[Ephraim]

Hi friends!
So I have an opportunity to purchase a mint, 50mm 1.4 Takumar SMC Rubber Zoom Ring for about 50$ without any marks.
I already have my much loved and much used 1.7 Pentax-M.

I heard that the rubber zoom Tak is unusable at 1.4 because it's way too soft, making such a purchase a lateral move rather than an upgrade?

Your thoughts, thanks!

[marcusBMG]

1.4 vs 1.7 is only ~ half a stop. I tried a "K" 50mm 1.4 a few years ago, it was soft at f1.4, especially off centre frame, I can suggest they all are basically. So I think you are right it is a lateral step. There is a cachet to very fast lenses, but in practical photographic terms, if there isn't a specific purpose or reason to have that fast glass ...why bother?

[GUB]

Hi friends!
So I have an opportunity to purchase a mint, 50mm 1.4 Takumar SMC Rubber Zoom Ring for about 50$ without any marks.
I already have my much loved and much used 1.7 Pentax-M.

I heard that the rubber zoom Tak is unusable at 1.4 because it's way too soft, making such a purchase a lateral move rather than an upgrade?

Your thoughts, thanks!

Stop worrying about sharpness or lack of. At f1.4 (and for that matter 1.7 ) depth of field is so thin on any three dimensional subject that very little will be sharp anyway. What is important in terms of sharpness though is the drop off in sharpness in the edges of the wide open 1.4 compared to the reasonably even 1.7. These lenses were designed like that - in those days if you wanted corner to corner wide open sharpness you bought a Tak 55mm f1.8 or f2. If you wanted the added versatility of soft edges in portraiture then the 1.4 was the way to go. Of course you could stop it down a bit and have edge to edge sharpness like the others.
Don't think of lenses being better or worse, they merely produce different results. If portraiture is your forte and you like shallow dof and softer corners then you may well enjoy the 50mm 1.4

[Jlesalvignol]

Hi friends!
So I have an opportunity to purchase a mint, 50mm 1.4 Takumar SMC Rubber Zoom Ring for about 50$ without any marks.
I already have my much loved and much used 1.7 Pentax-M.

I heard that the rubber zoom Tak is unusable at 1.4 because it's way too soft, making such a purchase a lateral move rather than an upgrade?

Your thoughts, thanks!

Ephraim The Takumars 50mm 1.4 are all excellent, single coating or SMC whatever. The complaints are mainly related to the difficulty for many to get a perfect focus at 1.4. It's easier to blame the lens than to recognise your own limitations.

---------- Post added 04-16-23 at 05:09 AM ----------

Ephraim The Takumars 50mm 1.4 are all excellent, single coating or SMC whatever. The complaints are mainly related to the difficulty for many to get a perfect focus at 1.4. It's easier to blame the lens than to recognise your own limitations.

My Favorite Lens - Luminous Landscape

Mike Johnston - TOP - sound advice as usual !

[TwoUptons]

In my experience, the classic 50mm f1.4 lenses are all a bit softer than the f1.7 lenses until you get to about f2.8 or f4.0. After that, they are basically the same.

But I would not call any of the Pentax 50mm f1.4s I've used unacceptably soft, as I still have uses for that kind of performance (sometimes called "dreaminess").

When I only shot film, it also didn't matter as if I was using f1.4, I was probably also using a grainy, fast film... so the softness was there anyway...

On digital, because modern gear has so much more light sensitivity, I usually use my F50mm f1.7 (it is also my only autofocus 50mm). If I want the "dreaminess", I have an A50 f1.4 has a lot of the same characteristics as the Takumar the OP is looking at, and it also works with P-TTL flash on the modern bodies.

On my old M42 bodies, I always use the Super-Takumar f1.4, despite having a Takumar 50mm f2. The 1.4 is just really good on film, and there isn't much difference in size.

This was from a few years ago...


-Eric

[UncleVanya]

I don’t know what rubber zoom means in this case.

[pepperberry farm]

I don’t know what rubber zoom means in this case.

perhaps the OP is using that term along the lines of 'zoom with your feet'...?

[ChristianRock]

Use a hood on the 50mm f1.4 lenses, you might be surprised at the noticeable increase in contrast and sharpness. If you are using it on APSC like me you can use a fairly long one and that is even better.

[Just1MoreDave]

It's a good learning experience for not much money. The two lenses won't produce the same images even at the same apertures. The differences are not extreme. So you get some focusing practice, some experience drawing out the differences and some analysis of the results. When you're done, you know something about lenses and your preferences. You can usually sell either one for what you paid, so the photography class is nearly free.

[UncleVanya]

perhaps the OP is using that term along the lines of 'zoom with your feet'...?

I think he means rubber focus ring. I found this which suggests two versions of this lens exist. One has the rubber ring like a K or M series. The other I presume has the knurled metal ring that predates the rubber style.

https://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_1828.html

[Dartmoor Dave]

Ephraim The Takumars 50mm 1.4 are all excellent, single coating or SMC whatever. The complaints are mainly related to the difficulty for many to get a perfect focus at 1.4. It's easier to blame the lens than to recognise your own limitations.

