Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-29-2020, 11:09 PM - 2 Likes   #1
Pentaxian
CarbonR's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France
Posts: 363
Standard 50-58mm comparison : 18 lenses tested

The biggest test I had to do, on 50-58mm lenses :



To facilitate the lenses comparison :
- The 50/1.4 and 55/1.8 together : https://i.postimg.cc/NgQcMyr3/Test-Tak50-55.jpg
- The great old ones : https://i.postimg.cc/GRqc4jKq/Test-anciens.jpg

Industar vs. Tak 50/3.5 : same sharpness but russians do not have "contrast" in their dictionnary
55/1.8 lenses are all equivalent and at the same level than 50/1..4 ones
The Porst is not that bad but f/1.2 is clearly difficult to handle
Lenses with large fungus perform very honestly (it should even be quite correctable) and as expected, the scratch does not affect images
There is indeed a difference between 50/1.8 8 elements and 7 elements, mainly in the bokeh
The Tak 58/2 confirms its reputation of smooth bokeh (Sonnar)
The Tak 58/2.4 confirms the feeling I had about excellent color rendering and messy bokeh
The 45~125 is stille a good lens (did I say it has small fungus ?)

11-29-2020, 11:30 PM   #2
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,209
All the taks look almost exactly the same to me, ha. Only difference to my eye is slightly lower contrast in the fungus lens, otherwise extremely comparable.
11-29-2020, 11:51 PM - 1 Like   #3
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by ZombieArmy Quote
All the taks look almost exactly the same to me, ha.
Same here.

I had some difficulties with the gallery page. Sometimes it served a lower resolution image and lots of strange ads (LINK) and rarely, it would give me the high resolution version where I could actually see points of comparison (LINK).

One positive note is that, courtesy of one of the ads, I now know how to empty my bowels completely every morning.


Steve
11-30-2020, 10:07 AM - 1 Like   #4
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,576
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I now know how to empty my bowels completely every morning.
LOL You must have clicked on one of the "full aperture" shots


Last edited by BigMackCam; 11-30-2020 at 10:18 AM.
11-30-2020, 02:02 PM   #5
Pentaxian
CarbonR's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France
Posts: 363
Original Poster
I do not get it. This is exactly to avoid any "interference" that I used direct links to full resolution jpegs instead of using the gallery ones
11-30-2020, 02:25 PM   #6
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,990
QuoteOriginally posted by CarbonR Quote
I do not get it. This is exactly to avoid any "interference" that I used direct links to full resolution jpegs instead of using the gallery ones
Maybe it's because you are logged into that site that you see no ads, and others do?


QuoteOriginally posted by CarbonR Quote
There is indeed a difference between 50/1.8 8 elements and 7 elements, mainly in the bokeh
I guess here you meant the 1.4 Taks, not 1.8?
11-30-2020, 02:46 PM   #7
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by CarbonR Quote
I do not get it. This is exactly to avoid any "interference" that I used direct links to full resolution jpegs instead of using the gallery ones
This is an issue with your image hosting site. The URL was properly made on the Pentax Forums page, but your hosting site bounced it back out to a page that did not display the full size image you intended.


Steve

11-30-2020, 11:00 PM   #8
Pentaxian
CarbonR's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France
Posts: 363
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by leekil Quote
Maybe it's because you are logged into that site that you see no ads, and others do?
I am not logged, but have efficient crapblockers (uBlock origin + noscript). I never see any ad.


QuoteOriginally posted by leekil Quote
I guess here you meant the 1.4 Taks, not 1.8?
Yes, this was a typo
12-01-2020, 11:40 AM   #9
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by CarbonR Quote
I am not logged, but have efficient crapblockers (uBlock origin + noscript). I never see any ad.
Then you might have noticed that the full-size version of the image was displayed in that case?

Test complet ? Postimages


Steve
12-01-2020, 12:04 PM   #10
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,576
I've enjoyed these lens tests you've performed and documented. Thanks for posting them

QuoteOriginally posted by CarbonR Quote
Industar vs. Tak 50/3.5 : same sharpness but russians do not have "contrast" in their dictionnary
As a collector of Soviet and former Soviet Union glass, I have a vested interest and some experience of the Industar-50 and Helios-44 series lenses. I don't doubt the results you obtained with the Industar-50-2, but I suspect this was a fairly late model -perhaps mid-1970s or later? Early examples - and, indeed, the Industar-50 (i.e. not "-2") predecessor - have different coatings and perform much better where contrast is concerned, in my experience at least.

