|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-29-2017, 10:10 PM
|
| |
Today, March 29th, 2017, I would use the Jupiter 37 AM. M42 K mount. Hah! I love that lens today. Really great look in out of focus areas. It is one of the true stand out lenses, period. The M 50, sure, why not. Maybe I would try the M 28 3.5 if I was mostly concerned with aberrations, but I guess you did that already. The SMC Tak 55 1.8....I think I will try that kind of shot as soon as winter rolls around next year. Then maybe I can post something fun on same topic and really backtrack...again.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-28-2017, 11:09 PM
|
| |
A few observations concerning macros, old versus new, focusing and so on.
The old Takumar 50/4 preset tessar is as fringe free and clean as you can get, even in harsh light, but I have always thought the M 50 1.4 at 2.8 and 4.0 was ultra clean. A macro TESSAR might help a bit in the same kind of shot, maybe not. Any macro...I doubt it. Southlander was right about the relationship between glowing and fringing and loss of contrast and imprecise focusing. Just yesterday I was trying out an old preset telephoto. You would have thought it to be a horrible lens until just that moment when precise focus was achieved. Like magic, all glowing and ugly coloration disappeared leaving a clean image. The focus had to be just perfect to clean things up...a revelation.
NEW will not help. The Pentax Ms are modern enough. In general, you can hardly find cleaner lenses. I suppose the M 28 3.5 is just as clean a lens as I have ever used. I recently shot over a thousand photos on a K3 in Cuba using the M 50 1.4 and the M 100 2.8 (so light), and had absolutely no problems in any light with fringing. I could of course have forced the issue and got some of that stuff if I had put my mind to it, but I would have had to try awfully hard...ha!
No, new will not help. My very great, new, very "modern" Zeiss prime WA fringes and flares easily compared to my M lenses. Ditto the Zeiss 85. The newest and "fanciest" Canon L ultra wide zoom and Nikon super duper 80 200 zoom are not topping my M lenses for flare and fringing. I have a few old lenses and new lenses that just fringe a lot and many old single coated lenses that flare easily. But many of the older lenses are practically fringe free and a few of the old ones hardly flare (like the ST 35 3.5-fairly good into strong light). At the computer, only a few lenses produce stubborn problems that cannot be corrected. So new is not an answer really.
I am out of the flow of the thread and just happened to be able to check out the new posts tonight. I hope I don't cause any confusion with my backtracking. I think these are interesting items for discussion.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
07-27-2015, 12:36 PM
|
| |
The 200 3.5 is a wonderful lens!
---------- Post added 07-27-2015 at 02:48 PM ----------
Great to see a few good shots from the 20. Even though later, straighter 20s appealed to me years ago, and negative reviews of the 4.5 abounded, I kept my 4.5-I'm really happy that I did. It takes better looking shots than a lot of the later 20s and assorted wide angles. It is a special lens. I straightened a shot or two from the 20 just out of curiosity. I think I used an old version of Adobe Elements.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-27-2015, 12:34 PM
|
| |
The only SURE way to determine an 8 from 7 element is a protruding REAR element...the 8 element cannot be placed rear element down without risking scratches.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
05-18-2015, 07:08 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-19-2015, 12:04 AM
|
| |
Yep, the plane adds a lot. Beautiful.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
04-16-2015, 07:47 PM
|
| |
Mines sharp from 3.5. It will get a "bit" of ca along very very high contrast edges even stopped down, but generally I feel I can call this lens clean.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
03-06-2015, 09:36 PM
|
| |
The 28, 35's, 55, 105 shots sure look good. It will be fun to see some of these very lenses FF someday soon.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-10-2015, 12:36 PM
|
| |
Great description. Photos come out "smooth." Bokeh is beautiful. For some reason, I really like the 100 FOV on Pentax crop, or Canon for that matter. So much so that I'm going to get a 150 Tak for FF as well as the150 M again. I struggle to like 135 myself even though I've got a few good ones at that focal length.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-10-2015, 11:05 AM
|
| |
Nice shots. If there is one lens I've ever owned that I knew was really good the first moment I shot it, it's the M 100 2.8. It's hard to take a bad shot with it...ever heard that about a lens? Well, that really applies to this lens. Lack of contrast? I can't really see how someone would come to that conclusion at all. I recall a professional photographer saying that this lens is a harmonious package among Pentax lenses, and I have found this to be true. It's sharp and beautiful at 2.8 and at f16, it is just a killer landscape lens. I tested the lens to see if Takanami was right about f16 delivering top of the line sharpness. His test is correct. Strangely, and fortunately, the 100 really delivers at that f stop. The M 120 and 150 are also very good. The 135 and 200 are also very good lenses. All of them have that M build and compactness going for them. The 100 is the best of the bunch and kind of gives you a shock for its image quality when you first use it. You don't expect it to be so good. I did have the top of the line Canon 100 2.8 macro, the one with the group of three floating elements. The Pentax is in that league though getting a different look, and has advantages over that Canon. Unfortunately, I've never been able to shoot the M 85 and would really like to do so. There are varying opinions about which of the two lenses, the 85 or the 100 are best, but I'd bet there isn't a clear winner. The 100 must have something going for it to get the vote from some folks over the 85.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-03-2015, 02:08 PM
