File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey /p/

i hear people mentioning the various pentax 50mm's as being quite good lenses for their age.

so, any reccomendations on which ones? 1.4, 1.7 takumar, super multi coated etc? and specific models/designs to look for?

hows this one?
TIA
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh and what about this one?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
Really they're all good (just like any other name brand 50mm lens of the time, and any modern 50mm lens at that), but the ones with the OMG LEGENDARY status are M42 mount SMC Takumars.

SMC-A Takumars were Pentax's last line of manual focus lenses for their K mount cameras, I think, and so the build quality isn't as good as their older stuff. But I've tried one, and "isn't as good" means "tough as nails" compared to anything at that price point today.
>> Anonymous
i have a SMC-M 50 f2
its not bad.

infact, its excelent for the $15USD i paid for it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I have an SMC Pentax-M 1.7 that is fucking sweet. Manual focus, K-mount, etc. Picture related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX Optio A30Camera SoftwareOptio A30 Ver 1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.6Focal Length (35mm Equiv)38 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:13 17:17:37Exposure Time1/8 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length7.90 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3648Image Height2736RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeMacro
>> Anonymous
I have no complaints about my 55/1.8 non-SMC Takumar, it's as good as other 50/1.8 lenses I've tried (including Canon and Nikon's autofocus 50/1.8). However, it loses both in contrast and sharpness to my 55/1.4 Chinon stopped down to f/2.
>> Anonymous
>>178139
That chinon lens sucks ass. Yes, it does have contrast, but blows the highlights while doing so.
>> Anonymous
>>178173
It does give a "hazy" image with blown highlights and bokeh when fully open, but most of that goes away at f/2. I suppose the f/1.4 Takumar will beat it at all apertures, but it doesn't go for cheap here.
>> Anonymous
>>178132the ones with the OMG LEGENDARY status are M42 mount SMC Takumars.

legendary for what? picture quality?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>178138

smc-m 50 1.7 wide open!

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image Width3878Image Height2580Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8Compression SchemeUnknownPixel CompositionRGBImage OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution666 dpiVertical Resolution666 dpiImage Data ArrangementChunky FormatImage Created2008:05:09 19:50:50Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width1200Image Height800
>> des
>>178213
colour rendition, flare control (for the time), sharpness, contrast, defocus and bokeh.
It's not just the 50s, my (cheap!!) super tak 135 f/3.5 is my favourite 135. They're not all zomg fabulous, but there aren't really any dogs in the lineup.
>> Anonymous
I don't think my legendary SMC Tak 55/1.8 is that legendary at all.
>> Anonymous
>>178283

how much are these legendary SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 going for?
>> Anonymous
>>178331
Very cheap. IIRC, ~$50. They're really good, but there's tons of them floating around.

Also, the version that reads "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar" and not just "SMC Takumar" is supposedly the best of them.
>> Anonymous
>>178339

would it be a good idea to find a screw mount version ofr my Canon

i already have a 50mm 1.8
>> Anonymous
>>178339
Actually, around $80 these days. Word's been spreading, and I'm sure the price for them will only get higher over time. And there is no version that says "SMC Takumar", that is only shorthand for saying Super-Multi-Coated. The other version is just "Super-Takumar", and they only have one or two coats, making them prone to flare and they suck at TTL metering.
>>178341
Yes.
>> Anonymous
>>178374

any difference between these 2

http://cgi.ebay.com/Pentax-SMC-Takumar-50mm-f1-4_W0QQitemZ200221679813QQihZ010QQcategoryZ707QQssPage
NameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

http://cgi.ebay.com/Asahi-Pentax-SMC-Takumar-50mm-f-1-4-Lens-M42_W0QQitemZ110250904125QQihZ001QQcate
goryZ4688QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

is one native pentax and one m42?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
In case anyone is interested, here's a boring shot with non-legendary smc tak 55/1.8 wide open, not sharpened, minimal edit, 100% crop on the bottom.

Stopping down a lot makes it sharper but still not THAT good. After all the hype i would expect something better. Am i doing it wrong?

It says exactly "SMC Takumar 1:1.8/55" on this one.

