Nice review. I also have a Takumar 50mm 1.4 SMC. i never shoot it wide open. I always shoot at f2. I have found ( as you touched on) that the sharpness improves greatly and the bokeh for some reason is smoother at f2. I have found that when shooting flowers where there is not bright lights in the background, the bokeh reminds me of a soft watercolor painting. It really is a special lens.
If you use a hood and work at f4 through to f11 you’d actually be doing this lens justice. In resolution terms these lenses are outstanding, when used correctly the resolution, microcontrast, colour depth and plasticity are superb. Wide apertures are useful for critical focussing and you might use wider apertures to isolate the subject from the background. The lens hood removes the aberrations caused by off axis light bouncing around between the elements. I have seen two videos praising the lens this week whilst actively working towards demonstrating how not to get best technical quality from it. This lens gives rendering similar to good medium format images if used correctly. This lens is a very highly resolving professional lens when used properly. When this was designed Pentax had Zeiss Planar in its sights and the two lenses existed in the same sphere. The 55mm Takumars were highly regarded too. Remember, most of the time, wide apertures are actually for getting critical focus, working apertures are from F4 to F11. Special occasions such as shooting interiors reportage style could be done between f2 and F4. In the studio with strobes these lenses are sublime. Misusing them to actively produce flare and ghosting seems to be a rewriting of their importance. The lens formula is technical genius.
@@pixiedixie3682 Also a magnificent lens. I have the original 8 element Super-Takumar 50mmf1.4 and the bokeh even at f4 is sublime. In fact the depth of field at f1.4 or f2 is razor-thin, so I tend to shoot f2.8-f4 for portraits and at f8-f11 for street photography. In fact on a sunny day I have to switch to electronic shutter or add a 3 stop ND in order to shoot at f1.4.
I picked up one recently and scored. 8 blades and I don't mind stopping down. Crazy sharp stopped down, and since I worked in Photoshop from 9 to 5 for years at a custom lab , if I want more background blur, I'll combine the sharper with a more open one. Keeps me sharp. "Where I gotta be". Or, I'll dupe the background and play with Gaussian blur. The lens behaves beautifully, as if brand new. Greetings from San Francisco.
I have the Canon 50/1.8FD, the Mitakon Zhongyi 50/0.95, Zeiss 55/1.8 and will be adding this to my collection. These lenses create art. For me it's all about their unique presentation of an image. It's not about CA, edge sharpness and micro contrast.... and all for under $100. Thanks Dustin!
I love the 50mm f1.4 Takumar lenses. You forgot to mention that one of the reasons it renders light so well is because its highly radioactive. One of my favorite old lenses. Works superbly on my Fujifilm X-T1.
Remember, not all Taks were thoriated. The ones labeled "Super-Multi-Coated" like the one here and the latest model labeled "SMC" did not have radioactive glass.
Dustin, i love your detailed videos. Just a little clarification, the lens you are reviewing is Super-Multi-Coated which is different from the SMC (through SMC appear to stand for Super-Multi-Coated). The SMC version has a round rubber focusing ring but this one has a hexagonal/octagonal ring. The one you are reviewing is a superior version.
Hey Dustin, I just got the Takumar 55 f1.8 recently. My first manual lens. So impressed by the superb sharpness and the overall performance. Please do more review on vintage lens. Not much content out there. Thank you
Check The Angry Photographer videos , he highly recommended itand myself as well this lens is amazing , color, bokeh , contrast really good Also check Pentaxforum.com
My most favorite lens so far is the Pentax K 135mm f/2.5. This lens is the age I am, from around 1978, and it was pin sharp at f/2.5 even on my Samsung NX1 with its 28 megapixels (though lacking a bit contrast, but that's not a big issue). I unfortunately had to sell it due to finances, but it was wonderful in use. Of course completely manual, so the focus ring was very smooth and very well damped, just beautiful in use. I do miss it. But Samyang has their amazing 135mm f/2, which is even a bit brighter, is out there, but it's much more expensive, but one day I hope to get that lens. The 135mm focal length is really great IMO (photographed my dog a lot with it, good focal length for her when she's running around not too close to me). Older lenses can be amazing, and Pentax (Takumar is Pentax) have lots of them).
I have a couple of old Pentax Manual focus lenses which I use often for macro photography with reverse rings and extion tubes. love these old MF lenses more than new lenses.
I got myself last week an early production, 8-element version Super Takumar and one can hardly find a modern lens with aperture and focus rings handling this satisfying. IQ wise I second what others have mentioned: At 1.4 it’s rather soft and low contrast but not too terrible with passable fringing/CA. Stop down to 2-2.8 for a major overall boost and at f/4 it’s comparable to modern lenses. Color rendition is neutral or even bit cold as the 8-element version doesn’t turn yellow, and at wide open bokeh swirls a bit. Not shabby at all for a 60 yr old lens.
Man, prime lenses really pop! I saw video the other day from a guy complaining nobody applies "field theory" in thinking about photography, talked about the differences of the makeup of prime vs zoom lenses and demonstrated his talk about creating "depth" with holographic images, that create depth and dimension on a tight space as, well, that holographic image was printed on, flat, like any other piece of paper. I can't wrap my head around it but something just seems to have stuck and I'm recognizing what he meant, looking at my prime and my zoom photos. I see it in plenty of pictures in the Takamur pictures here too. Not sure this was a worthwhile post, but I had to.
Glad you mentioned at the end the razor sharp imaging stepped down. I had several versions of these and sold them all over the years. But I missed them, especially the sharpness, so I just had to buy another one. And I did so on ebay today and plan to use it on my K-20 with the the authentic Pentax m42 to PK adapter.
Im collecting the SMC Takumars. So far ive got the 20mm, the 28mm, the 50 f1.4 and the 50mm macro. All of them are spectacular. I enjoy very much the 20mm. Amazing WA, built like a tank.
I own and use the following 50mm lenses: f/1.4 Nikkor f/1.8 Nikon f/1.4 Takumar 8-element f/1.4 Takumar 7-element f/1.4 Fuji All are great lenses. The 8-element Tamumar is my personal favorite.
Wow! Lots of good comments here. For me, this is a very fun and interesting review. I have this lens, left over from my Chinon SLR film days and I have adapted it to my Canon 6D. It is a really fun and sharp lens. I get my best results with it using a flash indoors.
Probably not going to happen at this point. I did this project at a slow point in between current projects, and with the growth of my brand I hardly have time for these type projects anymore...particularly ones I've already explored.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm not asking for a new project 🙂. My point is, it's a shame you compared a old 100 usd lens with a brand spanking new 1000 usd lens. To be fair to the lovely old Takumar you could have mentioned a Canon/Sigma/Nikon/Tokina in the same price range.
I used to feel that way, too (I've owned both lenses and currently own an SMC 55mm f/1.8), but my current copy of the SMC Tak 50mm f/1.4 has made me a believer. I like it a lot!
@@DustinAbbottTWI i have the very 1st version of takuma 55 f/2 auto with 10 blades and 46mm filter size. Its small and solid. Its extremely sharp in the center but not so much at the corner at F2. The micro contrast and color rendering is superior even at F/2. its very cheap 30$ all day long. Btw when stop down to F/4, its sharp all over the frame
This is a classic radioactive lens with thoriated glass. Many old lenses until 70's and maybe 80's were using thoriated glass due to its great optical properties. Thoriated glass is a little radioactive. Safe for occasionally but maybe dangerous for professional use. The lenses are close to the eye and brain while shooting and that makes thoriated glass even more dangerous. Thoriated glass after years creates a yellow tint. That is a indication that something is not good with a legacy old lens. However the yellow tint can be fixed with UV light but that isn't easy for everyone. If you have small kids just don't let them play with these kind of lenses.
