[Erictator]

I have really liked when I've de-fished my 17mm Tak, and think yours looks great too. Nice pics! Those are sharp lenses... very underrated. I never owned a Zenitar to compare to, but from the pic's I've seen, the Tak is sharper?
Eric

[Dartmoor Dave]

I never owned a Zenitar to compare to, but from the pic's I've seen, the Tak is sharper?

I haven't bothered to do any head-to-head comparisons between the Takumar 17mm and the Zenitar 16mm because that's not my preferred way of testing lenses. But I'd been shooting with the Zenitar for a couple of years before I got the Takumar, and I've been shooting with the Tak since last September or October, so I feel that I can make some reasonable observations now.

The Zenitar appears superficially sharper. Superficially. It has strong edge contrast with a similar style to modern lenses, so people who believe that strongly defined edges are what sharpness means will like the Zenitar. The Takumar doesn't have that immediate sense of hard-edged crispness, so at a glance you might think that it's not as sharp as the Zenitar. But the Takumar has got better micro-contrast, giving a sense of three-dimensionality and more fine detail than the Zenitar. Plus much nicer handling of transitions between tones, which is something that I personally care about a lot.

And of course the 17mm has got the Takumar colour rendering. The Zenitar gives brighter, punchier colours that will probably appeal to those who prefer the style of modern lenses, but the Takumar has got a much more subtle and naturalistic colour rendering that I personally prefer.

Don't get me wrong, the Zenitar is an excellent lens that I can highly recommend, and if I knew I was going to have to shoot wide open then I'd go for the Zenitar over the Takumar. I'm very aware that my opinions are just my own opinions rather than objective facts, and of course others might have different feelings about the lenses. But the Takumar 17mm is the one that usually goes in my bag.

[Erictator]

I haven't bothered to do any head-to-head comparisons between the Takumar 17mm and the Zenitar 16mm because that's not my preferred way of testing lenses. But I'd been shooting with the Zenitar for a couple of years before I got the Takumar, and I've been shooting with the Tak since last September or October, so I feel that I can make some reasonable observations now.

The Zenitar appears superficially sharper. Superficially. It has strong edge contrast with a similar style to modern lenses, so people who believe that strongly defined edges are what sharpness means will like the Zenitar. The Takumar doesn't have that immediate sense of hard-edged crispness, so at a glance you might think that it's not as sharp as the Zenitar. But the Takumar has got better micro-contrast, giving a sense of three-dimensionality and more fine detail than the Zenitar. Plus much nicer handling of transitions between tones, which is something that I personally care about a lot.

And of course the 17mm has got the Takumar colour rendering. The Zenitar gives brighter, punchier colours that will probably appeal to those who prefer the style of modern lenses, but the Takumar has got a much more subtle and naturalistic colour rendering that I personally prefer.

Don't get me wrong, the Zenitar is an excellent lens that I can highly recommend, and if I knew I was going to have to shoot wide open then I'd go for the Zenitar over the Takumar. I'm very aware that my opinions are just my own opinions rather than objective facts, and of course others might have different feelings about the lenses. But the Takumar 17mm is the one that usually goes in my bag.

Thanks for that! I have the Tak, and love it. Was wondering if I was missing out... I never found it lacking in anything except field curve, which is by intent. I am always amazed how well it controls flare and does nice stars for a vintage FE lens, and as you say, the color rendering is hard to beat. With ACR and the Clarity slider control, hard edge sharpness can be artificially amplified somewhat, but I hardly ever find a need to. If I didn't have or couldn't find a Tak 17mm, it sounds like the Zenitar would be a great second choice. Thanks again for taking the time to type that up.
Eric

[rayallen]

I haven't bothered to do any head-to-head comparisons between the Takumar 17mm and the Zenitar 16mm because that's not my preferred way of testing lenses. But I'd been shooting with the Zenitar for a couple of years before I got the Takumar, and I've been shooting with the Tak since last September or October, so I feel that I can make some reasonable observations now.

The Zenitar appears superficially sharper. Superficially. It has strong edge contrast with a similar style to modern lenses, so people who believe that strongly defined edges are what sharpness means will like the Zenitar. The Takumar doesn't have that immediate sense of hard-edged crispness, so at a glance you might think that it's not as sharp as the Zenitar. But the Takumar has got better micro-contrast, giving a sense of three-dimensionality and more fine detail than the Zenitar. Plus much nicer handling of transitions between tones, which is something that I personally care about a lot.

And of course the 17mm has got the Takumar colour rendering. The Zenitar gives brighter, punchier colours that will probably appeal to those who prefer the style of modern lenses, but the Takumar has got a much more subtle and naturalistic colour rendering that I personally prefer.

Don't get me wrong, the Zenitar is an excellent lens that I can highly recommend, and if I knew I was going to have to shoot wide open then I'd go for the Zenitar over the Takumar. I'm very aware that my opinions are just my own opinions rather than objective facts, and of course others might have different feelings about the lenses. But the Takumar 17mm is the one that usually goes in my bag.