I suspect the lack of contrast you're observing is most likely due to veiling flare. If you shoot using a hood or with your hand blocking any strong light sources just outside the frame, you should see a marked improvement.

There are a few Soviet lenses that, no matter what you do, contrast will be quite poor - but these are in the minority when considered amongst the wide variety and different versions of lenses coming from the region... and there are numerous "MC" multi-coated models that are as contrasty as anything comparable from the era.
12-01-2020, 01:54 PM   #11
Pentaxian
CarbonR's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France
Posts: 363
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Then you might have noticed that the full-size version of the image was displayed in that case?

Test complet ? Postimages


Steve
Yes, if I use your link, I go to the site, while my link make me go to the direct image. And on the site I do not see any ad

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I've enjoyed these lens tests you've performed and documented. Thanks for posting them



As a collector of Soviet and former Soviet Union glass, I have a vested interest and some experience of the Industar-50 and Helios-44 series lenses. I don't doubt the results you obtained with the Industar-50-2, but I suspect this was a fairly late model -perhaps mid-1970s or later? Early examples - and, indeed, the Industar-50 (i.e. not "-2") predecessor - have different coatings and perform much better where contrast is concerned, in my experience at least.

I suspect the lack of contrast you're observing is most likely due to veiling flare. If you shoot using a hood or with your hand blocking any strong light sources just outside the frame, you should see a marked improvement.

There are a few Soviet lenses that, no matter what you do, contrast will be quite poor - but these are in the minority when considered amongst the wide variety and different versions of lenses coming from the region... and there are numerous "MC" multi-coated models that are as contrasty as anything comparable from the era.
My Industar, alongside with the Zenit E it came with (this was my first film SLR and I did some rolls with it), has his serial starting by 80 so I assume it was manufactured in 1980. I did not use a lens hood on this test because I almost never use lens hoods apart with my Samyangs (because they are stored with them) and with teles with integrated hood. But the Takumar did not require lens hood, so my Industar is far behing the Takumar (+ manuel vs. preset aperture, + poor focusing ring)
12-01-2020, 02:03 PM   #12
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,576
QuoteOriginally posted by CarbonR Quote
My Industar, alongside with the Zenit E it came with (this was my first film SLR and I did some rolls with it), has his serial starting by 80 so I assume it was manufactured in 1980.
As I thought

There have been numerous versions of the Industar-50 series over the years, going right back to the 1950s, and those from the mid-1960s to early '70s are my favourites (when looking through them, you'll note a distinct purple / magenta hue from the lens coatings). Shot skilfully, there is no problem with contrast.

QuoteOriginally posted by CarbonR Quote
I did not use a lens hood on this test because I almost never use lens hoods apart with my Samyangs (because they are stored with them) and with teles with integrated hood.
Understood... but be aware that your Industar-50-2 is a very basic, cosmetically refreshed lens with an optical design dating back many, many years, and the coatings on this later variant aren't great. Shooting with a hood, or - as I usually do - just a hand to block strong light sources - works wonders

QuoteOriginally posted by CarbonR Quote
But the Takumar did not require lens hood, so my Industar is far behing the Takumar (+ manuel vs. preset aperture, + poor focusing ring)
I've no doubt the Takumar would be much better, however I think it's worth differentiating between "poor contrast" and "poor contrast caused by veiling flare". The later Industar-50-2 isn't great for contrast, it's true, yet it can perform considerably better than your test shots would suggest, but for veiling flare (which can be avoided). I'm not criticising your tests and results, but merely adding context that might be helpful to you and other potential users... whilst respectfully refuting your blanket statement that "russians do not have "contrast" in their dictionnary"

Thanks again for publishing your tests. They make for interesting viewing

Last edited by BigMackCam; 12-01-2020 at 02:30 PM.
12-01-2020, 02:21 PM - 1 Like   #13
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Shooting with a hood, or - as I usually do - just a hand to block strong light sources - works wonders
Yep, and it's not like hoods that will work well with these lenses are expensive.* I never shoot without one, unless having it on shades the flash.