The amount of radiation coming off these lenses is extremely low, and would require tremendous amounts of exposure to create any real issue. I did use UV lights to clear mine, as it was fairly yellowed.
Dustin Abbott I agree with you. Thank you for the reply. The radiation is truly very low and is even lower when the lens is away from very sensitive areas like the eye and brain. I am very interested to buy some old lenses with a thorium elements from eBay. According to many reviews many of them are exceptional. Why not. I will shoot with live view, holding the camera away from my head. Radioactive thorium oxide was replaced with the safe lanthanum oxide which is not as good optically as thorium oxide.
Nuclear engineer here. The thoriated glass used in that Takumar is emitting alphas, betas, and a little low energy gamma (very last step in its decay chain). The alphas and betas are low penetrating radiation, easily shielded by the camera housing, lens barrel, other glass elements, clothing, etc. In fact, alphas are stopped by the human dead skin layer. Betas...tin foil. The danger with thoriated glass is if it were either pulverized and ingested/inhaled OR kept close to the naked eye's cornea. This is why thoriated glass was (almost) never used in eyepieces (binoculars, microscopes, viewfinders). For any normal photographic use case, it is a non issue. Thorium-232 is the only naturally occurring isotope of Thorium and it has a half life of over 14 billion years...so it is very low level radioactive element. It accounts for about 2cc per cubic meter of the Earth's crust, on average, and is a major source of our planet's natural background radiation. About as plentiful as lead. Its decay heat within the Earth's core powers our planet's magnetic shield and without it, our atmosphere would have been stripped away by solar winds long ago.
@@AgnostosGnostos Actually, Lanthanum does have the 138 isotope, which is also radioactive. But like Thorium-232, it too has a really long half-life and is only .1% by mass relative to the stable La-139 isotope. So yes, technically it is less radioactive...but it is still radioactive...albeit at lower levels.
Wrong. The 8 element Super-Takumar 50mmf1.4 does not use Thoriated glass. This feature was added in the next iteration, the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mmf1.4 (7 elements) produced after 1968. And unless you eat the lens, it isn't dangerous.
Great review, and we share the reasons to love this lens. I have one as well, not in quite good shape as yours, but very unique yellowish pictures. I tend not to fix the yellow tint, it's like good wine to me :-)
Feeling tempted to put a K-1 behind it? After all, what's full frame Pentax glass without a full-frame Pentax camera? ;) Jokes aside, thanks for a great review.
It's a shame so many people shy away from this lens because it's 'radioactive'. It has a beautiful look and among my favorite vintage lenses. There's whole world to be discovered once you let go of the overwhelming concept of optical perfectionism we've boxed ourselves into.
Dustin Abbott It stands for Super Multi Coated, yes, but there are lenses that have the mark written as Super-Multi-Coated (yes, with dashes), and some of them are radioactive. The ones that are marked as SMC (abbreviated) are not. Or at least that's what I read in forums, I never acquired samples and test them myself :)
Basilius Prabawa Brodjonegoro That may be true. Some of the newer ones might be the abbreviated version without the thorium element. Some of those moved to a slightly different build design. My 55mm f/1.8 is just such a lens, though none of the f/1.8 lenses were radioactive.
Dustin, I have a flawless copy of this lens - what do you think about the radioactive issue as far the safety using this lens on a non constant basis. Another site, The Angry Photographer categorized this as an extremely good lens (one of the top ten 50mm of all time and built as well as any Zeiss) but he had a Geiger counter and showed it as "hot" radioactively. I am in the process of trying to quantify the potential health risks (if any) for the measured 1670 nSv per hour radioactive level for this lens - which I found on another site that measured radioactivity in about 20 old 60s and 70s lenses. This Tac scored the the second highest radioactivity levels among a group of classic manual focus lenses behind only a Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm which was like 2300 nSV (nanoseiverts) per hour. I am beginning to think I need to consult a radiologist before using this lens! I am sure that would be the Doctors first such inquiry!
I've read many reports that the amount of radiation emitted from this lens is pretty minimal. You might find this interesting: petapixel.com/2012/10/11/a-look-at-the-radioactivity-of-old-manual-lenses/. The conclusion is that a month of six hour a day usage (pretty heavy!) is roughly the equivalent of a chest xray.
Hi Dustin! I picked up a SMC Takumar 35mm F2 lens for my 6D. I took a few test shots the other day and I like the results but was a little shocked to find out that it's radioactive! Do you or any other Takumar users have any concerns over the radiation issue?
+Mark R This one is radioactive, too, but actual tests of the amount of radiation due to the thorium element show the level to be so low that you would have to use it many hours every day for many months before it could be harmful in the slightest way. I wouldn't be concerned.
The timing of this video is quite extraordinary as I was on a big bend to try to uses these lenses on a Nikon D750, but balked at using a corrective adapter such as the Fotodiox because the glass it introduced would prejudicate the original image quality. I know the glass-less adapters prevent infinity and have a very short maximum focus distance, and gave up on the idea because of this. Have you tested that image quality of a glassless adapter against the one with to see how much the image was changed? Notably sharpness and contrast. If not, could you. If you the difference was nothing or infinitesimal I might reconsider. I have not seen any such comparisons though, hence the question.
How is this lens with a film camera and several color films like kodak gold 200 and kodak color plus? getting away from a digital image is what I do mostly now. I am learning more about vintage lenses that produce the pastels and full tones that digital can't.
Hi there, I arrive here because I'm in the search of a good one since my techart pro is on it way, I meant to use with a7iii, I have several vintages too but not this one. Maybe you can review that techart pro device? It is say that even provide eye af on a7iii,...don't know if it is true but will see that soon :)
Hello! Can you tell me something about your setup? Is the mirror of your camera touching the lens? That's a problem I read a lot about... And which adapter do you use? I wanna buy the lens, but I need to be sure it works fine haha (I'm using a Canon EOS 6D btw)
Great review Dustin! I am looking at this lens on ebay and plan to use it with my 5D MarkIII. I have seen a few comments saying that the lens may hit the camera mirror when focusing infinity. This is kind of stopping me from buying this beautiful vintage lens. Does it happen from your experience? or any way to prevent it? Cheers.
Takumars are some of the nicely build vintage lenses until you add the adaptor! lol! In my Fuji xt3, the adaptor is almost as long as the 50mm f1.4 thus making the lense look very long and front heavy.
Hey Dustin - didn't realise you were a fan of legacy lenses too. Have you played about with either of the swirly bokeh Helios's? I'm getting the 44-2 (58/2) and 40-2 (85/1.4) soon for their character (or faults!). I'm hoping they'd make good lenses for vintage feel shoots, or dream sequences.
I've got the 44-2, and love the effect. I'd love to grab a 40-2, but its hard to justify the expense of that one for as little as I'd use it (I've already got a fantastic 85mm lens). I've kept a little kit of about 7-8 legacy lenses that I enjoy the challenge and look of!
