[micromacro]

Lana, what's your conclusion regarding the Tak 50s? I don't own either one, but have the SMC Tak 55/1.8, which I like very much.

Paul, I don't have any conclusions yet, I've had the lens for one day only. The biggest drawback of 8 elements is flares even with hood, even in side light indoors. I've tried longer hood, no difference, just added vignetting. However, this fact makes some interesting "filters" for "washed" pictures.
The bokeh is not smooth as 7 elements, but in some cases is more artistic, especially when separating close subjects from the background.

I can't recall the superior sharpness wide open over 7 elements, but I guess it may depend on lens copies. Seems like 8 elements is slightly sharper wide open.
My 7 elements seem darker in VF than 8 elements, maybe because I did not de-yellow it completely, it still has light yellowish cast.

All I can tell for now, that both versions are pretty similar, but yet different, more testing is needed.

[Jonathan Mac]

Nice work with the Taks everyone. Hopefully I'll have something to post soon

Lana, what's your conclusion regarding the Tak 50s? I don't own either one, but have the SMC Tak 55/1.8, which I like very much.

For my part, I had a (seven element) SMC Tak 50/1.4 and sold it. The 55mm f/1.8 and f/2 are much better.

[micromacro]

For my part, I had a (seven element) SMC Tak 50/1.4 and sold it. The 55mm f/1.8 and f/2 are much better.

That's why I bought 8 elements to compare.

I still have love-hate for supertak 50mm f1.4. Sometimes it's amazing, sometime a total disaster. I need a bunch of aged women to prove my point that supertak makes them looking younger. So far I impressed only one of my friends. And she is in love with her canon 50mm f1.2 lens. When she saw her portrait i snapped with supertak, no editing, she told that she looks like a teenager. That's the beauty of 50yo lens, baby.

[tim60]

For my part, I had a (seven element) SMC Tak 50/1.4 and sold it. The 55mm f/1.8 and f/2 are much better.

I have the 50/1.4 STak (7 element, I presume) and the 55/1.8 and the 55/2. The 50 and 55 lenses are completely different lenses, both have potential to be good, although I have usually used the 55 because it is much easier to get predictable results with that suit my sense of what I am trying to achieve.

[tim60]

Yesterday I was preparing a lecture and was trying to express a concept which is foundational in my discipline. I took three cuts at that, one using English grammar, one using Heidegger's philosophy and one using some pictures. I was satisfied with the pictures, except for one, the knife.


They were all taken on an office desk with two windows to bright light about 15 foot to the right. The three of the apple were with the SMC Tak 50/4 macro and the knife was with the SMC Tak 35/3.5. I think the subject of the knife was hard to make interesting, get in focus and get adequate DoF.


Thankfully most ppt slides in a lecture set take much less work than this!

[GUB]

Some farmyard portraits
sup tak 105mm 2.8

[paulh]

Some farmyard portraits
sup tak 105mm 2.8

Love these shots with the 105, GUB

[wigwamtrout]

I have the 50/1.4 STak (7 element, I presume) and the 55/1.8 and the 55/2. The 50 and 55 lenses are completely different lenses, both have potential to be good, although I have usually used the 55 because it is much easier to get predictable results with that suit my sense of what I am trying to achieve.

The 55s are a tiny bit easier to use, similar to using 50 1.7s, and might save a little effort and TIME. The 50 1.4s are superior BEING slightly more powerful tools and requiring extra care.

Sorry, couldn't help myself after reading your apple and knife post.

I use three Tak 55s, the auto and super and SMC. I've used all of the fast 50s. Each lens, each and every one has its advantages. Just to grab and go, the coating is more important than anything. If you worry about flare limiting your fun, late coatings are needed. Yet, even in strong somewhat direct light, shooting landscapes, a certain beauty can be had using lenses with weaker coatings. Just depends...

There isn't a lens that easily acquires 3-dness (including landscapes) like the 8 element 50 except some telephotos, the Takumar 200 3.5 being a great example...or the Tak 105 as is clear in the post above. The 8 element is an harmonious and versatile lens. Even for landscapes, it's super sharp at infinity like the 55s and the "old cold" colors (due to coating) are very good. However, just like the auto and super Tak 55s, it can wash out when shooting into the sun. People did shoot great landscapes in "the old days" with lenses like these. It's fun, maybe productive, to use lenses with a few "limitations." New lenses with special elements and super duper coatings are certainly reliable, predictable, quite flareless. They get the shot for sure, and automatically if you like. All of that comes at a cost though. As far as flare goes, you can get flareless well enough with any M 50 or SMC Tak lens while retaining character-3-dness.