Web saved, so for the lack of exif: Canon 400D, 1/750s, f1.8, iso 100.
>> Anonymous
>>178379

talk about cro mabs
>> Anonymous
>>178379
>Canon 400D
Found the problem
>> Anonymous
>>178374

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml

According to Mike Johnston, there was both a "Super-Multi-Coated" and an "SMC" version.

>>178379
Don't know, but I don't like the look of the lens, even CA aside.

>>178380
In its defense, apochromaticity probably wasn't high up on the design spec list at the time. Most film shot was probably still black and white negative film.
>> Anonymous
>>178376
They're both M42 lenses, and though they clearly have different writing on the filter, I do not believe that there is any difference. However, if in doubt, go with the Super-Multi-Coated one instead of the SMC one.
>> Anonymous
>>178379

Some ugly bokeh too.
>> Anonymous
>>178424
stop taking pictures of things
>> Anonymous
>>178399

so i just need a M42 to EF adapter and i can slap any screw mount on
>> Anonymous
>>178457
Any M42 screwmount, yeah. There are M39 and Leica screwmounts, too. Most 'famous' screwmount lenses are M42 though; it'll say in the auction.
>> Anonymous
>>178427

Why do you disagree?
>> Anonymous
>>178474
vehemently
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>178474
>>178424

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:11:08 02:15:10Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width200Image Height200
>> Anonymous
>>178472Any M42 screwmount, yeah.

awesome

$50 50mm 1.4 here i come woooo
>> Anonymous
>>178478
I agree with him. The bokeh isn't impressive, at least in the example given, which is a bad one to judge it by: clusters of small, seperate objects like leaves or flowers tend to trip up even great lenses.

(>>178396here.)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Super Takumar (not SMC) 50/1.4
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
More relevant shot, still 50/1.4 ST.
>> Anonymous
>>178533
>>178537

nothing impressive about it -_-
>> Anonymous
>>178540
Hello troll. Go back to your kitlens kthx.
>> Anonymous
>>178544

rofl, troll?

there's nothing impressive at all in those 2 pictures and you actually could take them with a kit lens
>> Anonymous
>>178548
Clearly you don't see the differences in bokeh between lenses, and that's okay. Just don't get into the conversation if you don't know what it's about.
>> Anonymous
>>178552

because the first thing one should look at when buying a lens is the bokeh, yeah..

even if we're looking at it, there is NOTHING spectacular at all in those 2 pictures

so, i will say you are trolling, thank you
>> Anonymous
They don't show off the lens too well, so forgive him. If you know what you're looking for you can see it's a good lens, but people who haven't been paying attention to lenses won't be able to tell from that.

Here's some standout ones from a Flickr search for "Takumar 50/1.4," various versions represented.

http://flickr.com/photos/titanche/1315805458/
http://flickr.com/photos/the_wolf_brigade/2447798038/
http://flickr.com/photos/mikelefevre/182327519/
http://flickr.com/photos/mikelefevre/181488002/
http://flickr.com/photos/stephendowling/1039266689/
http://flickr.com/photos/stephendowling/1060544622/
http://flickr.com/photos/fuctupfactory/2101533221/
>> Anonymous
>>178555
The first thing you should look at in a lens is what type it is- normal, wide, tele, and all their subdivisions. Just to see what you're comparing it to, or if it's the sort you need if you're picking one out.

Then you look at the overall way it draws the picture, which includes bokeh. Do you like it? If you're picking it out for your own work, does the look suit your own style?

Then you go into flare resistance, working apertures, and stuff like that. One and two are equally important. Three can be worked around.
>> Anonymous
>>178472
Leica screw mount is M39, and apart from some short lived Soviet SLRs no SLR lenses exist in that mount, so don't buy a M39 to EF ring and hope to use a Summilux on your 400D. M39 rangefinder lenses won't focus to infinity on any SLR body so don't bother unless you have a bellows or other macro setup.

I'd say that there are just as many famous lenses in M39, but they're not relevant here. Also all Pentax screw lenses are in M42 (except for one recent limited edition 43/1.9) so there's no need to worry about buying the wrong one.