I had the exact same findings. I had two of 3 7-element Takumar 50mm 1.4 and the 8-element. I compared them side by side and found that the 8 element is far sharper and the bokeh is creamier. I also tested it with the Pentax K-1 which has a 36 megapixel sensor. The 8 element is so sharp that I can crop into an eye and see myself as a reflection. The 8 element is definitely worth the premium IMHO.
I miss my Super Takumar lenses. I got some nice photos from them over the years both on film and digital. Alas all my equipment was lost in the house fire.
Excellent review! What is stunning is that, after so many decades, these fine lenses and cameras hold their value and performance so well. They are art in their own right, produced by engineers who truly loved their work, photography and were proud of their products.
I think you have to remember that in the era that these lenses were produced, photographers were really not interested in out of focus backgrounds. The term bokeh wasn’t coined until 1997. It was probably wedding photographers in the early 1980s that made out of focus backgrounds popular. The lens testing that was done in the 1970s as seen in photography magazines was mainly interested in the maximum resolution the lens was capable of.
Good review as always. At this level, sample variance rising from assembly plays a bigger role than lens construction. For example, your 7-element Takumar may be slightly de-centered, resulting in less sharpness wide open and more abnormal coma aberration near the center of the image (evidenced by the three bokeh balls at 9:57 having longer tails).
I’m always grateful when one of your Takumar videos premieres. I’ve been lucky enough to find many Takumar lenses over years of thrifting- Including one time I found 7x different Taks together for well under 60. I’ve been meaning to get them together to test out what I’ve got. Thank you for the continuing inspiration!
Thank you for your introducting Super Takumar lens. I learned those information and knowleage from your videos, and I nearly finished all of them. I am enjoyed to use those takumar lens. keep on please.
Watching you place the 8-element on the surface with the rear element protruding out is unsettling. It is soft glass and scratches very easily. Big fan of your channel, I've been following for a long time but this is my first comment. Great content as always.
Many thanks for your support. You're so right about the need to be careful with that protruding rear element - and I am. The white sheet of paper for I use as the base for the videos is soft enough - I wouldn't put the lens's rear element on wood for example!
Your findings align with my own experiences with the 8 and 7 element versions. Wide open sharpness, better colour fidelity and slightly smoother bokeh. The marginally extra weight as well the need to handle with care work in favour of the 7. I would daily drive the 7 and save the 8 for special occasions 😎
I have watched countless videos on this very topic of the 8 vs 7 element versions. Yours is the definite standout - very engaging, super informative, and with definite conclusions. You made this topic, that I know so well, new again. Thank you for this.
@@bacanovic1 Thank you so much for this kind comment. Much appreciated. I was a little concerned about posting a video on this subject, given the videos already posted. But I was keen to test the differences myself, so I thought I may as well add to the on-line collection!
I have a 7 element radioactive one. I rather like the yellowing effect, though I do remove it in post for most use cases. Much as I'd be happy to be gifted an 8 element version, I am more than satisfied with the wonderful results I have achieved with the unit I have. I rarely actually take shots with it fully open, usually stopping down a little to get a balance of sharpness of subject and great bokeh. Another point, despite mine being very yellow indeed, I don't think the tint is any deeper on mine than on the results of the deyellowed lens here. I agree with your analysis, but as I said, I am more than happy with what I have.
I thoroughly enjoy your deep dives into the subtle differences between lenses such as these. Personally, I find it very difficult to notice any differences which would impact my purchasing decisions, but as with most photographic topics, individual taste usually reigns supreme. Thank you sir!
Thank you for producing a great, educational video. I have a good collection of Super Takumar lenses and love them all. I also like the tint of the 7 element in certain images
Great comparison. I have a huge collection of Spotmatics and many Takumars including 12 x 50mm f1.4 of these 3 are the 8 element types. All of my 7 element versions are de-yellowed. My personal favourite is the SMC but I love them all. By the way I have never paid a premium for my 8 element copies one of them was only £15 and it came with an Original model 231 spotmatic SP. I have noticed prices getting very high on eBay over the last year.
Love your channel Simon, but on this one I think you missed perhaps one of the more critical differences of the two and something that elevates the standing of the 8e. I have a rather lengthy comparison of these two lenses on my own channel (that you are free to check out), but the tl;dr is this; When you start to stop the two lenses down, you notice something happening with the oof areas of the 8 element, it seems to almost 'keep' it's previous wider aperture rendering, and when in combination with benefiting from being stopped down this allows for the subject (in focus) to be wrapped in high image fidelity whilst obtaining wickedly good subject separation due to oof areas feeling more 'wide open'. In my tests, I could see the 8e having background blur more akin to the 7e at one stop less, so f5.6 on the 8e would give an oof rendering like the 7e would achieve at f4, whilst the 7e at 5.6 had more of that 'stopped down' look. It was quite interesting to see and quite repeatable in my testing. I think you could understand this trait to exist because your own findings of the 8e bokeh wide open to being slightly higher quality over the 7e. What is interesting is to see how this affects the look of the image throughout the aperture range. Both lenses shot at f5.6 but the 8e has oof rendering like the 7e had at f4. And because the 8e is in general a sharper lens that means this is a wickedly good combination to have.
I own the first version of the Super Takumar 7-element 50 1.4 and I dont have any problems with sharpness wide open... I comes to me as a shock that many of your pictures are soft even at the focused area. Funny how these lenses vary from copy to copy. Interesting how each one is unique and almost has its own personal character. Gotta love them.