That's great. It's ironic that from a video perspective everyone's talking about lowering contrast by using log profiles, and looking for a 'filmic' look when lenses like these can get us halfway there without any of that modern technology. I'm going to have to find a busy backlit background and experiment a bit with distances for that swirl. Thanks for your reviews, they're very useful.
+trevorpinnocky I am talking about the input chain, Trevor. personally I find that I can use a less restrictive recording profile when the lens has a lower contrast. with a modern clean high contrast lens I need to push the black pedestal or use log more, and I try to avoid log on C100 because it's 8 bit and can't be pushed too far in post. Basically I find it easier to create a filmic look with an older lens.
Hey Dustin, you are aware that is one of the more radioactive lenses around? Uses thorium. I doubt it is harmful unless you decide to glue it to your eye for several days. But have you had any white spots in your photos? It is supposed to affect cmos sensors. Any yellowing in the lens?
Studies have shown that you would have to have significant exposure for long periods of time to actually any real measurable impact. But yes, the thorium element in mine had yellowed, and I cleared it back up using UV light for about a week.
Dustin Abbott I was thinking of investing in one of these. Thanks for your answer. I found a study conducted by the royal academy in Sweden stating they are safe to use unless you use a camera with a thorium eyepiece. UV lights work then. Excellent 🙂
Thank you so much for your reply. I have Nikon 50 1.8d, super takumar 55 1.8, hellios 58 f2, and super takumar 50 1.4. I was read a lot of reviews before bought my takumar 50 1.4, everyone says it is sharp. But last month, I put all these 4 lenses on my old Nikon D700, super takumar 50 1.4 is the softest one. When I use f1.4, the photos lose almost all detail, really soft. when I use f2.8, it much better, but still not sharp as my Nikon 50mm f1.8d at f1.8 or f2.0. Maybe the reason is that I bought a bad one. I will try another one if I have chance. Thanks again for your reply.
Thanks a lot. People always say sony mirrorless is friendly for M42 lenses, but I don't know why. Is that because sensor is close to the lens? or there are more adaptors in market?
Disagree. I have one of these, and I love the overall character it imparts, but wide open it's only a little sharper in the middle than a modern canon 50mm f1.4 with far more blur, CA, and vignette at the edges (not necessarily a bad thing). I think what it excels at is color reproduction though. It renders more saturated results than any of the modern canon 50mm's IMO. Close it down, and it's extremely sharp and contrasty too, a little better than Canon's modern version. Overall I like it though. It's usable most of the time wide open if shot carefully and produces warm dreamy looking portraits.
I wonder Dustin, why does the 6D attract you to use it for Manual focusing rather than the 1D-X' 0.76x viewfinder and Canon made focusing screens for it?
Image quality is fairly close, and it seems somewhat a waste to setup one of the world's finest AF systems for MF glass :) Not to mention that I don't a 1Dx!
I did the same thing to a Konica 57mm F1.2 lens which was made with thorium. It's virtually impossible to get sharp focus at 1.2 but even if focus is just close to being right the photos can look really nice.
My understanding is that the 8-element version is the only one that does not contain thorium. www.verybiglobo.com/50mm-f1-4-legacy-lenses-shootout-wide-open/
Great review, thanks. Dustin, do you think there is any merit to the fact that today's lenses are over corrected for sharpness and chromatic aberration? They accomplish this by introducing too many lens element, hence rendering the images lacking dimensional depth or "pop"? While I agree that the vintage lenses are softer (at mostly wide open), they are not "blurry", and the "perception" of sharpness can easily be compensated by simple high pass filter, selective sharpening technique in Photoshop.
I shoot with a lot of Leica R and Konica AR lenses and they're great but you couldn't get me to give up my modern lenses. Anytime I hear the depth/pop line, like Steve Huff mentions I just roll my eyes. Use the light correctly and you'll get all the pop and depth you can handle from a lens from any era.
'Over-corrected'... lol. You are aware that the most 'over-corrected' lenses are still less sharp than your bare eyes (presuming 20/20 vision)? Speaking of which: How much chromatic aberration do you see with your bare eyes? Chromatic aberration is a side-effect of 'undercorrected' (serious) lenses. As to dimensionality, the biggest contributor to a 3D effect is a really old tech called 'two eyes'.
Thanks mavfan1. I thought so until I used these old lenses. Now I am wondering. I get that the light, composition etc, is the primary factor, but this is like to like comparison. My niece took some photography class that needed film, so I bought a Chinon camera with some lenses on the cheap for her. After she was done with it, I played around with them. One of the lens was a 135mm f2.8 lens. It took a while to be learn to focus ( and still learning, practicing, .... I got a microprism screen for my old Canon 1DII which still takes them). I use the Canon 70-200 f2.8L in comparison. I am also playing around with a Chinon 55 1.4 and Takumar 50 1.4, although I have no direct comparison with my modern lens on those. The images from these lenses DO have nice qualities that is "missing" on the modern lenses. I wish I could focus faster and more accurately on these "old" lenses, I would use them much more. No question, AF is better for focusing, though I really admire the photographers before there was AF.
You do have mirrorless bodies, dont you? I think theyre a lot more comfortable shooting vintage lenses, using focus peaking etc. I personally love the Canon FD primes on my Sony Nex and the "Lens Turbo"! For 200$ i got myself a kit of primes (24 f2.8+50 f1.4+92 f2) which give me very nice looking, special images that arent as "sterile" as my modern zooms,
Stephan Wahlen 6D :) I keep one kitted out for MF and it's actually a really great manual focus body. Awesome sensor and it's a breeze to chance the focus screen. With the matte precision screen I find the focus process very organic.
Dustin Abbott for shure :) If you use your 6D alot for MF you may consider installing magic lantern on it. It will give you focus peakin, although it voids the warranty on it which not everones willing to risk. Youre making great videos, which sure is a lot of work. You deserve a lot more attention!
I bought the same fotodiox adapter from B&H to fit the Takumar 50mm 1.4 to my Canon 6D. The lens still hits the mirror in infinity. I can see the back of the lens protruding pass the adapter in infinity. We have the same exact set up. Why don't you have this problem?
The coatings, for one. There are more aperture blades on this one, and there might be a difference in the optical formula (depending on what version). I got a number of great images with the Super Takumar version, and it is often available for a bit less.
Dustin Abbott Thanks, I have the 8-element version... the back element sticks out on this version so I've been using the tape method to prevent mirror lockup.
What's sharpest 50mm at F1.4 m42 mount/manual focus ?i have smc tak 50 1.4 but it's soft @ wide open,i use apsc 20MP sony a3500,what about nikkor 50/1.4 ais?
Try to get one to test it out, bit soft at f1.2, step down to f1.8, it render very sharp image, personally I think it beat the color and contrast of Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 on sony A7RM2. PS. 50mm SMC f1.2 is K mount not M42.
6d. That matches what I've seen as far as the reviews on RUclips. I guess the quirks of older lenses don't hold up as much with wide angle. The main reason I want vintage for wide is because I don't shoot it that often, so I don't want to spend a ton.
Do people care if the Bokeh looks round? I thought the rounder aperture blades were beneficial because you are more likely to get smooth Bokeh. With these Pentax lenses you can stop down and get smooth results even though you got 6 or 7 or 8 aperture blades...
The quality of the bokeh is not affected by aperture other than the roundness of bokeh circles. It is the glass that creates the bokeh, not the aperture (That's just a physical opening). I prefer round blades because I'm not a fan of seeing the octagonal shape with the aperture closed down on this lens.
