What a lens ! People need to remember that when Pentax started Super Multi Coating their Takumar lenses, glass achieved, I believe, near perfection. No Matter what improvement made to glass from then on, made little difference - and can only make little difference from now on. Zooms will continue to get more compact with wider ranges, sensors will get mega-mega pixels, cameras will compute more and more but glass will not get much nearer to fresh air than it already is. Hence the cult of Pentax vintage lenses. The PK mount still used today.
although I also love my tak 50 1.4, I disagree. Truly premium glass from today (although I have to admit, there has been a lot of movement in the 4 years since you wrote that comment) outperforms old premium glass. I have a sigma 135 1.8 A here, which has very nice bokeh, and is MUCH sharper than the tak. Most Modern Lenses have a real problem with too clinical bokeh, though. I am thinking about buying the sony 50 1.2, and have a hard time not screaming at the monitor everytime a reviewer calls that boring bokeh "beautiful". There is a reason that there is a market for leica sumicron. So, I definitely think that there is a place for old glass. But to deny that glass has not moved in the last 40 years is plainly wrong.
@@FlorisGerber Most modern lenses have a real problem with too-clinical *everything*. Biting, edge to edge sharpness and high contrast seem their only concern. They all do it reasonably well and reasonably the same. It's boring AF.
@Jon Ashton The Pentax users aren't really much of a cult... more of a lesser denomination. The real weirdos, finally coming into the light in recent years, are the Topcor and Hexanon nuts. That's a cult. They initiated me. So, I'd like to talk to you about an *exciting* *opportunity*....
@@eyewandersfoto well, today I have to disagree in the opposite direction. I was looking today at fast standard zooms, and boy, they could stand to be better. I was looking at Sigma 24-70 % 28-70; Tamron 28-75 and finally the samyang 24-70. I found them all somewhat lacking, the Sigmas were clearly better than the rest. The sigma 24-70 even has a nice bubbly bokeh, the way I like it. But the Samyang (which i had some high hopes for, as it has somewhat of a rep as an "interesting" lens with onclinical rendering had a) Bokeh only a mother could love, and b) problems with cromatic abberations and fringing that made me thik of an adapted M42 zoom; while the Tamron just wasn't sharp. Mayhaps I got some Lemons to test, but I was quite disappointed. And tothe Samyangs bokeh is surely neither reasonable or boring.
@@FlorisGerber I'll be honest, I haven't even picked up a Sigma, Tamron, Samyang etc etc 3rd party piece of glass in ... I really have no idea. They get tons of recommendations and legions buy them and shoot them with success but I've never liked them for the reasons IME like you mention there. (Add to that they depreciate like a new car at twice the rate.) I was really speaking to the branded native glass from Nikon/Canon/Sony etc.. I know some of those (the "ART" glass, the Samyangs and more), or many, are budget because they're often manual focus and use decades old lense formulas to achieve the "art" look, but still be fast and new ... but they're not. Add to that they use cheaper modern materials and simply don't have the QC and workmanship of older glass... Yeah - I'm not surprised you have that opinion of them. :)
Pretty for sure! I have the Pentax-M SMC Asahi (not the Takumar) f/1.4. One of the first vintage lenses I'd gotten and trully awesome. I feel like they're way too overlooked!
+HeddleTown I believe your lens would have been manufactured before the -A (auto-aperture) models came into existence, at a time before Pentax began indicating on the lens barrel the models which did and did not have the "A" setting (-A and -M, respectively).
I paid £650 for mine on eBey 2 years ago and it worth every penny. I got it mint like new. The price don't bother me, expensive but I will keep the lens for a long time and never let go of it
What a lens ! People need to remember that when Pentax started Super Multi Coating their Takumar lenses, glass achieved, I believe, near perfection. No Matter what improvement made to glass from then on, made little difference - and can only make little difference from now on. Zooms will continue to get more compact with wider ranges, sensors will get mega-mega pixels, cameras will compute more and more but glass will not get much nearer to fresh air than it already is.
Hence the cult of Pentax vintage lenses. The PK mount still used today.
although I also love my tak 50 1.4, I disagree. Truly premium glass from today (although I have to admit, there has been a lot of movement in the 4 years since you wrote that comment) outperforms old premium glass.
I have a sigma 135 1.8 A here, which has very nice bokeh, and is MUCH sharper than the tak.
Most Modern Lenses have a real problem with too clinical bokeh, though. I am thinking about buying the sony 50 1.2, and have a hard time not screaming at the monitor everytime a reviewer calls that boring bokeh "beautiful".
There is a reason that there is a market for leica sumicron.