Thank you,i wish for a guide video about how one can buy a vintage lens , what to look for how to choose a good copy etc..thank you again, great photos,it really inspired me to leave my small studio and every one's go out with my camera
I got a 7-element copy after looking at a lot of reviews, and it is my favorite every day lens lately for creative closeups (on m43, so 100mm equivalent and often with tubes). As you show, it is just not quite sharp, but I have found that applying today's AI-based sharpening selectively does the trick (and is almost always necessary anyway since I'm nearly always working handheld). Topaz Photo AI compensates beautifully for the limitations of the lens and my m43 body (and my technique).
Simon's : I have perused your images in Flickr ; I own the 8 element lens , and I love it , and also the 85 mm Takumar 1.8 , I have 2 of those as could not lay my hands upon one ...yes buried in my lens collection , and purchased another. Takumar lenses are a special breed , and have a unique signature. My reasons for their collection was to photograph like I was in 1965 , whilst using my SONY A7 bodies. I am now moving to L Mount in LEICA , and will adapt these optics to that body the SL-3 this being said , am so excited to get the SL-3 out and bang away. Ahh ... I have to admit my ROLLEI cameras have upstaged my Leica MA and M3 in image quality ... I simply adore my Wide Rollei 55mm F4 , as it is a superb image capturing creative machine. Always I love your introspective analysis upon the finer points of lens optics. Not many realize the quality of the older masters ... this is our secret Simon's . Shh do not tell 😏
My findings were that the transitions are smoother through the 8 element, I also concluded the 8 element to be slightly sharper wide open. I have also encountered 8 element copies that were radioactive. I also found that the 8 element had a more narrow dof at any aperture as compared to the 7 element.
I see very kind of crazy looking but attractive to my eyes Bokeh. With the 8 element in some shots online. Very tempting but I much prefer the 35mm focal length. And I already have the SMC 55mm f1.8 l. What do you think about the out of focus areas in your 8 Element ?
I recall that before, when you made a 3 part series about radioactive lenses, SMC Takumar was the most radioactive one at that time. I wonder what changed now that made it the least radioactive one between the Takumars? Great content as usual!
Great spot!!!!! 👍 The SMC version I tried for this video was actually a different copy of the SMC to the one I tested in the radioactive video. I was surprised as well at the big difference. I only owned the "other " one when I posted the radioactive video. The SMC photographed in this video is a later copy that came attached to a Spotmatic F. I sold my other copy, as I preferred having a matching camera and lens. I didn't need two copies and didn't test the new one for radioactivity until preparing this video. I assumed, wrongly, that it would be similar to the older one. FYI, and in case anyone else is interested, my more radioactive copy had this serial number: 6570xxx while the less radioactive lens is 7784xxx.
Your end comparisons of the 8 and 7 element lenses had the 7 element images slightly darker overall. The 7 also seemed to have a higher contrast. Those both would affect the bokeh. One would think the 7 would gain some sharpness over the 8 in the examples because of this. But you found the 8 sharper. I'm getting an old gold 7 in the mail and plan on shooting wide open and stopped down and combining the two with Photoshop. It may work to my advantage to get behind/front of the subject for the wide open shot to have all the background to play with. I call it behind/front because either word can be misconstrued. I just mean the background without the subject.
When I found out my two Mamiya 55mm f1.4 are not only a bit radioactive, but a lot, I decided to find a non-radioactive replacement. So I got a Zenitar, but I did not like it so much. The colors are dull. Under UV it is a bit greenish, so there might be a slight haze inside. Or sunlight does not agree with the coatings so much. Then I decided to get a Takumar 8 element, and it is fantastic. Wide open it is dreamy, one click stopped down, it is very sharp. This allows for quick style choices. I did notice the color fringing. My copy looks like new, the focus runs so smooth. But all the dials are reversed compared to the mamiya. I got over that. The mamiyas stayed in my mind as "better". It was my nostaligia. When I put it back on again for the occasion, I noticed it is worse than the Takumar 8e. So now the Takumar 8e 50mm f1.4 really is my go to lens. Then a little extra info: I shoot the 50mm with an Arax tilt adapter. With a narrow depth of field, I really want to be able to control the angle of the plane of focus. So, for me, the size of the image circle the lens projects into the camera, is very important. The Nikkor 50mm f1.2 is unusable. It already vignets more than 2 stops in the corners, if not 3, when the lens is straight. And tilted down, the top side of the image will turn black. The Mamiyas are good enough, if with a little darkening of the corners. Zenitar is excellent, no vignetting to speak off. And the Takumar 8e has a large enough image circle to not produce dark corners, not even when swung sideways. This is data that is hard to come by, bit it is so important to me. So I am happy with the Takumar via the Arax adapter on my Sony.
I used a few of these in the past, great lenses. I've tried treating my Takumars yellowing multiple times, there seems to be diminishing returns when it comes to how well you can clean it up. Had it under for a week or more and the yellow is there slightly there.
Great comparison! Aside from the max aperture, I wonder how these lenses compare to the image quality and bokeh of the 55mm f1.8 Takumar variants. I own a 55 and it’s always been one of my favorites.
I've not compared them directly/head-to-head. But the f1.8 Takumars are quite capable of producing exceptionally beautiful bokeh, also helped by the 5mm difference in length; it can make a surprising difference sometimes.
