[turbof]

Here is a photo of a price list for Honeywell. and it shows the version 1 of the lens.

I don't trust catalog pictures. It lists the minimum aperture as f/22 which is not correct for the first model.
It also has a chrome aperture ring (like the Asahiflex model) while mine is black. What I am trying to find out is if the black ring is unique or the the listings are wrong or there was a model 1.5

[tuco]

I read this a lot about old Fuji medium format cameras. I'm not sure if it's because they were used a lot by pros who put a lot of miles on their clocks or if the design or build of the shutters isn't great.

Of the medium format cameras I've used for travel, the Franka Solida III (which has a built-in but un-coupled rangefinder and an f/2.9 lens) is the most light and compact. Of course everything's manual but at least the rangefinder makes focus reliable. It's 6x6 though, and a very different beast from these much more modern Fuji rangefinders.

Very nice photo though, it's a beautiful camera.

Thanks. Typically leaf shutter lenses don't last a long time and slow down as they accumulate many shutter presses. Usually when Fuji puts the word 'professional' in the camera's name it means longer leaf shutter life. That's why my GS/GSW690III cameras have 'professional' in the camera's name even though the camera doesn't have a light meter or any features.

[stevebrot]

Reach out to the gentleman behind that site and offer your pictures. I think he would like that very much.

It just so happens that @droo (the owner of the Takumar Field Guide site) is a member here at PF. They don't post much, but did log in a week or so ago.


Steve

[Paul Ewins]

I don't trust catalog pictures. It lists the minimum aperture as f/22 which is not correct for the first model.
It also has a chrome aperture ring (like the Asahiflex model) while mine is black. What I am trying to find out is if the black ring is unique or the the listings are wrong or there was a model 1.5

I wouldn't call it a 1.5, it isn't really an intermediate model, just a variation. I have two model II 500/5 and they are both different and all three copies I have of the early Takumar 500/4.5 are different.

[turbof]

I did contact the Takumarology site and he replied that he has not seen the lens with a black aperture ring. I sent him photos with permission to use them.

[robbiec]

[monochrome]

Those are two sexy lenses!

[WPRESTO]

The major question: how much better is the big one?

[Lord Lucan]

.
The size comparison betweeen modern and vintage lenses with broadly the same characteristics is both amazing and ridiculous. I have a Pentax 6x7 standard lens (105mm, f2.4, seen below) that is smaller than that 50mm f1.4 DFA. I have posted the picture below before to show size comparisons. The lens on the K-1 is the DFA 24-70mmm f2.8, the size of a baked bean can, and if you had shown a K-1 to someone in 1980 they would have assumed it was a medium format, at least 645 if not 6x6. but the fastest lens out of these shown is the smallest - the 50mm f1.4 on the LX.

PS : Left to right : LX, K10D, K-1 & 6x7

[robbiec]

The major question: how much better is the big one?

Are Apples better than Oranges?

[tuco]

Are Apples better than Oranges?

In an apple pie they are.

[WPRESTO]

Are Apples better than Oranges?

But this isn't apples and oranges. It's a 50mm f1.4 vs a 50mm f1.4. One is very small, inexpensive, but manual focus. One is much, much larger, much more expensive, but it has AF. So, the question is: are you getting more than just AF for the price in dollars and grams? Is there enough difference in performance to justify the price and bulk/weight of the newer lens?

[monochrome]

But this isn't apples and oranges. It's a 50mm f1.4 vs a 50mm f1.4. One is very small, inexpensive, but manual focus. One is much, much larger, much more expensive, but it has AF. So, the question is: are you getting more than just AF for the price in dollars and grams? Is there enough difference in performance to justify the price and bulk/weight of the newer lens?

Yep.

[robbiec]

But this isn't apples and oranges. It's a 50mm f1.4 vs a 50mm f1.4. One is very small, inexpensive, but manual focus. One is much, much larger, much more expensive, but it has AF. So, the question is: are you getting more than just AF for the price in dollars and grams? Is there enough difference in performance to justify the price and bulk/weight of the newer lens?

The new one slaps the Takumar silly in any way you can measure. Worth it, imo, yes. When you use the DFA for a while then go back to the older variant, you're wondering if there is a problem with it, the difference is that stark. The DFA* changes your expectations of what your new normal is.
Before everyone starts raving, the Takumar has its own look and feel which I like and enjoy. 50/1.4 vs 50/1.4 is like comparing a Helios 44 vs Voightlander 58 - same focal length but completely different (Apples & Oranges)

[tuco]

.
... I have a Pentax 6x7 standard lens (105mm, f2.4, seen below) that is smaller than that 50mm f1.4 DFA.
...

I still have a, now, old-school DSLR with 24-70mm lens which is no different to carry around all day than my Pentax 6x7 configured with the folding hood and a 90/105mm lens.

Shooting the P6x7 like a scaled up K1000 (TTL, hand grip) for street/walking around conditions has earned the reputation as a handhold beast. But use the P6x7 configured in TLR mode and it takes on a new nature. One that finds me willing to take it along more often and take more pictures with it than the K1000 configuration.