In hopes that you understand that this lens is radioactive. Not a joke. You'll be fine however if you do drop this in your house believe it or not your home is done. It will register for radioactive for 100's of years. Not all of the Takumar screw mounts are radioactive several of them are. This is one. Just an "Alpha emitter"? NO. Why Thorium was doped (put) in Optical Glass
A lot of research has shown that the amount of radiation produced by these lenses is actually tiny. You'd have to sleep with it pressed up near your eye for years to incur any serious risk.
is bokeh all you care about? why didn't you show us how the lens performs stopped down? how deep and sharp is the focus? your review fails to demonstrate the lens
Ummm, this video was very specifically about a certain application of the lens, not at all about how it performs stopped down. It isn't a full review but rather showing off images taken with a 7 minute period of time with the lens.
New sub here. Did you hear that guy worked for Disney World? They are going to be looking for other victims for sure. He might have even used the site where he took her body as a dumping site. God I hope not, but, I believe he's probably been doing this kind of thing for a long long time and has been getting away with . Maddy probably threatened to tell, and he ended that...About the mom, something is not right with her...and maybe, just maybe she was working with the cops in order to give them some time to get his phone and th stuff on it. Maybe he was threatening her and is why she was so weird acting....or, worst case she knew.....
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sorry about that, something weird happened last night, I thought I was commenting on a live show I was watching on RUclips! So strange, because I was watching it, and trying to send comment and I didn't see it? sorry, you can delete this message
People have different definitions of "tack sharp" and also what aperture to assign that to. From F2.8 on the SMC Tak is very, very sharp. At F1.4 it isn't in the conversation compared to some modern lenses, though.
It is a nice landscape lens stopped down, but I don't use f/1.4 lenses to stop them way down. I have a lot of lenses, so when I use a wide aperture lens I primarily use it at wide apertures.
All those circles are NOT BOKEH! They are distortions. the actual translation from Japanese is BLUR. I get so sick of people chasing lens aberrations and calling it something it is not.
What's sharpest 50mm at F1.4 m42 mount/manual focus ?i have smc tak 50 1.4 but it's soft @ wide open,i use apsc 20MP sony a3500,what about nikkor 50/1.4 ais?
Nice review. I also have a Takumar 50mm 1.4 SMC. i never shoot it wide open. I always shoot at f2. I have found (
as you touched on) that the sharpness improves greatly and the bokeh for some reason is smoother at f2. I have found that when shooting flowers where there is not bright lights in the background, the bokeh reminds me of a soft watercolor painting. It really is a special lens.
There are several vintage 50/1.4 lenses. Each had its own specific lens drawing. The takumar is for me a lens to paint light with.
If you use a hood and work at f4 through to f11 you’d actually be doing this lens justice. In resolution terms these lenses are outstanding, when used correctly the resolution, microcontrast, colour depth and plasticity are superb. Wide apertures are useful for critical focussing and you might use wider apertures to isolate the subject from the background. The lens hood removes the aberrations caused by off axis light bouncing around between the elements. I have seen two videos praising the lens this week whilst actively working towards demonstrating how not to get best technical quality from it. This lens gives rendering similar to good medium format images if used correctly. This lens is a very highly resolving professional lens when used properly.
When this was designed Pentax had Zeiss Planar in its sights and the two lenses existed in the same sphere. The 55mm Takumars were highly regarded too. Remember, most of the time, wide apertures are actually for getting critical focus, working apertures are from F4 to F11. Special occasions such as shooting interiors reportage style could be done between f2 and F4. In the studio with strobes these lenses are sublime. Misusing them to actively produce flare and ghosting seems to be a rewriting of their importance. The lens formula is technical genius.
Christopher Ward
Yes, someone regarded as expert rated this lens as one of the best lens ever, could be.
What about the 55 1,8? Another gem.
@@pixiedixie3682 Also a magnificent lens. I have the original 8 element Super-Takumar 50mmf1.4 and the bokeh even at f4 is sublime. In fact the depth of field at f1.4 or f2 is razor-thin, so I tend to shoot f2.8-f4 for portraits and at f8-f11 for street photography. In fact on a sunny day I have to switch to electronic shutter or add a 3 stop ND in order to shoot at f1.4.
I picked up one recently and scored. 8 blades and I don't mind stopping down. Crazy sharp stopped down, and since I worked in Photoshop from 9 to 5 for years at a custom lab , if I want more background blur, I'll combine the sharper with a more open one. Keeps me sharp. "Where I gotta be". Or, I'll dupe the background and play with Gaussian blur. The lens behaves beautifully, as if brand new. Greetings from San Francisco.
They are really are sweet vintage glass.
I have the Canon 50/1.8FD, the Mitakon Zhongyi 50/0.95, Zeiss 55/1.8 and will be adding this to my collection. These lenses create art. For me it's all about their unique presentation of an image. It's not about CA, edge sharpness and micro contrast.... and all for under $100. Thanks Dustin!
Fore sure.
you want add this lens (jupiter 9 2/85) in your collection too :)
I love the 50mm f1.4 Takumar lenses. You forgot to mention that one of the reasons it renders light so well is because its highly radioactive. One of my favorite old lenses. Works superbly on my Fujifilm X-T1.
I've dealt with the radioactive issue in a different segment.
Hi! can u share more of ur works with xt1? Especially wid vintage lenses? I would love to check em out... plssss
Remember, not all Taks were thoriated. The ones labeled "Super-Multi-Coated" like the one here and the latest model labeled "SMC" did not have radioactive glass.
The fact it is radioactive is not why it renders light so well
@@MetalSlugzMaster so if i buy super-multy-coated it sure dont have radioactive?
Dustin, i love your detailed videos. Just a little clarification, the lens you are reviewing is Super-Multi-Coated which is different from the SMC (through SMC appear to stand for Super-Multi-Coated). The SMC version has a round rubber focusing ring but this one has a hexagonal/octagonal ring. The one you are reviewing is a superior version.
I think you're right on that point.
Hey Dustin, I just got the Takumar 55 f1.8 recently. My first manual lens. So impressed by the superb sharpness and the overall performance.
Please do more review on vintage lens. Not much content out there. Thank you
There's probably few such reviews as there is little to no financial return for doing such reviews. They have to be labors of love.
Check The Angry Photographer videos , he highly recommended itand myself as well this lens is amazing , color, bokeh , contrast really good
Also check Pentaxforum.com
My most favorite lens so far is the Pentax K 135mm f/2.5. This lens is the age I am, from around 1978, and it was pin sharp at f/2.5 even on my Samsung NX1 with its 28 megapixels (though lacking a bit contrast, but that's not a big issue). I unfortunately had to sell it due to finances, but it was wonderful in use. Of course completely manual, so the focus ring was very smooth and very well damped, just beautiful in use. I do miss it. But Samyang has their amazing 135mm f/2, which is even a bit brighter, is out there, but it's much more expensive, but one day I hope to get that lens. The 135mm focal length is really great IMO (photographed my dog a lot with it, good focal length for her when she's running around not too close to me). Older lenses can be amazing, and Pentax (Takumar is Pentax) have lots of them).
I've used that lens, and it is nice.
I have a couple of old Pentax Manual focus lenses which I use often for macro photography with reverse rings and extion tubes. love these old MF lenses more than new lenses.