I have three takumaars \the 20mm f1.4 7 element super takumar the 35mm f2 super takumar and the 50mm f4 macro lens I love them and shoot them on mf4 3s camera the vintage feels makes my videos pop!
As always, a great overview of some special vintage lenses. On my Asahi AP unfortunately the 8-element is a no-go with the protruding rear element. I’ll have to get my Pentax SV repaired (with the orange ‘R’) if I make the jump into an 8-element. But, with that repair expense not sure if the cost is worthwhile since I have the ‘Sonnar’ Takumar 58mm f2, Macro-Takumar 50 f3.5, and early Takumar 55mm f2. For sharpness AND bokeh, the 8-element seems to be the best all-around performer.
I mostly shoot my 8 elements lens on film using a SP F and it has pushed my Zuiko 50 1.4 into second place even though my OM2 is lighter and has more features. On film this lens it almost magical. A point on the 7 elements version that I think should be made is that the yellowing has no impact on monochrome. So if thats what you shoot it could be a more affordable way to try out a great lens. thanks for your always great videos!
Thanks for all the work that went into the video. Taks are a safe bet for most situations. Even though I find fringing irritating, the little bit of extra "oomph" the eight element has, is compelling.
I'd like to see a comparison of the eight element 50 1.4 and the seven element 50 1.2. I'm very impressed with the 50 1.2, and it seems it can be had for about the same price as or even less than the eight element 50 1.4. Given the mounts are different but either can be quite easily adapted.
I've owned three different seven-element copies over the years and I've always preferred the 55mm Takumars for their sharpness and rendering. The later bayonet M version is also better in these regards. Maybe one day I'll get to try an eight-element version but at around double the cost, it's hard to justify.
I pretty much agree with your conclusions. I guess really you're weighing wide open sharpness vs. chromatic aberration. But really they're so similar, that I think it's mostly going to be an element of the feeling of owning the lens rather than having noticeably different results. Even shooting on film, unless you're printing photographically in colour, the colour can be easily corrected.
There is another Pentax fit 50mm in the same class, the Chinon Auto MC 50mm f/1.4, 7 elements in 6 groups. Pentax and Chinon often made similar lenses. Chinon could often out-do Asahi-Pentax.
Would love to know your thoughts about the Takumar 50's and the M-series! I found myself preferring the M 50/1.4 over the 8-element Takumar once I tried them side by side. Never got around to comparing the M 1.4 vs 1.7 but I know some people prefer the 1.7 over the M 1.4.
I wasn't so impressed with my copy of the M 50mm f1.4, and sold it. It was soft wide open and I wasn't so keen on how it rendered bokeh versus the Takumars. A little too contrasty wide open. But that's just my personal opinion. I do, however, really like the M 50mm f1.7 (and A 50mm f1.7). Both my M and A copies have something special about them. So I'm one of those people who prefer the M f1.7 over the M f1.4!
@@Simonsutak I'm wondering if my 8-element takumar is just a bit banged up then... I got it cheap and full of fungus and cleaned it up. Found the images pretty similar to the M 1.4, just a bit softer wide open.
This was a great review! I really enjoy seeing your videos as they are shared. I definitely do not think the 7-element 50 is deficient vs. the 8-element and would,, were I in need of another film-era 50, go for the 7-element version to save money and have more options to consider.
I have the SMC version. My sharpest lens, for sure. Especially wide open. Its bokeh is one of my least favourite types. Got that nisen type, messy, shaky style of bokeh. But both the sharpness and subject separation massively overwhelm that negative, and it's been one of my most use lenses since picking it up. Enjoyed it so much, I'm looking to get a 105mm at some point, too.
The bokeh "debate" is interesting and so much about personal taste. I can see and understand why you and others don't like it as much as other lenses. Personally, however, I like the bokeh more than my Planar and Ultron lenses, where I find the bokeh blotchy on occasion. I don't like messy bokeh either, which is probably why I like the more organised, swirly bokeh of Biotar/Helios lenses where there's a busy background.
@@Simonsutak I am a big fan of the swirl types. and the Helios is a favourite, for sure. When I'm looking for more controlled bokeh, I love the smoothness of my Pentacons. Their sharpness doesn't touch the Takumars, but a beautiful character of their own. I'm definitely a fan of having options.
Some people report that the 8element version is radioactive and some copies are not. Id like to see a comparison between both 8-element versions. I once got myself a mint copy of the 8-element takumar from Japan (non radioactive). I resold it later becuase it had too much CA for my taste.
Great review and comparison as always, big fan of your channel. I always thought all versions were radioactive, glad to know there is one that is not (I know the thorium ones are not super dangerous but i prefer cero radioactivity than a little bit 🤣). Will get that one for sure. Thank you !
One thing you didn’t test but I have noticed is that the 8 element background blur quality stays slightly smoother as you stop down to f2, f2.8 and even f4. Beyond 5.6, they are similar. Is it worth the price difference? For me yes because i got my 8 element with a Spotmatic, 28/3.5 and 85/1.9 for $50 🤣
I would be interested if cureing the lens with blue light also increases the luminosity of the lens. as I understand the radioactive decay can reduce tranmission by up to two stops.
I came across one reviewer that showed his later 8 element lens (133xxxx) was sharper wide open compared to his early 8 element version (10xxxxx/11xxxxx). The improvement was clearly seen. I’m curious if you have noticed any difference in similar sharpness between your two lenses assuming they are “significantly” different in s/n.
Interesting. My other lens is quite an early one - 998xxx. I’ve not noticed a difference, but I'll re-test it against the one I used in this video and if it’s noticeably different I’ll post a short update.