My sense of being able to walk into a picture (especially from the 8 element 50) came well before this recent
hype over old lenses having dimensionality (opposed to flatter, less dimensional modern lens designs). It (3-dness) is a real phenomenon designed into the lens and no intricate talk about, or explanations concerning field curvature and so on, cancel the phenomenon of a pleasing multi-dimensional look. The other Takumar 50s and 55s do share, of course, similarly good, if not as pronounced characteristics of dimensionality as the 8 element 50.

One final thought...historically, modern painting is partially if not mostly "fllattening" of the paint surface... a continued heightening of abstraction-cubism defeats that notion in concept at least, and sometimes brings chiaroscura back into play attempting to overcome complete non-dimensionality on canvas.

Of course ”flattened" photos, abstractions, portraits, and even landscapes are just great. Flat photos might define the style of a great photographer. But, I would prefer that the lenses I use not always, automatically impose flatness on each and every picture.

Maybe there is a little battle between prose and poetry going on.

That should be quite enough from me for the TIME BEING.

[tim60]

The apple and knife pictures were with 35/3.5 and 50/4 macro: therefore not relevant to my comments re the 50/1.4 and 55/1.8.

My feeling about the 50 and 55 is that they are different, not that either is necessarily better. The 55 suits what I do more. Sometime i will put more effort into getting to know my 50/1.4.

As for the coatings - they are part of the cause of the aesthetic that I like with the whole set of Taks that I have.

My challenge over the next couple f years will be to increase my experience with them to enable me to be better.

[GUB]

Love these shots with the 105, GUB

Thanks for that Paul.

[GUB]

It (3-dness) is a real phenomenon designed into the lens and no intricate talk about, or explanations concerning field curvature and so on, cancel the phenomenon of a pleasing multi-demiensional look. The other Takumar 50s and 55s do share, of course, similarly good, if not as pronounced characteristics of demensionality as the 8 element 50.

I totally agree with this and strive for depth in my imagery. But to say it is designed into the lens is to accept that there is something objective in 3d-ness to design for. Obviously a shallow dof is a prerequisite but apart from that I struggle to see what could make one lens better at 3d than another. Our eyes perceive distant items as being hazier and lower contrast and perhaps lesser coated lens mimic this. I have a range of 135s from a tak to a M and it is the oldest one that seems to 3d the best.

[wigwamtrout]

I totally agree with this and strive for depth in my imagery. But to say it is designed into the lens is to accept that there is something objective in 3d-ness to design for. Obviously a shallow dof is a prerequisite but apart from that I struggle to see what could make one lens better at 3d than another. Our eyes perceive distant items as being hazier and lower contrast and perhaps lesser coated lens mimic this. I have a range of 135s from a tak to a M and it is the oldest one that seems to 3d the best.

Yes, shallow depth of field and lower contrast or haziness aids in creating recession or depth, but there are other things that create volume. I am not a lens designer and cannot speak intricately about field curvature and even more subtle
features concerning a particular lenses focus patterns. Surely, as in all artistic fields, a master designer will shape these features to achieve an aesthetic result.
I occasionally hear about vaunted lens designers and their ability to create a pleasing sophisticated lens. For example, I will go out on a limb and assume whoever may have designed the Pentax 43 limited did so with incredible skill and control. I do not own that lens, but like the Jupiter 135 3.5, images from that lens consistently stick out. Of course the Jupiter is a sonnar design, but that does not account for all of its fine qualities. Anyhow, both of those lenses have 3-dness in abundance. I have an old auto Tak 135 and it 3ds...
My reference to apple and knife post was in response to a reference to Heidegger...just a word joke...a play on words.

[tim60]

So you were referring to his very slim, 1960s, book Time and Being, which must not be confused with his 1927 Being and Time, which was much thicker and was his publish or perish book that made him particularly famous. The first picture of the apple also evidences light coming in through the office door, through outside windows on the other side of the passage. Did not think of saying that before, the view out those windows is not so inspiring, skylights in the roof of a lower part of the building.

[GUB]

S-M-C Bellows Takumar 100mm f4

[Erictator]

S-M-C Bellows Takumar 100mm f4

The question is, was it on a bellows at the time?
Nice shot!
Eric