Thanks for that from me too, Dave. I don't have (and probably never will have) either of those lenses but I just love reading your evaluations and opinions.

Personally, I rarely go to the depths that you do but that is just me. For instance, I read varying reviews of the DA 15mm Limited talking about edge softness and I was told that I would need to stop fown to f11 to get good shots. I bought one second hand and it has always impressed me but my subject matter is never at the edges so I don't look there.

[Jorgario]

K-1 + Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet:

[/URL]

[tim60]

Perhaps I should post these here as examples of de-fishing the 17mm fisheye (although they were shot in very dull light). On APS-C, I think it makes a good ultra-wide Takumar alternative to the very rare and expensive 15mm.

Which famous Brunel bridge is that one?

[Dartmoor Dave]

Personally, I rarely go to the depths that you do but that is just me. For instance, I read varying reviews of the DA 15mm Limited talking about edge softness and I was told that I would need to stop fown to f11 to get good shots. I bought one second hand and it has always impressed me but my subject matter is never at the edges so I don't look there.

That's why we're both on the same wavelength, Ray. I never look at the corners either. A photo's composition must be messed up pretty badly if the most important thing is right at the edge and can only be seen on a 100% crop.

Which famous Brunel bridge is that one?

It's Brunel's Royal Albert bridge over the river Tamar between Devon and Cornwall. The world's first lenticular iron bridge, a typically brilliant Brunel solution to the need to clear the masts of Royal Navy warships of the time sailing upriver to Devonport Dockyard. Also part of the stretch of line down from Exeter where the entire track was changed from broad gauge to standard gauge over a single weekend. They don't make men like Isambard Kingdom Brunel anymore.

[tim60]

Also part of the stretch of line down from Exeter where the entire track was changed from broad gauge to standard gauge over a single weekend. They don't make men like Isambard Kingdom Brunel anymore.

And they don't make labourers like he used either. On another thread I showed the result of 12 week's work on a road, to dig a trench, lay services pipes, and fill it in, and put on bitumen, complete with original build pot-hole. BTW: the road was totally closed for the entire 12 weeks, regardless of whether the labourers were there. The diversion was about 2-3 miles.

[Dartmoor Dave]

On another thread I showed the result of 12 week's work on a road, to dig a trench, lay services pipes, and fill it in, and put on bitumen, complete with original build pot-hole. BTW: the road was totally closed for the entire 12 weeks, regardless of whether the labourers were there. The diversion was about 2-3 miles.

That's always the way these days. My parents live in Brixham, a town with an economy that's heavily dependent on the summer tourist trade, and this summer the only road into and out of town is clogged up with roadworks that can take an hour to go just half a mile. It's going to go on all summer and into the autumn. Businesses will go bust and people will lose their livelihoods, and on top of the usual summer traffic across the moor it means that it'll probably take me two hours each way just to travel the 37 miles to visit my old Mum & Dad.

[goatsNdonkey]

What an excellent explanation!

I haven't bothered to do any head-to-head comparisons between the Takumar 17mm and the Zenitar 16mm because that's not my preferred way of testing lenses. But I'd been shooting with the Zenitar for a couple of years before I got the Takumar, and I've been shooting with the Tak since last September or October, so I feel that I can make some reasonable observations now.

The Zenitar appears superficially sharper. Superficially. It has strong edge contrast with a similar style to modern lenses, so people who believe that strongly defined edges are what sharpness means will like the Zenitar. The Takumar doesn't have that immediate sense of hard-edged crispness, so at a glance you might think that it's not as sharp as the Zenitar. But the Takumar has got better micro-contrast, giving a sense of three-dimensionality and more fine detail than the Zenitar. Plus much nicer handling of transitions between tones, which is something that I personally care about a lot.

And of course the 17mm has got the Takumar colour rendering. The Zenitar gives brighter, punchier colours that will probably appeal to those who prefer the style of modern lenses, but the Takumar has got a much more subtle and naturalistic colour rendering that I personally prefer.

Don't get me wrong, the Zenitar is an excellent lens that I can highly recommend, and if I knew I was going to have to shoot wide open then I'd go for the Zenitar over the Takumar. I'm very aware that my opinions are just my own opinions rather than objective facts, and of course others might have different feelings about the lenses. But the Takumar 17mm is the one that usually goes in my bag.

[jbinpg]

The in-laws' 3-year old Icelandic Sheepdog. An amazing pooch. K-3 + S-M-C Tak 28/3.5

[Canada_Rockies]

The in-laws' 3-year old Icelandic Sheepdog. An amazing pooch. K-3 + S-M-C Tak 28/3.5

Handsome fellow.

[paulh]

From a beautiful evening in March - S-M-C Tak 20 on *ist D:

[gifthorse]

Takumar (Bayonet) 135mm f2.5

[Erictator]

Takumar (Bayonet) 135mm f2.5

If you went to the old Microsoft presentations at Comdex, you would fully appreciate what I am about to say:

"Ooooooh!" "Ahhhhhh!"

(Very nice firework pics with that Tak, Gifthorse!)
Eric