Moose wrote:
> Ali Shah wrote:
>> I have a Super Tak 50mm F1.4 M42 coming in soon. I
>> wondered how this compares to a Zuiko 50mm F1.4. How
>> will these compare on the E-500? They both require
>> adapters...screw mounts are a bit strange because they
>> unscrew. However, Takumar's are generally good lenses.
>>
> Back to generalities that assure any comments will be meaningless. By
> that I mean:
>
> 1. There are several versions of the Zuiko 50/1.4, ranging from ok
> through excellent.
> 2. There are several versions of the Takumar 50/1.4. From my limited
> exposure to information about them, they also vary in quality.
> 3. All of these lenses are now pretty old and a significant number of
> them may not perform as they did when new.
>
> You will, I assume, be testing them on an E-500, so much of the field
> will not be seen in your images and the lenses with the best center
> resolution will win, regardless of overall performance for the purpose
> for which they were designed. This is not a frivolous concern. In full
> frame tests of the Zeiss and Zuiko 18 mm lenses, the Zeiss clearly wins
> in the center and the Zuiko clearly wins at the edges, with the middle
> ground pretty much a tie. so for a small sensor camera like the E-500, I
> would prefer the Zeiss, but for FF, I might prefer the Zuiko. As Gary
> noted in his test of the Zuiko 18.3.5, "...lens design emphasizes outer
> zones at expense of center image zone (which gives a sharper overall
> impression of an image)"
>
> With that off my chest...
>
> The Takumar 50/1.4 Super-Multi-Coated, with the words spelled out in
> full, is reputed to be one of the finest normal lenses ever made for
> SLRs. The next, version, with the abbreviation "SMC", is more
> controversial.
It's said that this version is optically identical to the S-M-C version, and
it's supposed to be the same design.
See van Oosten, pages 194 & 195.
I've not run across the controversy...
Both have the same element grouping, both have an 8-bladed aperture. I don't
know how they might differ otherwise.
I have an exemplary copy of each, and am apparently not sufficiently
discerning to be able to tell.
In fact, except for the Super Multi-Coating on the above two, both are
supposed to be genetically identical to their predecessor, the great
Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4.
If anyone can tell me what to look for, I'd be happy to test them!
> with some saying it started the decline. It's more
> generally agreed that cost considerations led to a decline in quality
> after that. I don't know about anything before the Super-Multi-Coated
> version.
>
> The Zuiko has almost the reverse history. Legend, and a Gary Reese test
> not on his site of an AG(?) very early, slightly radioactive 50/1.4, say
> that these earliest 50/1.4s were very sharp in the center, but not so
> good in the corners. The next bunch, through some unknown place in the
> SC era, were competent, but run of the mill lenses. I'm pretty sure I've
> heard it said that later SCs were better, but I don't have a source at
> hand. With the MC designation, the lenses improved a great deal, and
> after ~ serial 1,085,000, they are very fine lenses indeed.
Sadly, I only have the earlier 50mm G.Zuiko f/1.4 version, s/n 643,xxx.
Still, a pretty nice lens.
My, my! It too, has 7 elements in 6 groups, with an 8-bladed aperture!
Must be a popular design? ;-)
Only single-coated, but still most excellent performance from f/4.0 and up...
> So depending on the age, model and condition of the lenses you may test,
> you can determine which is better, but that may not mean much for some
> other pair.
>
> I'd just be satisfied that the better vintages of both are excellent.
>
> Moose
Thanks for the dialog, Moose!
keith
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|