and I find it both flat and a bit hard to get sharp focus. I get much better images from my K 55 f1.8, which is pretty close to the same optics as the last Tak. I am just about to start playing with a SMC Tak 50mm f2, but I like what I have seen so far.

And in relation to Ivan Vernon's discussion earlier in the thread, my totally favourite lens may be the Super Multi Coated Takumar 35mm f3.5 - great for colour, contrast, sharpness, flare resistance (with a hood). I cannot convince myself to rate it below the DA Limited 35mm.

Yes- Just buy Taks!

[hjoseph7]

Great video but I found out about greatvintage lenses when i purchased my first Takumar lens...

[ZombieArmy]

How would it compare to the DA*55 1.4 ?

More swirly, with a great thirst for vodka.

[stevebrot]

How would it compare to the DA*55 1.4 ?

More swirly, with a great thirst for vodka.

I don't have a DA* 55/1.4, but this is what the Helios 44M 58/2.0 can do.




Steve

[ZombieArmy]

I don't have a DA* 55/1.4, but this is what the Helios 44M 58/2.0 can do.




Steve

Here's another example from the 44 camp, from a guy who got no fancy star lenses and who help babushka peel potato.

[bilybianca]

I'm not a pixel peeper, nor a test nerd. To me subject, composition and colours are much more important than subtle differences in corner sharpness. I do fancy my K-1 a lot, but some of my best pictures were taken with my now retired *istDS.

My finding is that the quality of vintage lenses on digital vary a lot. Most, but not all, prime lenses give me very good results, while most zooms are dissapointing on digital. There might also be the factor of sample variation and well worn internal parts.

I don't doubt the supreme quality of the new D-FA 50 and 85mm, but price, size and weight keeps me from getting either. FA77mm Limited, A* 85mm and the old FA 50mm suits me much better and my lack of skills levels the playing field anyway.

Kjell

[HoutHans]

The Helios images are very nice. Is that an LBA itch I feel? Nah, probably not, but I'll just take a quick peek on marktplaats (Dutch ebay)