|
| |
As long as no one takes it away from you, it sounds like a great idea. I used to use the super tak 55 at a measly 1.8 for night walks on the Strand in Galveston. Very light, small, and easy to use. Focused with a finger! I got great results and really enjoyed using the lens. I suppose that a much faster lens would be a blast on a night walk except for being kind of big and heavy. The K 1.2 is bright and, to me, quite easy to focus at 1.2. I saw one of those, just a few years ago, at around 150.00 and in quite perfect condition. Probably won't find K and certainly not A for near that price very often though. I don't think that the 1.2 will do much for you that you can't get from your 1.4, that is, image wise, say, on a typical night walk. What I found about the 1.2 K is that for some shots, and only certain types of shots, the image produced has a quality that the1.4s can't get. The so called bokeh has a character that is awfully beautiful at 1.2 and, as I said, it lets in a lot of light to the viewfinder at 1.2 which is a joy. I think its best reserved for indoor shooting or shots where you have a lot of color and shapes outside the focus area where you want maximum smoothness and beauty in the blur! And that means you do need to shoot at 1.2, shooting shots that bring forth this fine quality. Otherwise you don't gain much if anything, perhaps not enough to warrant having the lens. Of course the 1.2s are wonderful all around lenses and are sharp at all apertures-great landscape lenses-if you want to carry the weight around. But again, I have a kind of still life shot I like to take, mostly indoors, and only that kind of shot really benefits greatly from having a 1.2.
I also use my 1.4 8 element for night shots and it is fantastic for image quality. During the so called golden hour or whatever, late evening, the color of images is just gorgeous. I think I recall that you may be the reviewer of the 8 element that pointed that out.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
02-03-2015, 10:25 AM
|
| |
They just used some old parts from the 8 element design while switching over to the 7 element version. The SMC or K 50 1.2 is the best 50 I've shot other than the 8 element 1.4 lens. The 8 element 1.4 and the K 50 1.2 are the ones I'd keep above all others. My two cents.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
02-01-2015, 04:47 PM
|
| |
Nice shots with th 35 the 55 and 105! The root tangle and cabin in the snow shots are particularily nice to me. I got a 35 3.5 recently but haven't posted anything taken with it yet. It's a good lens, and I like what it does with portraits as well as landscape. Looks like you got a good copy of the 8 element 50 there. Congratulations. Those wire screen shots actually reveal quite a lot about what the 8 element does wide open. It's razor sharp already at the point of focus and gets into and out of focus so smoothly. This is one photo/lens thread that I hope keeps going enthusiastically. These old Taks really make great images!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-20-2015, 04:50 PM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-15-2015, 10:39 AM
|
| |
Yes, it is apparent from your photos that your lens is the 49mm version. The early version 28 with the 58mm thread gets a different look. I've had both and still have the old version. Both are good and I'd pick up, say, a clean S-M-C T 28 if I came across one.
The old version makes colors like the older auto taks, acidic and vibrant colors. Right off, its images appear very sharp but in comparison to some later 28s lacks micro contrast. It resolves a high degree of detail, just as much as the M 28 3.5, a very sharp lens. Since it resolves a lot of detail, if in LR you slide the clarity over to about +10, you get the same detail, micro contrast as the M lens. With color adjustments, the two lenses (the old 28 and the M 28 3.5) get identical looking images except that one is slightly wider than the other. Neither have much distortion at all. This will make sense to you only if you keep in mind the difference between the actual resolution of a lens and the effect of coatings on the appearance of sharpness by way of variation in contrast. Years ago, comparing the 58mm and 49mm 28 Taks, zoomed in at the computer, I found that the older 58 resolved more actual detail.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
01-12-2015, 01:43 PM
|
| |
That review is for all of the M42 50 Macros. The second picture super sized will show you your preset version.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-27-2014, 04:10 PM
|
| |
Really love the second one. Didn't know you shot that lens.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-26-2014, 05:08 PM
|
| |
OK, I'll try the step down ring approach. Does it work in bright sunlight as well as a traditional hood?