I got myself last week an early production, 8-element version Super Takumar and one can hardly find a modern lens with aperture and focus rings handling this satisfying. IQ wise I second what others have mentioned: At 1.4 it’s rather soft and low contrast but not too terrible with passable fringing/CA. Stop down to 2-2.8 for a major overall boost and at f/4 it’s comparable to modern lenses. Color rendition is neutral or even bit cold as the 8-element version doesn’t turn yellow, and at wide open bokeh swirls a bit. Not shabby at all for a 60 yr old lens.
Exactly. Pretty sweet.
Man, prime lenses really pop! I saw video the other day from a guy complaining nobody applies "field theory" in thinking about photography, talked about the differences of the makeup of prime vs zoom lenses and demonstrated his talk about creating "depth" with holographic images, that create depth and dimension on a tight space as, well, that holographic image was printed on, flat, like any other piece of paper. I can't wrap my head around it but something just seems to have stuck and I'm recognizing what he meant, looking at my prime and my zoom photos. I see it in plenty of pictures in the Takamur pictures here too.
Not sure this was a worthwhile post, but I had to.
You are definitely right. We call it "three dimensional" rendering, which some lenses have, while others produces a flatter, less nuanced result.
Glad you mentioned at the end the razor sharp imaging stepped down. I had several versions of these and sold them all over the years. But I missed them, especially the sharpness, so I just had to buy another one. And I did so on ebay today and plan to use it on my K-20 with the the authentic Pentax m42 to PK adapter.
Enjoy. It really is a remarkable lens in many ways.
Dustin, great review as always. I´m looking forward to buy the new 50mm Stm, but the look of this lens made up my mind to buy it! Thanks!
+Andres Hirmas It really delivers beautiful images. I just shared a new image on social media yesterday from it.
Im collecting the SMC Takumars. So far ive got the 20mm, the 28mm, the 50 f1.4 and the 50mm macro. All of them are spectacular. I enjoy very much the 20mm. Amazing WA, built like a tank.
I've not used the 20mm. 24, 28, 35 (both versions), several of the 1.4/50s, 55mm f/1.8, both 135mm variants, 150mm. A lot of great lenses there.
speakmellon get your hands on the 55 1.8 and the 135mm 3.5 they are great
Another great review Dustin. Thanks for sharing dude:)
You bet!
i just scored an antique cam and that lens for $15 and can't wait for my adapter to be delivered so i can go shooting! also, GREAT review!
That's awesome. Great price!
The adapter came and i've been shooting with it almost daily with my d700. amazing colors and bokeh.
okaydude Which lens is it? I'll die in suspense man. You usually name the lens as well remember that lol
I own and use the following 50mm lenses:
f/1.4 Nikkor
f/1.8 Nikon
f/1.4 Takumar 8-element
f/1.4 Takumar 7-element
f/1.4 Fuji
All are great lenses.
The 8-element Tamumar is my personal favorite.
It's a very fun lens that I still enjoy pulling out on occasion.
Was just looking for your review for this! You should do a review for the Helios 44
I've included it in a few other reviews, but I haven't done anything quite like this one.
Wow! Lots of good comments here. For me, this is a very fun and interesting review. I have this lens, left over from my Chinon SLR film days and I have adapted it to my Canon 6D. It is a really fun and sharp lens. I get my best results with it using a flash indoors.
That halo effect around bright areas gets better real fast if you stop down. The Pentax lenses still tend to have amazing Bokeh when stopped down...
I agree. Even by f/2 there's a significant improvement in contrast.
Great review Dustin, I have this lens in addition to the helios 44-2 and other m42 lenses and I love the look of these vintage primes
Definitely. I enjoy using them, too. The shooting process seems more analog!
PhotoTech
There is a video reviewing all 35,s Takumar and 50,s Takumar really interesting
Nice video, Dustin. I like the look this lens creates. Keep up the good work!
It does render quite nicely, doesn't it
Luv the pics, one of my favorite taks
I love that old lens.
so happy u made this review
I take it you are a Takumar fan?
Great stuff!!! Especially comparing a 100 usd to a 1000 usd lens
You've got to compare something ;)
@@DustinAbbottTWISo, compare it with something in the same price range.
Probably not going to happen at this point. I did this project at a slow point in between current projects, and with the growth of my brand I hardly have time for these type projects anymore...particularly ones I've already explored.
@@DustinAbbottTWI I'm not asking for a new project 🙂. My point is, it's a shame you compared a old 100 usd lens with a brand spanking new 1000 usd lens. To be fair to the lovely old Takumar you could have mentioned a Canon/Sigma/Nikon/Tokina in the same price range.
Really loving your reviews keep it a good work !
+RevMeTech Thanks, and I will!
I personally find the 55 f2 and f1.8 to have superior rendering. they are cheaper too. people just see the 1.4 number and the price goes up up up.
I used to feel that way, too (I've owned both lenses and currently own an SMC 55mm f/1.8), but my current copy of the SMC Tak 50mm f/1.4 has made me a believer. I like it a lot!
@@DustinAbbottTWI i have the very 1st version of takuma 55 f/2 auto with 10 blades and 46mm filter size. Its small and solid. Its extremely sharp in the center but not so much at the corner at F2. The micro contrast and color rendering is superior even at F/2. its very cheap 30$ all day long.
Btw when stop down to F/4, its sharp all over the frame
YES!!! Not a Tak cultist! Thanks for that very objective lens review!
+rc-wingman LOL - my pleasure. I do enjoy using it.
This is a classic radioactive lens with thoriated glass.
Many old lenses until 70's and maybe 80's were using thoriated glass due to its great optical properties. Thoriated glass is a little radioactive. Safe for occasionally but maybe dangerous for professional use.
The lenses are close to the eye and brain while shooting and that makes thoriated glass even more dangerous.
Thoriated glass after years creates a yellow tint. That is a indication that something is not good with a legacy old lens. However the yellow tint can be fixed with UV light but that isn't easy for everyone.
If you have small kids just don't let them play with these kind of lenses.
The amount of radiation coming off these lenses is extremely low, and would require tremendous amounts of exposure to create any real issue. I did use UV lights to clear mine, as it was fairly yellowed.
Dustin Abbott I agree with you. Thank you for the reply. The radiation is truly very low and is even lower when the lens is away from very sensitive areas like the eye and brain.
I am very interested to buy some old lenses with a thorium elements from eBay. According to many reviews many of them are exceptional. Why not. I will shoot with live view, holding the camera away from my head.
Radioactive thorium oxide was replaced with the safe lanthanum oxide which is not as good optically as thorium oxide.
Nuclear engineer here. The thoriated glass used in that Takumar is emitting alphas, betas, and a little low energy gamma (very last step in its decay chain). The alphas and betas are low penetrating radiation, easily shielded by the camera housing, lens barrel, other glass elements, clothing, etc. In fact, alphas are stopped by the human dead skin layer. Betas...tin foil. The danger with thoriated glass is if it were either pulverized and ingested/inhaled OR kept close to the naked eye's cornea. This is why thoriated glass was (almost) never used in eyepieces (binoculars, microscopes, viewfinders). For any normal photographic use case, it is a non issue.