I adore my 8 edition. Thanks you Simon I bought mine in China serial number 1156235. I use it daily. Used it for 2 years. Agreed your video 100% Again Thank you very much Now curious how dose mine compare to others before 1156235? How to check others photos?
Have you tried sunlight for clearing your lens? Somewhere I read saw a recommendation to use Sunlight if possible. Perhaps due to UV light that is the magic ingredient.
As with all your output a very thoughtful and photographers review. My only thought though is your comment about not being able to tell a difference at viewing distance - I think thats where it really counts - so in a 10x8 viewed at around 2m can you discern a difference? As you say nit really - I still use reversal and on an image projected by a rollei projector on a Kaiser screen there is certainly no difference - nor is there a difference with the 50mm 1.4K. So yes under pseudo lab conditions on a monitor zooming in but as pieces of reprographics at real viewing scales no. But still a very interesting review. A review that would be interesting would be the 1.4 K v the early Carl zeiss T rollei 1.4 both lenses came out of the attempt to collaborate and most reviews wrongly I think compare the early Rollei mount lens to the latter CY mount. Just a thought
This is true, it seems to be a common misconception that all 8 element versions are not radioactive. The introduction of the radioactive glass was part way through the production of the 8 element lenses, the later ones benefiting from the thorium coating.
I own and use the 7-element and the 8-element 50mm f/1.4 Takumar. Both are great lenses. However, I prefer the 8-element because I do not like the yellow tinge of the 7-element glass and the 7-element images.
The 7 element yellow cast is easy to remove. I built a "de-Yellowing" setup as I have a lot of Takumars and some 55mm lenses are also radioactive. I used an old nail varnish hardener UV source and bypassed the timer PCB so the light stays on as long as PSU is on it takes 24 yours to fully remove the cast.
The position of the IR mark is not conclusive. They put 7-element glass in 8-element tubing in a transition period. The shape of the rear element is decisive!
Yes, the 8 element was designed for Spotmatic cameras. The protruding rear element causes problems on earlier Pentax cameras - except early S1 models apparently.
TLDR. I would rather the 8 elements Mostly because its not radio active. But also Sharper. Don't need to De-yellow it ever, due to non radioactive glass. + Smoother Bokeh. compared to newer copies
Radioactive glass is a misnomer. Natural uranium or natural thorium were used in the same way the lead glass is used. Natural uranium does have radioactive isotopes, but as a whole is barely radioactive. Natural uranium is mostly U-238, 99.3% abundance. Of more concern is its toxicity, kidney damage if consumed in any quantity. Likewise natural thorium, mostly Th-232 with a half life of over 14 billion year is barely radioactive. First the alpha has to get out of the lens body. Range of alpha is less than 13mm in air and cannot penetrate skin. Is that dose rate in Gray converted to absorbed dose in Sievert by multiplying by 20 Wr? That is only done for ingestion as alpha do not penetrate externally What we may get is discolouration, yellowing of the glass, which is easily reversed by exposure to UV, sunlight.
Warning with these lenses. Especially the 7 element version and I have seen two locally (Calgary) with separation issues. My copy has separation of glued lens elements and it does addect bokeh balls unless stopped doown to f2. So buyers should absolutely be aware before purchasing.
Interesting. Maybe it's heat that causes that. I have 12 X 50mm f1.4 Takumars. 3 of mine a 8 element I have no issues with mine here in UK (touch wood)
@@mikepxg6406 its gotta be the cold here in Canada. LOL Perhaps the Canadian batch are a bad batch? Don't know but for someone who collects lenses and doesnt come across these often, I find it strange.
Really?do one don't see any different in practical condition,so one go into the absurd in order to find any difference between the Lebanese,and conclude that there is a difference. . talking about cognitive dissonance. .
![Quando Rondo - Grow Up [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8zFnCg3BO4Q/mqdefault.jpg)
I had the exact same findings. I had two of 3 7-element Takumar 50mm 1.4 and the 8-element. I compared them side by side and found that the 8 element is far sharper and the bokeh is creamier. I also tested it with the Pentax K-1 which has a 36 megapixel sensor. The 8 element is so sharp that I can crop into an eye and see myself as a reflection.
The 8 element is definitely worth the premium IMHO.
I miss my Super Takumar lenses. I got some nice photos from them over the years both on film and digital. Alas all my equipment was lost in the house fire.
family safe?
I have 7element version, and happy with it, even on 33mp ff sensor
Excellent review! What is stunning is that, after so many decades, these fine lenses and cameras hold their value and performance so well. They are art in their own right, produced by engineers who truly loved their work, photography and were proud of their products.
That finger idea is so simple and so great its going to save me so much guessing when comparing old lenses. I will be adopting it from now on.
Not suggested for 135 film.
I think you have to remember that in the era that these lenses were produced, photographers were really not interested in out of focus backgrounds. The term bokeh wasn’t coined until 1997. It was probably wedding photographers in the early 1980s that made out of focus backgrounds popular. The lens testing that was done in the 1970s as seen in photography magazines was mainly interested in the maximum resolution the lens was capable of.
Good review as always. At this level, sample variance rising from assembly plays a bigger role than lens construction. For example, your 7-element Takumar may be slightly de-centered, resulting in less sharpness wide open and more abnormal coma aberration near the center of the image (evidenced by the three bokeh balls at 9:57 having longer tails).