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-26-2014, 02:28 PM
|
| |
Very likeable picture here. The 100 is so easy to like-it really delivers whether portrait type stuff or landscape work. I've sometimes found myself thinking that the 100 M 2.8 is the best lens I've ever shot (I used to shoot the Canon 100 2.8 macro with floating element-a very heralded and great lens that's hard to beat). Takanami's numbers show that at f16, of all things, this M 100 is in the company of the sharpest of the sharpest lenses. He flat out says it's in the top company of elite lenses at that stop. I skeptically tried, not long ago, a number of shots at f16 and found that Takanami is absolutely right. The lens is spectacular at that f stop. It really shifts to a new level of sharpness at that point. That's kind of strange behaviour for a lens in my experience since diffraction usually takes a small toll by then. It's phenomenal as an all around lens-and is very light and compact. It can more than take the place of a great and expensive fast 85 and fabulous hulking 135 in my opinion. I kind of wish it had the built in hood like the 135 and 200Ms though. Other than that, it's just about perfect.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
12-22-2014, 04:28 PM
|
| |
Not to mention how much you learn about visual art, color in this instance, when scrutinizing various color characteristics of highly enjoyable vintage lenses.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-09-2014, 12:32 PM
|
| |
Having shot a lot with the 50 1.4 M on a K 20d, I'd say back or front focusing issues are possible. It happens when you are really close to a subject, focusing a nose tips or something hovering and hanging out in space like the ubiquitous edges of flowers. DOF is very shallow of course making things a bit hard, so that can certainly trip you up. Maybe two other things should be considered though-just for FUN. I'll take the risk of thinking out loud for a moment.
I realized that for a long while when I was first trying out MF Pentax Tak lenses, I had not accepted or was not aware of the sharpness inherent in fast 50s wide open because of all of the talk about softness at 1.4 etc...my subconscious bought into all of that parroting around the net...but Asahiflex cured me of that illusion. So, once I understood the problem was with me, I started practicing and realized that you must use the eye...forget allowing the focus screen to do the job (of course this assumes that the diopter is adjusted correctly and that camera and screen will be aiding you in getting in the ball park quickly). I've never had particularily good eyes and I'm a bit older now, nearly sixty. Still, I have learned to rely on my eye to recognize when something is sharp and ready to shoot, never mind aural dings and blinking lights and such things. The eye will get the needed degree of perfection. It just takes practice and faith that the eye is capable of doing the job. So, the number of sharp shots has gotten much higher for me...but again, you first have to assume the lens is sharp wide open, otherwise you won't put forth a hardy and consistent effort! The second thing-on occasion I forget that there is such a thing as minimum focusing distance...Lord have mercy! It mostly does not happen with the M 50 since it focuses down to about 17 inches or so, I believe. But, nevertheless, it has happened on occasion. So, just maybe you could be getting somewhat closer with the 50 than a meter and just don't realize it. I have an old Tak 300 with a miserable focusing distance-monstrously long-and have shot whole sequences of potentially glorious shots with that lens that later baffled and disappointed me over slight and unexpected blurriness. I knew that the lens was incredibly sharp the last time I used it! Ha! Lens scolding time...bad lens, bad lens. Later, somehow, the light went on and now I feel lucky to have kept the lens and laugh at my slim wits and lack of memory that accompany picture after picture some days. You can be shooting just barely barely past the edge of minimum focus and, because it looks in focus, you think how wonderful the shots will be. But later you find out you need to consider the physical fact as quite hard and stop dreaming so much. I just this moment recalled some bad sessions with the M 200 due to a brick in my head. I checked the lens reviews a second ago and see the 200 4 has a minimum focus of 200 cm...that lens will give you some real surprises if your inner vision of beauty draws you into shots that require a hair more distance. I guess that's two thoughts, or rather a two cents worth, so that's enough.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-02-2014, 10:54 AM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-09-2014, 02:38 PM
|
| |
Andrew and Utak, ya'll took the words out of my mouth about the preset Takumar 50 macro! There was a slight moment of hesitation when I put my vote in for the 8 element 50 because of that lens. I actually like the macro as a walk around do everything lens. Lucky that in the end, we get to shoot them both.
---------- Post added 10-09-2014 at 04:44 PM ----------
Forgot. That's just a wonderful shot Utak.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-08-2014, 08:45 PM
|
| |
Thanks Rick. That's a good looking photo of Henry with the 35. I just acquired one about 4 months ago, and like you said, it is a very predictable dependable lens and does have pretty good close up capability. I've gotten a few very good portraits from the 35, even of people!
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
10-08-2014, 02:25 PM
|
| |
Thanks for the heads up. Hadn't heard about this at all. And you are so correct in your assessment!
|