So, I definitely think that there is a place for old glass. But to deny that glass has not moved in the last 40 years is plainly wrong.
@@FlorisGerber Most modern lenses have a real problem with too-clinical *everything*.
Biting, edge to edge sharpness and high contrast seem their only concern. They all do it reasonably well and reasonably the same.
It's boring AF.
@Jon Ashton The Pentax users aren't really much of a cult... more of a lesser denomination. The real weirdos, finally coming into the light in recent years, are the Topcor and Hexanon nuts. That's a cult. They initiated me.
So, I'd like to talk to you about an *exciting* *opportunity*....
@@eyewandersfoto well, today I have to disagree in the opposite direction. I was looking today at fast standard zooms, and boy, they could stand to be better.
I was looking at Sigma 24-70 % 28-70; Tamron 28-75 and finally the samyang 24-70.
I found them all somewhat lacking, the Sigmas were clearly better than the rest.
The sigma 24-70 even has a nice bubbly bokeh, the way I like it.
But the Samyang (which i had some high hopes for, as it has somewhat of a rep as an "interesting" lens with onclinical rendering had a) Bokeh only a mother could love, and b) problems with cromatic abberations and fringing that made me thik of an adapted M42 zoom;
while the Tamron just wasn't sharp.
Mayhaps I got some Lemons to test, but I was quite disappointed.
And tothe Samyangs bokeh is surely neither reasonable or boring.
@@FlorisGerber I'll be honest, I haven't even picked up a Sigma, Tamron, Samyang etc etc 3rd party piece of glass in ... I really have no idea. They get tons of recommendations and legions buy them and shoot them with success but I've never liked them for the reasons IME like you mention there. (Add to that they depreciate like a new car at twice the rate.) I was really speaking to the branded native glass from Nikon/Canon/Sony etc.. I know some of those (the "ART" glass, the Samyangs and more), or many, are budget because they're often manual focus and use decades old lense formulas to achieve the "art" look, but still be fast and new ... but they're not. Add to that they use cheaper modern materials and simply don't have the QC and workmanship of older glass... Yeah - I'm not surprised you have that opinion of them. :)
Great video, tnx for sharing! What fluid head have you used for this? The movements seems to be ultra smooth, any post stabilizing?
Pretty for sure!
I have the Pentax-M SMC Asahi (not the Takumar) f/1.4. One of the first vintage lenses I'd gotten and trully awesome. I feel like they're way too overlooked!
That is one serious lens. Pentax-M SMC Asahi f/1.4.I love the quality from them
exactly what i am looking at, am considering investing in a canon fd or the pentax a
I have this lens in my new collection but there is no 'A' it just says SMC Pentax 1:1.2/50 and the writing is not white its black on the inner ring!?
+HeddleTown I believe your lens would have been manufactured before the -A (auto-aperture) models came into existence, at a time before Pentax began indicating on the lens barrel the models which did and did not have the "A" setting (-A and -M, respectively).
+Kevin Giovanelli Thank you for the info, the quality is really amazing with this lens! :)
A great lens none the less. My definitive all round favourite :)
Does not matter it is still a fantastic lens
That's a pricey lens too
What camera is this shot with?
Beautiful characteristics to that lens!
I love the Bokeh from my SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 and this lens seems to follow the trend. Great video! i subscribed :)
great video love the side by side comparisons. The pentax is so much better all the way around. I thankfully own this lens.
What adapter do did you use? I have a sony a6000 camera.
Great results... Thanks for sharing!
In your opinion, how much do you think this lens is worth now? like price wise
JustJackie I haven’t checked its price lately, so best to check eBay prices, that’s what I would do
Thank You!
I got a mint copy on ebay for $390 plus shipping 2 months ago
I paid £650 for mine on eBey 2 years ago and it worth every penny. I got it mint like new. The price don't bother me, expensive but I will keep the lens for a long time and never let go of it
I bought mine used for ca 400 USD. If you dont need the A-setting you can find it around 250 USD.
Is this lense radioactive?!
I purchased one 1 year ago and it is not radioactive.
I have purchased this lens it's awesome
Got one of these today for 50$
That's a steal !!!
Congrats :)
for 50 maybe you can get a 50 1.7 wow
@@adrianobecherucci35359 Second hand stores are the best. I got 3 Contax Carl Zeiss lenses mint condition for $75 with a combined worth of about $1500
I wish I could afford one of these
I guess it's no longer as affordable as when I used to have it
@@alanbesedin here in Australia, the few that are for sale are $600.00AUD and up
very nice
отличный канал у вас! спасибо за видео.
dat bokeh