Steve

* The full gamut of manual focus 50mm lenses can be serviced with three hoods (49mm, 52mm, and 55mm...less than $20 USD on eBay).

Last edited by stevebrot; 12-01-2020 at 06:48 PM. Reason: extra letter
12-01-2020, 02:59 PM   #14
Pentaxian
CarbonR's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Clermont-Ferrand, France
Posts: 363
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
A
Understood... but be aware that your Industar-50-2 is a very basic, cosmetically refreshed lens with an optical design dating back many, many years, and the coatings on this later variant aren't great. Shooting with a hood, or - as I usually do - just a hand to block strong light sources - works wonders
I almost never use it because do not have anything interesting for my use : I have sharper, brighter, better bokeh lenses, and I do not shood candind or other situation where a pancake lens would be interesting. I keep it with the Zenit for purely sentimental reason (my first film SLR).


QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
I've no doubt the Takumar would be much better, however I think it's worth differentiating between "poor contrast" and "poor contrast caused by veiling flare". The later Industar-50-2 isn't great for contrast, it's true, yet it can perform considerably better than your test shots would suggest, but for veiling flare (which can be avoided). I'm not criticising your tests and results, but merely adding context that might be helpful to you and other potential users... whilst respectfully refuting your blanket statement that "russians do not have "contrast" in their dictionnary"

Thanks again for publishing your tests. They make for interesting viewing
Yes, context is always interesting. The first person for whom I did these tests is me, to be sure of what lenses to keep and what lenses to sell (I do not want anymore to keep lenses that will rest on a shelf for ever), so I shooted like I shoot regularly, apart from the tripod to keep the same picture during tests.


QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Y
* The full gamut of manual focus 50mm lenses can be serviced with three hoods (49mm, 52mm, and 55mm...less than $20 USD on eBay).
I have their original lens hood (apart for the Industar and its not standard diameter), I also have a bunch of generic lens hoods in different diameters... but never use them (or sometimes with lenses known to lack of contrast, or when the lens hood is integrated to the lens so used without hassle). A lens hood is for me more like a bumper to protect my lens if this is a dangerous situation, or for astrophotography it is said to be a good fog repeller. I consider that I do not pay expensive lenses with "multi-nano-mega-coating" to keep using lens hoods like in the early 1900 with bare glass without coating. If I ever lack a bit of contrast for a picture, I can add some in Toshop/Gimp or for film, by changing the grade. Contrast is not exactly a missing information like an unsharp image, or bad bokeh in the background, that you cannot correct at processing (either film or digital), so that why for my usage I prefer the bare lens, because it is simplier for me (no time to screw a lens hood and unscrew it, no place taken in the bag).
12-01-2020, 05:22 PM - 1 Like   #15
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by CarbonR Quote
I consider that I do not pay expensive lenses with "multi-nano-mega-coating" to keep using lens hoods like in the early 1900 with bare glass without coating. If I ever lack a bit of contrast for a picture,
Thanks for the explanation. As for adding detail lost to flare in PP...good luck. One cannot enhance what has already been lost. I think I have seen enough. Thanks for the effort.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 12-01-2020 at 05:28 PM. Reason: to make nice
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
50-58mm comparison, bokeh, comparison, comparison 18 lenses, elements, fungus, helios, industar, k-mount, lenses, pentax lens, porst, scratch, slr lens, tak, takumar, zoomtakumar
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
58mm Lens Club - Bring your Biotar, your Helios, your Tak 58mm... bring 'em all! pepperberry farm Lens Clubs 307 4 Days Ago 07:57 AM
Direct Comparison of D FA*85/1.4 against Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 (Tested in the Field) bwgv001 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 07-15-2020 11:55 PM
For Sale - Sold: M42 lenses: Helios 44-2 (58mm/f2) and Carl Zeiss 58mm/f2 (Worldwide) geauxpez Sold Items 6 03-17-2011 04:54 PM
DNG - The non standard standard Lowell Goudge Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 07-21-2009 05:02 AM
Standard Zoom comparison and other lenses to choose from... Sprags Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 01-14-2008 10:32 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:41 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top