I’m always grateful when one of your Takumar videos premieres. I’ve been lucky enough to find many Takumar lenses over years of thrifting- Including one time I found 7x different Taks together for well under 60. I’ve been meaning to get them together to test out what I’ve got. Thank you for the continuing inspiration!
Thank you for your introducting Super Takumar lens. I learned those information and knowleage from your videos, and I nearly finished all of them. I am enjoyed to use those takumar lens. keep on please.
Watching you place the 8-element on the surface with the rear element protruding out is unsettling. It is soft glass and scratches very easily.
Big fan of your channel, I've been following for a long time but this is my first comment. Great content as always.
Many thanks for your support. You're so right about the need to be careful with that protruding rear element - and I am. The white sheet of paper for I use as the base for the videos is soft enough - I wouldn't put the lens's rear element on wood for example!
Your findings align with my own experiences with the 8 and 7 element versions. Wide open sharpness, better colour fidelity and slightly smoother bokeh. The marginally extra weight as well the need to handle with care work in favour of the 7. I would daily drive the 7 and save the 8 for special occasions 😎
I have watched countless videos on this very topic of the 8 vs 7 element versions. Yours is the definite standout - very engaging, super informative, and with definite conclusions. You made this topic, that I know so well, new again. Thank you for this.
i believe the 8 element version will not clear the mirror on full frame Canon EF due to the protruding rear element
@@bacanovic1 Thank you so much for this kind comment. Much appreciated. I was a little concerned about posting a video on this subject, given the videos already posted. But I was keen to test the differences myself, so I thought I may as well add to the on-line collection!
I have a 7 element radioactive one. I rather like the yellowing effect, though I do remove it in post for most use cases. Much as I'd be happy to be gifted an 8 element version, I am more than satisfied with the wonderful results I have achieved with the unit I have. I rarely actually take shots with it fully open, usually stopping down a little to get a balance of sharpness of subject and great bokeh.
Another point, despite mine being very yellow indeed, I don't think the tint is any deeper on mine than on the results of the deyellowed lens here.
I agree with your analysis, but as I said, I am more than happy with what I have.
Yet another thorough, well presented, and insightful review to help those of us with a glass addiction. Thanks Simon!
Happy owner of a 7 element Super Tak. Thanks for this comparison.
I thoroughly enjoy your deep dives into the subtle differences between lenses such as these. Personally, I find it very difficult to notice any differences which would impact my purchasing decisions, but as with most photographic topics, individual taste usually reigns supreme. Thank you sir!
Thank you for producing a great, educational video. I have a good collection of Super Takumar lenses and love them all. I also like the tint of the 7 element in certain images
Great comparison. I have a huge collection of Spotmatics and many Takumars including 12 x 50mm f1.4 of these 3 are the 8 element types. All of my 7 element versions are de-yellowed. My personal favourite is the SMC but I love them all. By the way I have never paid a premium for my 8 element copies one of them was only £15 and it came with an Original model 231 spotmatic SP. I have noticed prices getting very high on eBay over the last year.
Love your channel Simon, but on this one I think you missed perhaps one of the more critical differences of the two and something that elevates the standing of the 8e. I have a rather lengthy comparison of these two lenses on my own channel (that you are free to check out), but the tl;dr is this;
When you start to stop the two lenses down, you notice something happening with the oof areas of the 8 element, it seems to almost 'keep' it's previous wider aperture rendering, and when in combination with benefiting from being stopped down this allows for the subject (in focus) to be wrapped in high image fidelity whilst obtaining wickedly good subject separation due to oof areas feeling more 'wide open'.
In my tests, I could see the 8e having background blur more akin to the 7e at one stop less, so f5.6 on the 8e would give an oof rendering like the 7e would achieve at f4, whilst the 7e at 5.6 had more of that 'stopped down' look. It was quite interesting to see and quite repeatable in my testing. I think you could understand this trait to exist because your own findings of the 8e bokeh wide open to being slightly higher quality over the 7e. What is interesting is to see how this affects the look of the image throughout the aperture range. Both lenses shot at f5.6 but the 8e has oof rendering like the 7e had at f4. And because the 8e is in general a sharper lens that means this is a wickedly good combination to have.
I own the first version of the Super Takumar 7-element 50 1.4 and I dont have any problems with sharpness wide open... I comes to me as a shock that many of your pictures are soft even at the focused area. Funny how these lenses vary from copy to copy. Interesting how each one is unique and almost has its own personal character. Gotta love them.
Thank you,i wish for a guide video about how one can buy a vintage lens , what to look for how to choose a good copy etc..thank you again, great photos,it really inspired me to leave my small studio and every one's go out with my camera
I got an 8 element one recently and i love it a lot!
Great comparison of these two lenses. 🙌👍👍
I'd be just happy with any of these.
I got a 7-element copy after looking at a lot of reviews, and it is my favorite every day lens lately for creative closeups (on m43, so 100mm equivalent and often with tubes). As you show, it is just not quite sharp, but I have found that applying today's AI-based sharpening selectively does the trick (and is almost always necessary anyway since I'm nearly always working handheld). Topaz Photo AI compensates beautifully for the limitations of the lens and my m43 body (and my technique).