Exactly. When somebody claims that the 50mm/1.4 is soft wide open then all they are saying is that they are missing focus. The depth of field is so thin that only a split prism focusing screen will reliably get you there -- the stock screen and green hexagon methods with a DSLR are useless for lenses that fast.

As a general rule, when people complain about manual focus lenses faster than f/2.0 being soft wide open, it just means that they are consistently missing focus.

[UncleVanya]

As far as I know, all of the 7 element lenses of this type are optically the same. I think the rubber is only cosmetic not indicative of any change in optics.

---------- Post added 04-16-23 at 12:41 PM ----------

Exactly. When somebody claims that the 50mm/1.4 is soft wide open then all they are saying is that they are missing focus. The depth of field is so thin that only a split prism focusing screen will reliably get you there -- the stock screen and green hexagon methods with a DSLR are useless for lenses that fast.

As a general rule, when people complain about manual focus lenses faster than f/2.0 being soft wide open, it just means that they are consistently missing focus.

That’s not entirely true. It’s true to a degree I guess.

My recollection, which I cannot currently find direct evidence for is that head to head optical tests on the M 50/1.4 vs M 50/1.7 show that the slower lens has more resolution in head to head tests until at least f2.8 - after that the faster lens pulls ahead a bit.

What I can find is direct detailed tests of the FA 50/1.4 showing that at wide open it has a loss of close to 1/3 of the resolution it has stopped down to f5.6.

[TwoUptons]

Exactly. When somebody claims that the 50mm/1.4 is soft wide open then all they are saying is that they are missing focus. The depth of field is so thin that only a split prism focusing screen will reliably get you there -- the stock screen and green hexagon methods with a DSLR are useless for lenses that fast.

As a general rule, when people complain about manual focus lenses faster than f/2.0 being soft wide open, it just means that they are consistently missing focus.

While I know many of my soft images are due to missed focus (or subject movement), that's not the only thing going on with the fast 50s...
(my biggest problem is my own movement after I focus... drives me nuts, especially with my 85mm f1.4, but that's another problem)

In my own informal tests (without an optical bench or the rigor of the Lensrentals folks, but with a tripod and more rigorous focusing), I've seen it as well... the faster lenses are softer at wide apertures as a rule than the slightly slower lenses, with everything evening out at about f2.8 or f4.
There are some exceptions to this. A M50mm f2.0, for example, is a simpler lens than the faster 50s, and it shows softer in the images basically everywhere at open apertures, but at f5.6 or so, I can't tell the difference unless I'm really pixel-peeping, and past f8, it's all the same...

But the 50mm f1.7 lenses (six elements, five groups) and f1.4 lenses (seven elements, six groups, and not the recent DFA) have optically very similar characteristics, and the same is true over most brands of vintage lenses, but there is a cost to that little bit of extra speed, and the one extra element in the fast lenses doesn't quite do it.
In my experience the cost has been very low, so I'm happy to pay it when I need to, but it is there...

I have not tested a 50mm f1.2, though it also has a reputation for being "dreamy" wide open, but I think the new DFA 50mm f1.4 shows how much glass it takes to make a fast lens sharp wide open...

The first time I heard of this was in a lens review by Consumer Reports from 1967/68 (don't laugh... they actually tested all the lenses... and there's an interesting car review in that issue as well... The Mercury Cougar barely beat the Pontiac Firebird for best sporty car...)

They noticed this effect with (as I recall) the Takumars, Nikons, Minolta and a couple other brands (Petri? it was something unexpected). In fact, they suggested most people skip the faster lenses as the slower were bargains, cost-wise if you could live with the slightly slower speeds, though they weren't big fans of all the slowest lenses. Obviously, CR has their own set of biases, photographically speaking, but their testing methodology at the time seemed reasonable.

I've personally noticed this with Pentax and Nikon 50mm lenses, mostly older MF stuff... My old Nikon f1.4 was slightly softer wide open than my f1.8, but by f2.0 I couldn't see any difference, so I sold the f1.8. I'm not a Nikon guy, so one 50mm is enough

And my understanding of the "tribal wisdom" is that all the seven-element f1.4 lenses were optically the same, with changes happening to the coatings occasionally up through the FA50 f1.4 (again, not the DFA), regardless of the construction, though I know a lot of folks like the K lenses or older Takumars best from a physical design perspective. I don't know if that is perfectly true, or whether there were some small differences over time, but I know the lens diagrams look about the same...

-Eric

[c.a.m]

I think this is an important feature -- the eight blades of the diaphragm on the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 must count for something. The M 50/1.7 has six.

- Craig

[Dartmoor Dave]

In my own informal tests (without an optical bench or the rigor of the Lensrentals folks, but with a tripod and more rigorous focusing), I've seen it as well... the faster lenses are softer at wide apertures as a rule than the slightly slower lenses, with everything evening out at about f2.8 or f4.

Does everything really even out at f/2.8 to f/4? Or is it just that there's enough depth of field to compensate for focusing error?

I'm in a bind here now. I've got examples of the SMC Takumar 50mm/1.4 that are very sharp wide open -- albeit with razor thin depth of field -- but they are all family photos and I don't post those online. I'll have to try to find something where the thing that's in sharp focus isn't a family member's eyelashes.

My basic point is that the slower the lens, the sharper it will seem to be wide open, simply because focusing error becomes less of an issue.