[kuuan]

does anybody own and value both?
if so, how do the differ? ( optically, in rendering images, I am aware of their technical differences )

thank you for any input,
cheers,
kuuan

[Steinback]

I have a Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 with 6 aperture blades (later versions had 8) and an FA 50mm f/1.4

I like both. The FA is certainly easier to use if I need to shoot quickly. You can see a difference in out of focus areas in some scenes but I haven't ever taken a critical look at the difference.

I bought the Super Takumar first and liked it enough to pay 22x more for the FA, so that probably says something. I often carry both lenses at once, with one on a film body and the other on my K10 (and no strong preference on which lens goes with which body).

Takumar: Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 - a set on Flickr

FA: FA 50mm f/1.4 - a set on Flickr

[monochrome]

does anybody own and value both?
if so, how do the differ? ( optically, in rendering images, I am aware of their technical differences )

thank you for any input,
cheers,
kuuan

I actually have both but I ahve never sat down to compare rendering between them. Since we have several days of holiday I can mess around with some unscientific test images for you.

My general sense is the FA is ice-cold sharp and the S-M-C Tak is warmer - but we'll see real images.

[Steinback]

My Super Takumar is definitely warmer but I've never bothered keeping it under UV for long enough to clear the glass completely. I even have a couple of UV light bulbs around the house but setting one up for more than a day at a time with a fan to cool it hasn't been a priority.

[Andi Lo]

Takumar is better, especially wide open (and I've used two copies of FA 50). Rendering wise it might be just the warmth of the lens that makes it nicer, but I cant exactly replicate the results by using FA + warming the white balance. The guy that did the Pentax 50mm shootout confirmed that the two lenses are 99% identical. I dont agree

Just my impressions of course. I might just have gotten mind controlled by that all-metal construction too

[Mechan1k]

Super Tak is definitely sharper at the wide open end ... I find the FA50 pretty soft at 1.4 ... but that's not always a bad thing though.

[Bart]

Don't know if you ever saw this comparison?

the Normal Lens Shootout Photo Gallery by Sean Carpenter at pbase.com

[jamonation]

Totally subjective on my part, I've got an S-M-C with 6 blades I think it is. Much nicer wide open than the FA. At f2.8 or so the FA starts to sharpen up and gives a much more 3D look to things than the Takumar IMO.

My $0.02

[kuuan]

thank you very much everybody for your opinions, experiences and links.

I had not mentioned that the S-M-C 1.4/50 Takumar is my favorite and most used lens and that I almost exclusively use old manual focus primes.
Recently I took some pics with a friends Canon with a AF 1.4/50mm ( which he had bought after I recommended him to get a 1.4/50 ), I was impressed, and plan to get a auto focus 1.4/50 as well. Or the FA 50/1.7?

what's the known differences between the FA 50mm f1.4 and f1.7? Both are discontinued, guess I will get whichever one I first find for a reasonable price.

[estudleon]

Hello Kuuan

If you just have a 1,4 that is sharpest at wide aperture than the FA 1,4, it seems to me that the logic purchase is the FA 1,7.

Not all manual focus, eh?



Regards, Rino.

[Boris]

Don't know if you ever saw this comparison?

the Normal Lens Shootout Photo Gallery by Sean Carpenter at pbase.com

Many thanks, Bart. I did not know such a work has been done and such a web site existed. I reckon my choice of A 50/1.2 for my standard lens of choice, FA 50/1.4 for my daughter and FA 43/1.9 being a backup is likely the optimal one...

[kuuan]

Hello Kuuan

If you just have a 1,4 that is sharpest at wide aperture than the FA 1,4, it seems to me that the logic purchase is the FA 1,7.

I think so too

Not all manual focus, eh?



Regards, Rino.

MF only still it is

best regards, Andreas

[estudleon]

Oh.

I didn't love (nor know) the K mount series.

Sorry.