[semaca]

Rikenon P 50/1.4 ($75-100)

Found one on a local site for around 150$ (negotiable) in "perfect condition". The worst thing is when you have to buy a lens without testing it.

[Pixel-8]

You are wrong and by saying that I mean it. I compared my all 50mm lenses against the 8-elemen and it came out as an absolute low light winner with best sharpness at wide open. Actually the area of sharpness in this lens is larger right from the start, where the 7-elem had tiny spot in the middle - this is probably something to do with their field curvature being slightly different perhaps. Despite all that I agree good photos can be taken with just about any fast lens ( as long as it is not an absolute dog )

EDIT: Consider also this - if this is just a myth why the prices are on rise? why people don't dump those lenses back on market which would undoubtely bring their prices down? I remember seeing one good offer at £120 back in 2012 and I thought gosh not gonna pay this much for that lens . Ha 2 years later I did + 30 more :P Now on eBay I see them for even £200+ , and yet those that being sold aren't coming back to market cheaper so that people could recover their losses - that should tell you something :P

Sorry you feel that way. About me being wrong, that is. Perhaps my experience is just different than yours.

Testing one sample of one lens against another single sample is never conclusive.

There are significant differences in sharpness among all individual lenses from this period. For one thing the lenses were likely ground and assembled by hand. I looked at one test of four or five different smc takumar 50/1.4 lenses. Night and day between the best to worst copies. In that test, one of the two newest ones (based on lens serial numbers) was the best wide open and second best stopped down. The next best lens was also a relatively newer one (high serial number but not the highest). Wide open it came in second out of the pack, but it was clearly better than all the rest stopped down.

Same is true with another more modern 50 mm lens I compared (6 different copies of the Yashica ML 50/2). They varied by as much as 20%. Differences were clearly visible but also measurable using test charts, as well as by looking at image file sizes. Most of the better performing lenses in this group were newer, with slightly better coatings. Not true of all though. There was one older one that was really special and seemed to have single coating. It was the best wide open. Go figure.

My point is. Don't assume that you can say that the 8 element super takumar lens is better than all other takumar 50's. It may be true that on average it is. Or it may be that someone just happened to have a really great copy of it, and compared it to a lesser copy of another (perhaps 7 element) lens.

Also, cost is related to rarity sometimes and not necessarily to quality. There are fewer 8 element 50/1.4 takumars on the market because there were fewer made. They were also quite likely more expensive to make. Later on Asahi produced the 7 element lens by using a rear element that included thoriated glass. Thorium glass is radioactive and has a different index of refraction. Adding the thoriated element made the 7 element lens cheaper to make, but also sharper (at least than a 7 element lens without it), but also created a lens element that yellows over time as the thorium deteriorates. Clearing the yellow cast is simple and involves exposure to UV light.

One of the sharpest 50/1.4 lenses ever was the last version of the smc takumar 50/1.4 with the knurled rubber focus ring. Try and find one. They are possibly even rarer than the 8 element super tak. Also somewhat rare is the smc-K 50/1.4. Not made in K mount for very long (1-2 years?), and replaced by the smc-m 501/4 and then the smc-A 50/1.4 both of which, if you get a good copy, are real gems.

Each of these lenses produces slightly different image characteristics. To say that one is "better" categorically is not accurate. To say that someone is wrong for attempting to explain all of this is also not very accurate. Your mileage may vary. Objects in the mirror are softer than they appear. Have fun and be happy with your lens(es).