Simon's : I have perused your images in Flickr ; I own the 8 element lens , and I love it , and also the 85 mm Takumar 1.8 , I have 2 of those as could not lay my hands upon one ...yes buried in my lens collection , and purchased another. Takumar lenses are a special breed , and have a unique signature. My reasons for their collection was to photograph like I was in 1965 , whilst using my SONY A7 bodies. I am now moving to L Mount in LEICA , and will adapt these optics to that body the SL-3 this being said , am so excited to get the SL-3 out and bang away. Ahh ... I have to admit my ROLLEI cameras have upstaged my Leica MA and M3 in image quality ... I simply adore my Wide Rollei 55mm F4 , as it is a superb image capturing creative machine. Always I love your introspective analysis upon the finer points of lens optics. Not many realize the quality of the older masters ... this is our secret Simon's . Shh do not tell 😏
My findings were that the transitions are smoother through the 8 element, I also concluded the 8 element to be slightly sharper wide open. I have also encountered 8 element copies that were radioactive. I also found that the 8 element had a more narrow dof at any aperture as compared to the 7 element.
"I have also encountered 8 element copies that were radioactive." That is odd. I did bring a geiger counter to the seller to check.
I see very kind of crazy looking but attractive to my eyes Bokeh. With the 8 element in some shots online. Very tempting but I much prefer the 35mm focal length. And I already have the SMC 55mm f1.8 l. What do you think about the out of focus areas in your 8 Element ?
I recall that before, when you made a 3 part series about radioactive lenses, SMC Takumar was the most radioactive one at that time. I wonder what changed now that made it the least radioactive one between the Takumars? Great content as usual!
Great spot!!!!! 👍 The SMC version I tried for this video was actually a different copy of the SMC to the one I tested in the radioactive video. I was surprised as well at the big difference. I only owned the "other " one when I posted the radioactive video.
The SMC photographed in this video is a later copy that came attached to a Spotmatic F. I sold my other copy, as I preferred having a matching camera and lens. I didn't need two copies and didn't test the new one for radioactivity until preparing this video. I assumed, wrongly, that it would be similar to the older one. FYI, and in case anyone else is interested, my more radioactive copy had this serial number: 6570xxx while the less radioactive lens is 7784xxx.
Your end comparisons of the 8 and 7 element lenses had the 7 element images slightly darker overall. The 7 also seemed to have a higher contrast. Those both would affect the bokeh. One would think the 7 would gain some sharpness over the 8 in the examples because of this. But you found the 8 sharper. I'm getting an old gold 7 in the mail and plan on shooting wide open and stopped down and combining the two with Photoshop. It may work to my advantage to get behind/front of the subject for the wide open shot to have all the background to play with. I call it behind/front because either word can be misconstrued. I just mean the background without the subject.
When I found out my two Mamiya 55mm f1.4 are not only a bit radioactive, but a lot, I decided to find a non-radioactive replacement. So I got a Zenitar, but I did not like it so much. The colors are dull. Under UV it is a bit greenish, so there might be a slight haze inside. Or sunlight does not agree with the coatings so much.
Then I decided to get a Takumar 8 element, and it is fantastic. Wide open it is dreamy, one click stopped down, it is very sharp. This allows for quick style choices. I did notice the color fringing. My copy looks like new, the focus runs so smooth. But all the dials are reversed compared to the mamiya. I got over that. The mamiyas stayed in my mind as "better". It was my nostaligia. When I put it back on again for the occasion, I noticed it is worse than the Takumar 8e. So now the Takumar 8e 50mm f1.4 really is my go to lens.
Then a little extra info: I shoot the 50mm with an Arax tilt adapter. With a narrow depth of field, I really want to be able to control the angle of the plane of focus. So, for me, the size of the image circle the lens projects into the camera, is very important. The Nikkor 50mm f1.2 is unusable. It already vignets more than 2 stops in the corners, if not 3, when the lens is straight. And tilted down, the top side of the image will turn black. The Mamiyas are good enough, if with a little darkening of the corners. Zenitar is excellent, no vignetting to speak off. And the Takumar 8e has a large enough image circle to not produce dark corners, not even when swung sideways.
This is data that is hard to come by, bit it is so important to me. So I am happy with the Takumar via the Arax adapter on my Sony.
Thanks Simon, great review! The examples and details are much appreciated.
I used a few of these in the past, great lenses. I've tried treating my Takumars yellowing multiple times, there seems to be diminishing returns when it comes to how well you can clean it up. Had it under for a week or more and the yellow is there slightly there.
Great comparison! Aside from the max aperture, I wonder how these lenses compare to the image quality and bokeh of the 55mm f1.8 Takumar variants. I own a 55 and it’s always been one of my favorites.
I've not compared them directly/head-to-head. But the f1.8 Takumars are quite capable of producing exceptionally beautiful bokeh, also helped by the 5mm difference in length; it can make a surprising difference sometimes.
I have three takumaars
\the 20mm f1.4 7 element super takumar
the 35mm f2 super takumar
and the 50mm f4 macro lens
I love them and shoot them on mf4 3s camera the vintage feels makes my videos pop!
As always, a great overview of some special vintage lenses. On my Asahi AP unfortunately the 8-element is a no-go with the protruding rear element. I’ll have to get my Pentax SV repaired (with the orange ‘R’) if I make the jump into an 8-element. But, with that repair expense not sure if the cost is worthwhile since I have the ‘Sonnar’ Takumar 58mm f2, Macro-Takumar 50 f3.5, and early Takumar 55mm f2. For sharpness AND bokeh, the 8-element seems to be the best all-around performer.
Had to like it even before the video loaded.... That Takumar love!