Thorium-232 is the only naturally occurring isotope of Thorium and it has a half life of over 14 billion years...so it is very low level radioactive element. It accounts for about 2cc per cubic meter of the Earth's crust, on average, and is a major source of our planet's natural background radiation. About as plentiful as lead. Its decay heat within the Earth's core powers our planet's magnetic shield and without it, our atmosphere would have been stripped away by solar winds long ago.
@@AgnostosGnostos Actually, Lanthanum does have the 138 isotope, which is also radioactive. But like Thorium-232, it too has a really long half-life and is only .1% by mass relative to the stable La-139 isotope. So yes, technically it is less radioactive...but it is still radioactive...albeit at lower levels.
Wrong. The 8 element Super-Takumar 50mmf1.4 does not use Thoriated glass. This feature was added in the next iteration, the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50mmf1.4 (7 elements) produced after 1968. And unless you eat the lens, it isn't dangerous.
Great review, and we share the reasons to love this lens. I have one as well, not in quite good shape as yours, but very unique yellowish pictures. I tend not to fix the yellow tint, it's like good wine to me :-)
If you shoot B&W, a built in yellow "filter" is actually pretty great.
Feeling tempted to put a K-1 behind it? After all, what's full frame Pentax glass without a full-frame Pentax camera? ;)
Jokes aside, thanks for a great review.
The K-1 is a tempting camera, actually.
It's a shame so many people shy away from this lens because it's 'radioactive'. It has a beautiful look and among my favorite vintage lenses. There's whole world to be discovered once you let go of the overwhelming concept of optical perfectionism we've boxed ourselves into.
That's a good point. Sometimes in the pursuit of optical perfection lenses lose their "soul".
The Super Takumar and the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar are radioactive, but AFAIK the SMC Takumar isn't.
Basilius Prabawa Brodjonegoro
SMC is Super Multi Coated, and I've have several of them that were radioactive.
Dustin Abbott It stands for Super Multi Coated, yes, but there are lenses that have the mark written as Super-Multi-Coated (yes, with dashes), and some of them are radioactive. The ones that are marked as SMC (abbreviated) are not. Or at least that's what I read in forums, I never acquired samples and test them myself :)
Basilius Prabawa Brodjonegoro
That may be true. Some of the newer ones might be the abbreviated version without the thorium element. Some of those moved to a slightly different build design. My 55mm f/1.8 is just such a lens, though none of the f/1.8 lenses were radioactive.
Dustin, I have a flawless copy of this lens - what do you think about the radioactive issue as far the safety using this lens on a non constant basis. Another site, The Angry Photographer categorized this as an extremely good lens (one of the top ten 50mm of all time and built as well as any Zeiss) but he had a Geiger counter and showed it as "hot" radioactively. I am in the process of trying to quantify the potential health risks (if any) for the measured 1670 nSv per hour radioactive level for this lens - which I found on another site that measured radioactivity in about 20 old 60s and 70s lenses. This Tac scored the the second highest radioactivity levels among a group of classic manual focus lenses behind only a Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm which was like 2300 nSV (nanoseiverts) per hour. I am beginning to think I need to consult a radiologist before using this lens! I am sure that would be the Doctors first such inquiry!
I've read many reports that the amount of radiation emitted from this lens is pretty minimal. You might find this interesting: petapixel.com/2012/10/11/a-look-at-the-radioactivity-of-old-manual-lenses/. The conclusion is that a month of six hour a day usage (pretty heavy!) is roughly the equivalent of a chest xray.
Hi Dustin! I picked up a SMC Takumar 35mm F2 lens for my 6D. I took a few test shots the other day and I like the results but was a little shocked to find out that it's radioactive! Do you or any other Takumar users have any concerns over the radiation issue?
+Mark R This one is radioactive, too, but actual tests of the amount of radiation due to the thorium element show the level to be so low that you would have to use it many hours every day for many months before it could be harmful in the slightest way. I wouldn't be concerned.
My brother in law is a radiologist and says in no way can you be harmed by this minuscule amount of radiation
Any plans to do more vintage lens reviews like this one in future ?
If my schedule ever slows down, yes!
The timing of this video is quite extraordinary as I was on a big bend to try to uses these lenses on a Nikon D750, but balked at using a corrective adapter such as the Fotodiox because the glass it introduced would prejudicate the original image quality. I know the glass-less adapters prevent infinity and have a very short maximum focus distance, and gave up on the idea because of this. Have you tested that image quality of a glassless adapter against the one with to see how much the image was changed? Notably sharpness and contrast. If not, could you. If you the difference was nothing or infinitesimal I might reconsider. I have not seen any such comparisons though, hence the question.
I haven't tested any vintage glass on Nikon bodies. That's one disadvantage to the Nikon mount. Sorry about that!
I quite understand. My question was how much the adapter affected the image quality due to its corrective glass.
AmericanCarioca
I don't know, as the glass elements are not necessary for Canon mounts.
Three words: green-with-envy. I may dig out my old Canon T4i for this purpose alone. The touch screen should be good for the focus.
How is this lens with a film camera and several color films like kodak gold 200 and kodak color plus? getting away from a digital image is what I do mostly now. I am learning more about vintage lenses that produce the pastels and full tones that digital can't.
I haven't tested it on film. I'm not really a film person.
Perhaps in 2016 but now they go for way over 100 thanks to videos like yours. Natural way of things so I'm not judging, just saying.
This video may have helped make that happen!
Hi there, I arrive here because I'm in the search of a good one since my techart pro is on it way, I meant to use with a7iii, I have several vintages too but not this one. Maybe you can review that techart pro device? It is say that even provide eye af on a7iii,...don't know if it is true but will see that soon :)
Eye AF with a MF lens?
Hello! Can you tell me something about your setup? Is the mirror of your camera touching the lens? That's a problem I read a lot about... And which adapter do you use? I wanna buy the lens, but I need to be sure it works fine haha (I'm using a Canon EOS 6D btw)
How many ‘modern’ lens’ are incredibly sharp at f1.4?
A surprising number, actually.
Great review Dustin! I am looking at this lens on ebay and plan to use it with my 5D MarkIII. I have seen a few comments saying that the lens may hit the camera mirror when focusing infinity. This is kind of stopping me from buying this beautiful vintage lens. Does it happen from your experience? or any way to prevent it? Cheers.
If you will order this adapter (bhpho.to/1D34Lzy) it will help with that.
I have this lens....use it on my FUJI...sharp,wonderful color.
Yeah, I still have a lot of affection for this lens.
Takumars are some of the nicely build vintage lenses until you add the adaptor! lol!
In my Fuji xt3, the adaptor is almost as long as the 50mm f1.4 thus making the lense look very long and front heavy.
That's definitely a problem
on my GFX50R body adapted set looks small
Hey Dustin - didn't realise you were a fan of legacy lenses too. Have you played about with either of the swirly bokeh Helios's? I'm getting the 44-2 (58/2) and 40-2 (85/1.4) soon for their character (or faults!). I'm hoping they'd make good lenses for vintage feel shoots, or dream sequences.
I've got the 44-2, and love the effect. I'd love to grab a 40-2, but its hard to justify the expense of that one for as little as I'd use it (I've already got a fantastic 85mm lens). I've kept a little kit of about 7-8 legacy lenses that I enjoy the challenge and look of!
That's great. It's ironic that from a video perspective everyone's talking about lowering contrast by using log profiles, and looking for a 'filmic' look when lenses like these can get us halfway there without any of that modern technology. I'm going to have to find a busy backlit background and experiment a bit with distances for that swirl. Thanks for your reviews, they're very useful.