[mglowe]

You are wrong and by saying that I mean it. I compared my all 50mm lenses against the 8-elemen and it came out as an absolute low light winner with best sharpness at wide open. Actually the area of sharpness in this lens is larger right from the start, where the 7-elem had tiny spot in the middle - this is probably something to do with their field curvature being slightly different perhaps. Despite all that I agree good photos can be taken with just about any fast lens ( as long as it is not an absolute dog )

EDIT: Consider also this - if this is just a myth why the prices are on rise? why people don't dump those lenses back on market which would undoubtely bring their prices down? I remember seeing one good offer at £120 back in 2012 and I thought gosh not gonna pay this much for that lens . Ha 2 years later I did + 30 more :P Now on eBay I see them for even £200+ , and yet those that being sold aren't coming back to market cheaper so that people could recover their losses - that should tell you something :P

Years ago, fortunately, I was given a mint condition 8 element lens along with 4 other old Taks in mint condition with cases and so forth. I didn't even know at that time that there was an 8 element 50. I only came to really know the 8 element lens after being forced to use only one lens on a trip one summer.

There is a substantial difference in the 8 and 7 element lenses and this you see with extended shooting of the 8 element lens. You need to get to know its attributes well to really appreciate what it will give you. If someone were to find at that point of experience nothing so outstanding or unique in the lens, they would probably be just as well off getting an M 50 1.7 or Tak 55 1.8, something quite cheap that is really terrific and living with that as their only 50 and pursuing the same tactic for all of their lens purchases at any focal length. I enjoy the differences between lenses even if sometimes they are subtle, and especially among fast lenses that can offer distinct out of focus characteristics at wide apertures. Anyhow, besides its ability to get more of a 3d photo (this is true), its colors are unique, striking, and it is very very sharp at all apertures! Wide open, it is simply stunning for sharpness! It is fantastic stopped way down for landscapes! It resolves incredible detail and will get you superb textural definition of varying natural elements. I've not shot it into a bright sun yet, but I encountered no hint of flare in past sessions which were, I admit, not severe tests of the coating. I know it will not be my first choice shooting right into the sun! Mechanically, mine is able to be focused precisely with just a finger tip like my smoothest and easiest little ST 55 1.8. Having said that, I have to say that I might like to have my ST 7 element and S-M-C T 50 replaced...I gave those two versions away to friends along with an M 50 1.7. They were all wonderful lenses and I relish the shots I got with them. It really is hard to beat the S-M-C T 50, that one being so good at everything, non finicky, therfore giving you a sense of reliability and a feeling of confidence that you will land all shots you take, getting prime results from the effort you've put in. It is also my overall favorite for its tactile characteristics and visual design-beautiful lens to look at. It even has desirable image characteristics in its yellowed state before bleaching by sunlight! It can't be focused as easily with a finger as the 8 element lens though. I do have an M 50 1.4 (what a bokeh wide open, dreamy and super smooth, the best bokeh of all 50s for impressionistic paint effects) and a Rikenon 50 1.4 (wonderful lens also, super sharp corner to corner stopped down some-flat field compared to the 7 element 50 Taks, and beautiful rendition of evening blues and just as good or better wide open as the taks in its own way). I sure would hate to give up that M or Rikenon! I'd live happily with an S-M-C T 50 only! But, as good as they are, the 8 element 50 is a little to a lot special in comparison! It illicits a feeling from me that I associate with artistic inspiration, greater expectations, wider possibilities. I feel sort of stupid saying all this, but, it's an honest appraisal if a little bit too zealous.

Note: having just noticed the post above, I suppose I've been lucky with all of my 50s since they all have seemed quite sharp and consistent in comparison to each other. In side to side tests of multiple subjects at varied focusing distances, on tripod, at all apertures, they have the same sharpness-no difference practically, except the Rikenon and 8 element 50s. Those two I can say (my copies are good copies) have different characteristics where sharpness is concerned. Not necessarily better overall, but in certain applications, circumstances, added sharpness.

[scratchpaddy]

I would enjoy this discussion a lot more if pictures were involved.

It's not the lens under discussion, but it's the one I've used most recently. SMC Takumar 135mm f/2.5.

[tim60]

I would enjoy this discussion a lot more if pictures were involved.

It's not the lens under discussion, but it's the one I've used most recently. SMC Takumar 135mm f/2.5.

