Comparing 7 "Normal" Lenses

[doubs43]

Here are comparison shots of 7 normal M42 lenses mounted on a pentax *ist-DS digital camera. Rather than showing any clear advantage to any particular lens, I believe it illustrates just how good the various normal lenses are across the board.

The images were cropped from the full frame. The left is from the center of the image and the right side is the extreme edge. They are unmanipulated in any way and are as the camera recorded them. Unfortunately, they are reduced in size by Flickr to a fraction of their real size.

BTW, the Meyer-Gorlitz Oreston did VERY well!! It's about the cheapest M42 normal lens you can buy.

The lenses, all with a maximum aperture of f/1.8, in order, are:
55mm SMC Takumar
55mm Super-Takumar
50mm Pancolar (1985)
50mm Pancolar (1982)
50mm Meyer-Gorlitz Oreston
50mm Pentacon (Single coating)
50mm Multi-Coated Pentacon

7 lenses at f/1.8


7 lenses at f/4


7 Lenses at f/8


Walker

[John Parry]

Hey Walker,

I like these comparisons. The Pentacon came out best in my 'Closest focus test' , and that probably was a Meyer-Gorlitz too. But - a lot of people don't want to listen!

Regards - John

[doubs43]

John, anyone who would like to see the comparisons at their full size needs only send me their email address. (High speed down load is advised as the files are fairly large.) Sadly, the reduction in size by Flickr makes it rather difficult to see subtle differences in sharpness, color etc. For instance, the 50mm Pancolar from 1985 has the dreaded "yellow disease" and the images show the yellow tint clearly. The 1982 example of the Pancolar is much clearer because I've given it the "sun treatment". It was pretty yellow when I received it.

I agree that the Oreston is a surprisingly good lens which is very much underrated and thus undervalued.

Walker

[nikonbob]

Walker

With this sampling you have shown how few major differences there really are between well made/designed lenses of a specific FL. I think all would produce very acceptable 8X12 inch prints for all but the most demanding of perfectionists. I think this just illustrates the hours wasted by quite a few people who agonize over selecting the very best lens in a certain FL. Out of all the lens examples you have illustrated I think I would pick the Super Tak if pressed. OTH agonizing can be fun.

Bob

[Just Plain Curt]

Interesting work Walker. I think I agree they all seem to perform very nicely.

[doubs43]

Thanks to everyone who has commented. If anyone has a high speed connection and would like me to email them the full-size images, please let me know. I'd send them in three seaparate emails as each file is about 2mb. The full-size composites require that you scroll across to see the whole thing. I ran down the left side (center of the actual image) first to compare the centers and then moved to the extreme right to compare the edges.

I find it interesting to see the difference in images sizes between lenses of supposedly the same focal length. Each picture was taken from exactly the same spot as the camera was mounted on a heavy, solid tripod and the lenses changed without disturbing anything. I cut each comparison shot out as close to the same as possible and the right side is the actual edge of the image. There would seem to be slight focal length variations between the various lenses.

Bob, the Super-Tak did quite well but I'd have a problem choosing from the seven although I could reduce them to three choices probably without too much trouble.

Walker