Takumar and pentax macro lenses

[belgiumreporter]

Just curious about the diffrence between the old macro takumar 50mm 1:4 and a more recent pentax-M macro 100mm 1:4 i've decided to a quick side to side test of both lenses.

The takumar macro is often hailed as one of the sharpest lenses ever made, while the pentax 100 macro is no slough either. I've found in real life situations sharpness wise there isn't any noticable diffrence, the 50 maybe is a bit more contrasty.The main diffrence lies in the magnification ratio and the angle of view.The takumar 50 here is the 1x version ( both a 1x and 0,5x versions exists) this is very handy as there's no need for additional spacer rings to get to the 1x magnification. The 100mm will "only" do 0,5x magnification.The 50's got a pre-selector diafragm while the 100's automatic. But to sum it all up in a simple conclusion: both these lenses are good performers wich these days can be had for little money. Because of the short focussing distance the 50 can in most cases only be used for non moving (live) subjects, the 100 will give you some more space between the camera and subject. The narrower field of view of the 100 is better for isolating the subject from the (disturbing) background.

I do realise there's more to sharpness in a lens, light fall off, distortion, colour fringing... but with these lenses i wouldn't worry to much just go out and enjoy them, they are good enough for everyday use.

Both these lenses will work without problems on modern pentax DSLR's or with a simple adaptor on just about anything with removable lenses.

Btw, compared to the latest AF macro lenses in studio set ups, these oldies are a little less sharp, but then again in real life shooting you will find it hard to see any diffrence and it's more a lack of build in image stabilisation and AF that some may find frustrating. So maybe when you're not a "hard core" macro shooter with lots of money to spend, but still want something better than your kit gear for macro or close ups, these "old" macro lenses might be something to consider.

I've got these lenses as part of my pentax collection, for my macro shooting i use nikkor 60/105 and 200mm macro lenses. Still it's nice to sometimes take out the oldies and use them just like a classic car enthousiast will take his classic on the road for a ride.

Here's a few shots i made with the 50 at 1x and the 100 at 0.5x magnification both f11 on the pentax Kx. 

 

[paulhofseth]

Some might quibble about the differece between ordinary coatings and SMC, I find the 1:1 helix of the ordinary 50mm first version worth the marginal difference. The deep-seated front element serves as an excellent "gegenlichtblende".

p.

[belgiumreporter]

When looking for slide scanning solutions i made this set up with the "old" 1:1 50 macro takumar, a F to M42 mount converter ring, Yashica slide copying attachement and the D800.

This set up worked wonderfull, though only straight 1to1 copies are posible (no zooming). Still results are great and it's a very fast to work with solution for slide or negative "digitising"

The yashica attachment has a sliding tubus for easy adjusting of focus, allmost any diffuse lightsource is suitable and because everything is mounted on camera there's no risk of camera shake with any lenght of exposure.

this is what the set up looks like


the yashica copying attachment (saved from the scrapyard )


an example 1977 vintage slide "scanned" with this set up 

[paulhofseth]

My slide copying setup uses a rodenstock enlarger lens and an Olympus bellows. One point I forgot to raise about macros old v/s new is that autofocus for macro without a tripod is useless, since both you and the motive will be moving so snapping when in focus is the best triposless method. also, the ancient Leitz and Zeiss creations can keep up with more recent lenses. Still, in practice, even the lesser pedigree Asahi Takumars do reasonably well.

p.