It looks like you get some blue fringing with the 135/2.5. I get the same.


Does it bother you?

[fikkser]

I bought a lens from a guy on the Internet, saw no pics and I could not go see it. I sent my father to pick it up as he lived near by. A Takumar 50 1,4 for 50$, I already had one, but for that price...

So when I got it, it was a very worn and old looking super-takumar, but the glass was clean and the focus ring the smoothest I've ever felt on any lens - perfect.

Started looking the lens up and noticed that it was the 8 element version. ))

I think it's very nice, it's certainly one of my best lenses. The SMC 7 element is much better in sunlight, the 8 element produces a nice big purple hexagon in the middle of the frame.

I've bought too many lenses that are bad, fungus, sticky apertures and though focus rings (none of those Takumar ^^).

So I've bought some tools and started servicing the lenses myself. I started out with some pentacon and Meyer glass. Plastic and crap inside - shitty quality to be honest. Fungus and "cleaning marks" are often very easy to get rid of as soon as you get the glass out of the lens. I've found that most cleaning marks are just dirt in the corners of the lens where it's hard to wipe without removing the glass. BTW. On my German glass I've been able to get rid of all the fungus without leaving any marks at all, no problem. I've just started getting comfortable enough to start operating on my Takumars, I recently cleaned my SMC 35 3,5 without too much trouble.

What I'm trying to say is that lenses that look defective often is very easy to fix. Minor amounts of fungus etc can really ruin the iq of a lens. Got 4-5 pentacon lenses with fungus and severe hazing, all I'm sure will be like new afterwards. Also got a pentacon 50 1.8 that I'm gonna replace the fat on, and my 135 Orestor with sticky aperture. No problems fixing what is often sold as defective. Turning down glass because it's dust inside is just stupid imo, it takes minutes to remove.

Don't be afraid of anything except damaged glass

[yasik]

One more from takumar 135 f 2.5 (f 5.6)

[wkraus]

Each of these lenses produces slightly different image characteristics. To say that one is "better" categorically is not accurate.

I agree. Lens design is the art of managing compromises, so only very rarely one lens will be better in all respects. I have not been able to use my 8-element Takumar a lot, but what I noticed so far is that my copy has less field curvature than both my FA 1.4/50mm and Voigtlander SL 1.4/58mm, which goes a long way to explaining its better corner sharpness wide open. It also has less CA than the FA, while the Vougtlander is also very low in CA. However, my 8-element Takumar has very low contrast off-center with f-stops wider than 2.8.

[scratchpaddy]

It looks like you get some blue fringing with the 135/2.5. I get the same.


Does it bother you?

I can't say I know what you're talking about. I get reddish-orange fringing that nearly matches skin tones, so it's impossible to remove with the fringing tool without messing up any people in the picture. I get regular purple fringing, too, but never blue. The blue in the last picture is just a black dog thing. They look blue if the white balance is cold. You can see it's on his nose, too, which is not a contrasty area that would cause fringing.

One more from takumar 135 f 2.5 (f 5.6)

Beautiful! It's great to see a landscape done with a long focal length once in a while. It emphasizes the fog in your picture perfectly.

[wkraus]

I have not been able to use my 8-element Takumar a lot, but what I noticed so far is that my copy has less field curvature than both my FA 1.4/50mm and Voigtlander SL 1.4/58mm, which goes a long way to explaining its better corner sharpness wide open.

As an example of the test shots on which I based my statements, here are 100% crops from the extreme top right corners at f/2.8 with the S-Tak 8-element (above) and the FA (below). The latter has a slightly narrower FOV so the crop from it is minimally more off-center than that from the S-Tak. Even taking account of that, the S-Tak is obviously better under these conditions. Both lenses were "focus-bracketed" and the shots are both perfectly focused in the center. You can get a better performance from the FA with a different focus setting (due to field curvature); less so for the S-Tak.