I mostly shoot my 8 elements lens on film using a SP F and it has pushed my Zuiko 50 1.4 into second place even though my OM2 is lighter and has more features. On film this lens it almost magical. A point on the 7 elements version that I think should be made is that the yellowing has no impact on monochrome. So if thats what you shoot it could be a more affordable way to try out a great lens. thanks for your always great videos!
Thanks for all the work that went into the video. Taks are a safe bet for most situations. Even though I find fringing irritating, the little bit of extra "oomph" the eight element has, is compelling.
Great review (as always). I have the Super Multi Coated version and love it.
I'd like to see a comparison of the eight element 50 1.4 and the seven element 50 1.2. I'm very impressed with the 50 1.2, and it seems it can be had for about the same price as or even less than the eight element 50 1.4. Given the mounts are different but either can be quite easily adapted.
I've owned three different seven-element copies over the years and I've always preferred the 55mm Takumars for their sharpness and rendering. The later bayonet M version is also better in these regards. Maybe one day I'll get to try an eight-element version but at around double the cost, it's hard to justify.
The 55mm Takumars are really nice lenses. I especially prefer their extra length.
Your videos have sent me down the rabbit hole lol. Would love to see a comparison (if possible) of the 8 element version to a Canon FD SMC 50mm 1.4
I pretty much agree with your conclusions. I guess really you're weighing wide open sharpness vs. chromatic aberration. But really they're so similar, that I think it's mostly going to be an element of the feeling of owning the lens rather than having noticeably different results. Even shooting on film, unless you're printing photographically in colour, the colour can be easily corrected.
I think there is sample variations among these takumars, because I have seen comparisons in which the 7 element was sharper than 8 element one.
There is another Pentax fit 50mm in the same class, the Chinon Auto MC 50mm f/1.4, 7 elements in 6 groups. Pentax and Chinon often made similar lenses. Chinon could often out-do Asahi-Pentax.
Nice comparisons, 8 is 👑
Would love to know your thoughts about the Takumar 50's and the M-series! I found myself preferring the M 50/1.4 over the 8-element Takumar once I tried them side by side. Never got around to comparing the M 1.4 vs 1.7 but I know some people prefer the 1.7 over the M 1.4.
I wasn't so impressed with my copy of the M 50mm f1.4, and sold it. It was soft wide open and I wasn't so keen on how it rendered bokeh versus the Takumars. A little too contrasty wide open. But that's just my personal opinion. I do, however, really like the M 50mm f1.7 (and A 50mm f1.7). Both my M and A copies have something special about them. So I'm one of those people who prefer the M f1.7 over the M f1.4!
@@Simonsutak I'm wondering if my 8-element takumar is just a bit banged up then... I got it cheap and full of fungus and cleaned it up. Found the images pretty similar to the M 1.4, just a bit softer wide open.
This was a great review! I really enjoy seeing your videos as they are shared. I definitely do not think the 7-element 50 is deficient vs. the 8-element and would,, were I in need of another film-era 50, go for the 7-element version to save money and have more options to consider.
I have the SMC version. My sharpest lens, for sure. Especially wide open. Its bokeh is one of my least favourite types. Got that nisen type, messy, shaky style of bokeh. But both the sharpness and subject separation massively overwhelm that negative, and it's been one of my most use lenses since picking it up. Enjoyed it so much, I'm looking to get a 105mm at some point, too.
The bokeh "debate" is interesting and so much about personal taste. I can see and understand why you and others don't like it as much as other lenses. Personally, however, I like the bokeh more than my Planar and Ultron lenses, where I find the bokeh blotchy on occasion. I don't like messy bokeh either, which is probably why I like the more organised, swirly bokeh of Biotar/Helios lenses where there's a busy background.
@@Simonsutak I am a big fan of the swirl types. and the Helios is a favourite, for sure. When I'm looking for more controlled bokeh, I love the smoothness of my Pentacons. Their sharpness doesn't touch the Takumars, but a beautiful character of their own.
I'm definitely a fan of having options.
Some people report that the 8element version is radioactive and some copies are not. Id like to see a comparison between both 8-element versions. I once got myself a mint copy of the 8-element takumar from Japan (non radioactive). I resold it later becuase it had too much CA for my taste.
Great review and comparison as always, big fan of your channel. I always thought all versions were radioactive, glad to know there is one that is not (I know the thorium ones are not super dangerous but i prefer cero radioactivity than a little bit 🤣). Will get that one for sure. Thank you !
Question: why is the 8 element non-radioactive lens has the yellow glass? Just curious 🙂
One thing you didn’t test but I have noticed is that the 8 element background blur quality stays slightly smoother as you stop down to f2, f2.8 and even f4.
Beyond 5.6, they are similar.
Is it worth the price difference? For me yes because i got my 8 element with a Spotmatic, 28/3.5 and 85/1.9 for $50 🤣
I had 2 8 element versions and one of them was slightly radioactive
It might be contamination rather than Thorium glass.
I would be interested if cureing the lens with blue light also increases the luminosity of the lens. as I understand the radioactive decay can reduce tranmission by up to two stops.
I came across one reviewer that showed his later 8 element lens (133xxxx) was sharper wide open compared to his early 8 element version (10xxxxx/11xxxxx). The improvement was clearly seen. I’m curious if you have noticed any difference in similar sharpness between your two lenses assuming they are “significantly” different in s/n.
Interesting. My other lens is quite an early one - 998xxx. I’ve not noticed a difference, but I'll re-test it against the one I used in this video and if it’s noticeably different I’ll post a short update.