That's not quite the point of a log profile. yes, videographers often lower contrast in post but the two ideas are quite separate things.
+trevorpinnocky I am talking about the input chain, Trevor. personally I find that I can use a less restrictive recording profile when the lens has a lower contrast. with a modern clean high contrast lens I need to push the black pedestal or use log more, and I try to avoid log on C100 because it's 8 bit and can't be pushed too far in post. Basically I find it easier to create a filmic look with an older lens.
Hey Dustin, you are aware that is one of the more radioactive lenses around? Uses thorium. I doubt it is harmful unless you decide to glue it to your eye for several days. But have you had any white spots in your photos? It is supposed to affect cmos sensors. Any yellowing in the lens?
Studies have shown that you would have to have significant exposure for long periods of time to actually any real measurable impact. But yes, the thorium element in mine had yellowed, and I cleared it back up using UV light for about a week.
Dustin Abbott I was thinking of investing in one of these. Thanks for your answer. I found a study conducted by the royal academy in Sweden stating they are safe to use unless you use a camera with a thorium eyepiece. UV lights work then. Excellent 🙂
if you dont find this lens very sharp, then go to an eye doctor. its sharper than 1000 $ lenses
why mine is soft at f1.4 to 2.8? I mean really soft...
Thank you so much for your reply. I have Nikon 50 1.8d, super takumar 55 1.8, hellios 58 f2, and super takumar 50 1.4. I was read a lot of reviews before bought my takumar 50 1.4, everyone says it is sharp. But last month, I put all these 4 lenses on my old Nikon D700, super takumar 50 1.4 is the softest one. When I use f1.4, the photos lose almost all detail, really soft. when I use f2.8, it much better, but still not sharp as my Nikon 50mm f1.8d at f1.8 or f2.0. Maybe the reason is that I bought a bad one. I will try another one if I have chance. Thanks again for your reply.
Thanks a lot. People always say sony mirrorless is friendly for M42 lenses, but I don't know why. Is that because sensor is close to the lens? or there are more adaptors in market?
ok, I will try it. Thank you
Disagree. I have one of these, and I love the overall character it imparts, but wide open it's only a little sharper in the middle than a modern canon 50mm f1.4 with far more blur, CA, and vignette at the edges (not necessarily a bad thing). I think what it excels at is color reproduction though. It renders more saturated results than any of the modern canon 50mm's IMO. Close it down, and it's extremely sharp and contrasty too, a little better than Canon's modern version.
Overall I like it though. It's usable most of the time wide open if shot carefully and produces warm dreamy looking portraits.
nice carpet in the background :-)
Why thank you :)
great lens !
It really is.
My favourite lens 😃
It is a sweetheart!
Dustin Abbott I've spent silly amounts on lenses over time but this has been used 10 times more often than any if them. Keep on shootin!
I wonder Dustin, why does the 6D attract you to use it for Manual focusing rather than the 1D-X' 0.76x viewfinder and Canon made focusing screens for it?
Image quality is fairly close, and it seems somewhat a waste to setup one of the world's finest AF systems for MF glass :) Not to mention that I don't a 1Dx!
the 1D-X is just a little bit more expensive too LOL
Dustin Abbott Well you can get the 1D-X around $3k nowadays. But yeah I get ya. Plus the 6D image quality wise is very good.
What is the real difference between the SMC with rubber focus VS the other one?
There are a few different optical formulas with varying strengths, aperture blade counts, and other things.
Great video. Are you using the 8 element or 7 element variant of the lens?
8, I believer (whatever version has the thorium element that yellows). I UV'd my copy to clear it up.
I did the same thing to a Konica 57mm F1.2 lens which was made with thorium. It's virtually impossible to get sharp focus at 1.2 but even if focus is just close to being right the photos can look really nice.
My understanding is that the 8-element version is the only one that does not contain thorium. www.verybiglobo.com/50mm-f1-4-legacy-lenses-shootout-wide-open/
Great review, thanks. Dustin, do you think there is any merit to the fact that today's lenses are over corrected for sharpness and chromatic aberration? They accomplish this by introducing too many lens element, hence rendering the images lacking dimensional depth or "pop"? While I agree that the vintage lenses are softer (at mostly wide open), they are not "blurry", and the "perception" of sharpness can easily be compensated by simple high pass filter, selective sharpening technique in Photoshop.
I shoot with a lot of Leica R and Konica AR lenses and they're great but you couldn't get me to give up my modern lenses. Anytime I hear the depth/pop line, like Steve Huff mentions I just roll my eyes. Use the light correctly and you'll get all the pop and depth you can handle from a lens from any era.
'Over-corrected'... lol. You are aware that the most 'over-corrected' lenses are still less sharp than your bare eyes (presuming 20/20 vision)? Speaking of which: How much chromatic aberration do you see with your bare eyes? Chromatic aberration is a side-effect of 'undercorrected' (serious) lenses. As to dimensionality, the biggest contributor to a 3D effect is a really old tech called 'two eyes'.
Thanks mavfan1. I thought so until I used these old lenses. Now I am wondering. I get that the light, composition etc, is the primary factor, but this is like to like comparison. My niece took some photography class that needed film, so I bought a Chinon camera with some lenses on the cheap for her. After she was done with it, I played around with them. One of the lens was a 135mm f2.8 lens. It took a while to be learn to focus ( and still learning, practicing, .... I got a microprism screen for my old Canon 1DII which still takes them). I use the Canon 70-200 f2.8L in comparison. I am also playing around with a Chinon 55 1.4 and Takumar 50 1.4, although I have no direct comparison with my modern lens on those. The images from these lenses DO have nice qualities that is "missing" on the modern lenses. I wish I could focus faster and more accurately on these "old" lenses, I would use them much more. No question, AF is better for focusing, though I really admire the photographers before there was AF.
You do have mirrorless bodies, dont you? I think theyre a lot more comfortable shooting vintage lenses, using focus peaking etc.
I personally love the Canon FD primes on my Sony Nex and the "Lens Turbo"! For 200$ i got myself a kit of primes (24 f2.8+50 f1.4+92 f2) which give me very nice looking, special images that arent as "sterile" as my modern zooms,
I do, but I like the look of a 50mm f/1.4 more on full frame. My mirrorless bodies are APS-C.
Oh i get that. I thought you said 60d (which you equipped with that focus screen) in the video^^
Stephan Wahlen
6D :) I keep one kitted out for MF and it's actually a really great manual focus body. Awesome sensor and it's a breeze to chance the focus screen. With the matte precision screen I find the focus process very organic.
Dustin Abbott for shure :)
If you use your 6D alot for MF you may consider installing magic lantern on it. It will give you focus peakin, although it voids the warranty on it which not everones willing to risk.
Youre making great videos, which sure is a lot of work. You deserve a lot more attention!
If you reflashed the original Canon ROM, I don't see how anyone would know, unless you bricked your camera of course.
I bought the same fotodiox adapter from B&H to fit the Takumar 50mm 1.4 to my Canon 6D. The lens still hits the mirror in infinity. I can see the back of the lens protruding pass the adapter in infinity. We have the same exact set up. Why don't you have this problem?
I can't tell you the answer to that. I don't have the mirror hang problem on either of my 6Ds or a 5DsR.
There are a lot of different versions of the same lens.
Some of them do hit the mirror of a canon digital camera.