[Pixel-8]

I bought a lens from a guy on the Internet, saw no pics and I could not go see it. I sent my father to pick it up as he lived near by. A Takumar 50 1,4 for 50$, I already had one, but for that price...

So when I got it, it was a very worn and old looking super-takumar, but the glass was clean and the focus ring the smoothest I've ever felt on any lens - perfect.

Started looking the lens up and noticed that it was the 8 element version. ))

I think it's very nice, it's certainly one of my best lenses. The SMC 7 element is much better in sunlight, the 8 element produces a nice big purple hexagon in the middle of the frame.

I've bought too many lenses that are bad, fungus, sticky apertures and though focus rings (none of those Takumar ^^).

So I've bought some tools and started servicing the lenses myself. I started out with some pentacon and Meyer glass. Plastic and crap inside - shitty quality to be honest. Fungus and "cleaning marks" are often very easy to get rid of as soon as you get the glass out of the lens. I've found that most cleaning marks are just dirt in the corners of the lens where it's hard to wipe without removing the glass. BTW. On my German glass I've been able to get rid of all the fungus without leaving any marks at all, no problem. I've just started getting comfortable enough to start operating on my Takumars, I recently cleaned my SMC 35 3,5 without too much trouble.

What I'm trying to say is that lenses that look defective often is very easy to fix. Minor amounts of fungus etc can really ruin the iq of a lens. Got 4-5 pentacon lenses with fungus and severe hazing, all I'm sure will be like new afterwards. Also got a pentacon 50 1.8 that I'm gonna replace the fat on, and my 135 Orestor with sticky aperture. No problems fixing what is often sold as defective. Turning down glass because it's dust inside is just stupid imo, it takes minutes to remove.

Don't be afraid of anything except damaged glass

I appreciate this discussion. If you are particularly good with tools and understand how these lenses are/were put together then I salute you. The problem is, IMO, that there are alot of people out there who think that they are good at this, but aren't. Then when they have finished with what I have labeled amateur "repairs" they sell the lenses at auction.

In one case I purchased a 20mm Pentax lens where the "repairman" had put the rear element back incorrectly (not seated properly) and also had not cleaned it completely, so that there was a smudge inside. It was easy to fix (I had a real repair person do it, and paid him well). It is now perfect. But it was a learning experience. The lens was a Pentax smc-A 20/2.8 that I still own.

With cheaper lenses, I still will take the risk. But not with a lens that is going for $200+. If you do do it yourself repairs on lenses you should always inform the buyer. That is the only ethical thing to do, IMO.

[gastch]

Tacumar F 70-210 F4-5.6

[SpartanD63]

Super-Takumar 35mm/f2, K-30 DSLR
I haven't shot in too long, and not very much with this lens, so I decided to go out in the cold and play a bit with flash and my first firearm, a 1930 Mosin Nagant. (Please, no politics)
I think I may have brought my ambient levels down just a bit too much, but i like the contrast. The lens was at f/11 to give me the DOF I needed, since i was only about 1.5m away from the camera.

Mosin Nagant by Duncan McAfee, on Flickr

Any advice/glaring flaws?

[Pepe Guitarra]

Super-Takumar 35mm/f2, K-30 DSLR
I haven't shot in too long, and not very much with this lens, so I decided to go out in the cold and play a bit with flash and my first firearm, a 1930 Mosin Nagant. (Please, no politics)
I think I may have brought my ambient levels down just a bit too much, but i like the contrast. The lens was at f/11 to give me the DOF I needed, since i was only about 1.5m away from the camera.

Mosin Nagant by Duncan McAfee, on Flickr

Any advice/glaring flaws?

Beautiful gun, it looks like the Belgium Famage!

[scratchpaddy]

Any advice/glaring flaws?

You have dust all over your sensor.

Like you said, the contrast between the soft, blue hour light behind you and the harsh strobe is a bit much. It makes it look like you're in a studio with a backdrop. Otherwise, great concept. I like.