@@Simonsutak Mine is an 133xxxx and not radioactive. It seems to have a bit more glow when wide open.
I adore my 8 edition. Thanks you Simon I bought mine in China serial number 1156235. I use it daily. Used it for 2 years. Agreed your video 100%
Again Thank you very much
Now curious how dose mine compare to others before 1156235? How to check others photos?
Thank you. I'll do some tests with my earlier copy!
Have you tried sunlight for clearing your lens? Somewhere I read saw a recommendation to use Sunlight if possible. Perhaps due to UV light that is the magic ingredient.
To remove the yellowing, shine light through the rear of the lens!
Is there a wide Biotar lens? I love the swirly bokeh, but have a Fujifilm and the Helios 44 turns in a 90 mm lens 😢
I had the 7 back in the day m42 mount
I like the look from 8 element version better.
Also I wonder how sharpness of 8-element compares with SMC version ...
As with all your output a very thoughtful and photographers review. My only thought though is your comment about not being able to tell a difference at viewing distance - I think thats where it really counts - so in a 10x8 viewed at around 2m can you discern a difference? As you say nit really - I still use reversal and on an image projected by a rollei projector on a Kaiser screen there is certainly no difference - nor is there a difference with the 50mm 1.4K. So yes under pseudo lab conditions on a monitor zooming in but as pieces of reprographics at real viewing scales no. But still a very interesting review. A review that would be interesting would be the 1.4 K v the early Carl zeiss T rollei 1.4 both lenses came out of the attempt to collaborate and most reviews wrongly I think compare the early Rollei mount lens to the latter CY mount. Just a thought
Have you considered getting a K-3iii mono?
I have both. I haven't compared them. I like not knowing which is better. :-)
Was there not a later 8 element version that has thorium glass and are sharper than the earlier version?
This is true, it seems to be a common misconception that all 8 element versions are not radioactive. The introduction of the radioactive glass was part way through the production of the 8 element lenses, the later ones benefiting from the thorium coating.
Spoiler: they’re both awesome
I have the 1.8 versions, is there a better build for them too?
Not really, same quality from the Super-Takumars onwards. They are really nice lenses.
I own and use the 7-element and the 8-element 50mm f/1.4 Takumar.
Both are great lenses. However, I prefer the 8-element because I do not like the yellow tinge of the 7-element glass and the 7-element images.
The 7 element yellow cast is easy to remove. I built a "de-Yellowing" setup as I have a lot of Takumars and some 55mm lenses are also radioactive. I used an old nail varnish hardener UV source and bypassed the timer PCB so the light stays on as long as PSU is on it takes 24 yours to fully remove the cast.
Takumar? Super? Manual focus? 50 years old?
Thanks! I had been there! 50 years ago.
Me too. I was bought a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar new, when is was new!
The position of the IR mark is not conclusive. They put 7-element glass in 8-element tubing in a transition period. The shape of the rear element is decisive!
Does anyone use an 8 element takumar on a film camera? Is it compatible with all spotmatic cameras?
Yes, the 8 element was designed for Spotmatic cameras. The protruding rear element causes problems on earlier Pentax cameras - except early S1 models apparently.
@@Simonsutak thank you for your reply! P.S. great video as always
i wonder if my radioactive version can harm my camera sensor, if i let my lens stay mounted on for a longer period
Which adapter do i use for for my sony a7 im confused 😫
You need a Sony e mount to M42 mount adapter. I use a K&F Concept adapter.
I have both, and I can't see any difference in sharpness between the 2 wide open.
13:47 is not 7-element version sharper than 8-elements, which is opposite to the finding at 10:03 or 10:32
For those who are using M2 adapters, make sure you order the correct length.
TLDR. I would rather the 8 elements Mostly because its not radio active. But also Sharper. Don't need to De-yellow it ever, due to non radioactive glass. + Smoother Bokeh. compared to newer copies
Radioactive glass is a misnomer. Natural uranium or natural thorium were used in the same way the lead glass is used. Natural uranium does have radioactive isotopes, but as a whole is barely radioactive. Natural uranium is mostly U-238, 99.3% abundance. Of more concern is its toxicity, kidney damage if consumed in any quantity. Likewise natural thorium, mostly Th-232 with a half life of over 14 billion year is barely radioactive. First the alpha has to get out of the lens body. Range of alpha is less than 13mm in air and cannot penetrate skin. Is that dose rate in Gray converted to absorbed dose in Sievert by multiplying by 20 Wr? That is only done for ingestion as alpha do not penetrate externally
What we may get is discolouration, yellowing of the glass, which is easily reversed by exposure to UV, sunlight.
Warning with these lenses. Especially the 7 element version and I have seen two locally (Calgary) with separation issues. My copy has separation of glued lens elements and it does addect bokeh balls unless stopped doown to f2. So buyers should absolutely be aware before purchasing.
I just got myself a 7 element version, I am new to photography, how do you spot separated elements?
Interesting. Maybe it's heat that causes that. I have 12 X 50mm f1.4 Takumars. 3 of mine a 8 element I have no issues with mine here in UK (touch wood)
@@mikepxg6406 its gotta be the cold here in Canada. LOL Perhaps the Canadian batch are a bad batch? Don't know but for someone who collects lenses and doesnt come across these often, I find it strange.
Really?do one don't see any different in practical condition,so one go into the absurd in order to find any difference between the Lebanese,and conclude that there is a difference. . talking about cognitive dissonance. .