Pentax binoculars are also top tier
That’s interesting. I haven’t used them before.
what is the difference between this and the Super Takumar version?
The coatings, for one. There are more aperture blades on this one, and there might be a difference in the optical formula (depending on what version). I got a number of great images with the Super Takumar version, and it is often available for a bit less.
So the Fotodiox Pro eliminates the need for having to add the double-sided tape to prevent mirror hang using this lens?
In my copy, yes. I understand that some people have varying results, as there are a number of different versions of the lens.
Dustin Abbott Thanks, I have the 8-element version... the back element sticks out on this version so I've been using the tape method to prevent mirror lockup.
Mine is the 8 element, too, and it worked for me. YMMV
What's the tape method? I've just been shooting with live view...
I've got a video on how to avoid mirror hang. You can find by searching on my channel.
Just yesterday I took a rokkor 35 1.8, I was among that one and a takumar 35 f2,...now I think I shoulded take the takumar ? :(...
+Alex Bueno Not really familiar with the Rokkor. The Tak 35/2 is good but not as exceptional as this lens.
Dustin Abbott Thanks, that actually a good info, since this 50 is really cheap and there are plenty of them on ebay.. :)
Hi Dustin, I own this lens is the radiation emitting from this lens dangerous? I get conflicting information online about the subject.
You would have to sleep with it for years before any damage might happen. For normal use there is nothing to be concerned about
What's sharpest 50mm at F1.4 m42 mount/manual focus ?i have smc tak 50 1.4 but it's soft @ wide open,i use apsc 20MP sony a3500,what about nikkor 50/1.4 ais?
David Prastika
Nikkor 50 1,8 pancake, sharp , excellent micro contrast , amazing especially in B&W
what lens sharper in centre at f1.4 takumar 50/1.4 vs canon ef 50/1.4usm?
That's a good question. I would assume the Canon, but I don't have a copy to compare with.
The f1.2 version of this len (not f2) is even better, in fact much better than the f1.4 in contrast and color.
I've never seen one. Interesting!
Try to get one to test it out, bit soft at f1.2, step down to f1.8, it render very sharp image, personally I think it beat the color and contrast of Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8 on sony A7RM2.
PS. 50mm SMC f1.2 is K mount not M42.
i am not one for manual focus
is it soft around the corners?
At wide apertures, yes, but by around f/2.8 it starts to get quite sharp across the frame.
No mention of the chromatic aberration?
+thatchinaboi I've never found the chromatic aberration overly pronounced.
xD?
mine has a lot of chromatic aberration, i've a copy of the rubber one takumar
how do you know how many elements are in your lense?
I believe it is the 8 element version
@@DustinAbbottTWI no,it is late version smc with 7elements radioactive.
8element was first version non radioactive.
where can i buy it
?
I've bought my copies off Ebay: bit.ly/Tak50mm | You can sometimes find them in pawn shops or yard sales, too.
Can someone recommend a good vintage wide angle lens?
I've had a harder time with wide angle vintage glass. What body are you shooting?
6d. That matches what I've seen as far as the reviews on RUclips. I guess the quirks of older lenses don't hold up as much with wide angle. The main reason I want vintage for wide is because I don't shoot it that often, so I don't want to spend a ton.
Colin Wood
One lens that is pretty decent is the Tokina 17mm f/3.5. You can even get it in an EF mount (used).
Yeah, that looks pretty solid, especially for the price. Thanks, Dustin. I'm loving your channel. Thanks for making all these great videos.
Do people care if the Bokeh looks round? I thought the rounder aperture blades were beneficial because you are more likely to get smooth Bokeh. With these Pentax lenses you can stop down and get smooth results even though you got 6 or 7 or 8 aperture blades...
The quality of the bokeh is not affected by aperture other than the roundness of bokeh circles. It is the glass that creates the bokeh, not the aperture (That's just a physical opening). I prefer round blades because I'm not a fan of seeing the octagonal shape with the aperture closed down on this lens.
Which adapter i should use with Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 1:1,7 50mm and Sigma MINI WIDE 1:2,8 28 mm for Canon 70D?
In hopes that you understand that this lens is radioactive. Not a joke. You'll be fine however if you do drop this in your house believe it or not your home is done. It will register for radioactive for 100's of years. Not all of the Takumar screw mounts are radioactive several of them are. This is one. Just an "Alpha emitter"? NO. Why Thorium was doped (put) in Optical Glass
A lot of research has shown that the amount of radiation produced by these lenses is actually tiny. You'd have to sleep with it pressed up near your eye for years to incur any serious risk.
pretty DECENT review ;)
+Jimmy Waterfall I'm very flattered :)
Dustin Abbott Just a joke Dustin, you repeat "decent" so many times...hehe. I already own this lens and it's a great deal.
+Jimmy Waterfall I got it ;)
is bokeh all you care about? why didn't you show us how the lens performs stopped down? how deep and sharp is the focus? your review fails to demonstrate the lens
Ummm, this video was very specifically about a certain application of the lens, not at all about how it performs stopped down. It isn't a full review but rather showing off images taken with a 7 minute period of time with the lens.
appears to be a thorium lens .......
I think that is the case.
New sub here. Did you hear that guy worked for Disney World? They are going to be looking for other victims for sure. He might have even used the site where he took her body as a dumping site. God I hope not, but, I believe he's probably been doing this kind of thing for a long long time and has been getting away with . Maddy probably threatened to tell, and he ended that...About the mom, something is not right with her...and maybe, just maybe she was working with the cops in order to give them some time to get his phone and th stuff on it. Maybe he was threatening her and is why she was so weird acting....or, worst case she knew.....
???? Are you sure you are commenting on the correct video.
@@DustinAbbottTWI Sorry about that, something weird happened last night, I thought I was commenting on a live show I was watching on RUclips! So strange, because I was watching it, and trying to send comment and I didn't see it? sorry, you can delete this message
I think it's radioactive.
Many of them are. I had to use UV to clear the yellowing from mine.
Man, they are tack sharp, maybe your copy isnt. Still better than the Canon EF 50/1.4 (turd lens) thats at least 25 years younger
People have different definitions of "tack sharp" and also what aperture to assign that to. From F2.8 on the SMC Tak is very, very sharp. At F1.4 it isn't in the conversation compared to some modern lenses, though.
stop it down!!!
It is a nice landscape lens stopped down, but I don't use f/1.4 lenses to stop them way down. I have a lot of lenses, so when I use a wide aperture lens I primarily use it at wide apertures.
a 50 is not a wide lens... Its a "normal" lens
iloper
I think you are mistaking my use of the term "wide"; I used that in relation to aperture, not focal length.
7 minute 9:01
You missed the point, I'm afraid. The 7 minutes does not refer to the length of the video, but rather the shots taken with a seven minute period.
All those circles are NOT BOKEH! They are distortions. the actual translation from Japanese is BLUR. I get so sick of people chasing lens aberrations and calling it something it is not.
What's sharpest 50mm at F1.4 m42 mount/manual focus ?i have smc tak 50 1.4 but it's soft @ wide open,i use apsc 20MP sony a3500,what about nikkor 50/1.4 ais?
I haven’t used that lens. Once stopped down to f/2 the SMC Tak is actually quite sharp
Dustin Abbott mine also quite sharp on F2 😃,but soft wide open,i think all of SMC copy like mine at 1.4