Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,764   Posts: 1,516,278   Online: 1142
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    Pumalite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Here & Now
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,078
    I have plenty of Takumars: Super-Multi-cated are the best; in 50mm f1.4: 55mm f-2
    " A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    816
    Unless you have a bad example, the M 50mm f1.7 has plenty of sharpness as in my test below only limited by the sensor's resolution.

    Link to full size -> Pentax 50mm lenses


    I always thought my example M 50mm f4 macro was sharp so I tested the lot using ultra high res Kodak Techpan shot at ISO 25 and developed in Technidol and happy to see that the lenses were not the bottleneck in holding back the resolution.

    Link to full size -> Pentax SMC Macro 50mm f4 series

    I've been meaning to add my Takumars and others too. I think I have three different versions of Takumars that are 50mm f1.4.

  3. #13
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    I think it is another case of badly performed comparison. When you compare lenses, the very first thing you do is to use a tripod and a static subject matter. In this case the model might have moved a bit out of focus, and the camera might not have been on a tripod.

    Besides, I would clean somehow the noise in the pictures posted, because noise, as strange as it may seem, contributes to the impression of sharpness. Finally, what is posted should be 100% crop (pixel by pixel) taken with a decent film scanner (not a flatbed scanner).

    I agree that all the 40mm or 50mm of the last decades (at least before autofocus era) are more or less built according to the same "recipe" and tend to be exceptional performers. The "slower" lenses tend to perform better than the "faster" ones.

    Maybe some producer tended to optimise optical performance of 90mm or 100mm at short range, 2 - 3 metres, as those lenses were typically bought as "portrait lenses" and used with people, pets etc. at relatively short distance. So even if not "macro" type of lenses, it might be that at short distance they were better corrected than the normal focal length.

    50mm lenses are typically optimized to give best performance at infinite distance as far as I know.

    To the OP: If you want to have a definitive answer regarding your lens I suggest you repeat the test with tripod, static subject with full of details. For "static" I mean no trees and no grass they are not static. Something like a newspaper on the wall would be. If the 50mm performs actually badly, then I would keep if for dangerous missions (such as seaside photography or hiking) and buy another 50mm somewhere, they are too inexpensive to bother aligning them.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    513
    I sent the lens in and it turns out the main barrel was out of alignment. Eric Hendrickson is fixing it up and CLAing an MX.
    Pentax MZ-S, Calumet 4x5 Monorail

    Favorite Films: Foma 100, Acros 100, Delta 400, Portra 400.

  5. #15
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    944
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by brofkand View Post
    I sent the lens in and it turns out the main barrel was out of alignment. Eric Hendrickson is fixing it up and CLAing an MX.
    Glad to hear that you were able to find the problem. He just returned my M 200mm f4 that needed a bit of adjustment to clear a tight spot in the focus. Even lenses need a little love sometimes.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    513
    It was bought used and I just trusted it was good before a shoot---I'll never do that again. Good thing the shots weren't a total loss, and even if the shots were good the close-ups with the 100mm 2.8 were better I think.
    Pentax MZ-S, Calumet 4x5 Monorail

    Favorite Films: Foma 100, Acros 100, Delta 400, Portra 400.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,295
    This is an important point to keep in mind when acquiring any used gear. I use old lenses on my 8x10 camera, and by old I mean pre WW I old. To get the lenses I now use, there was a selection process - for instance 3 9 1/2" Goerz Dagors were needed to find one good one in a good shutter. Then another good one in a barrel mount came along.... so now I have to get a 5x7 Graflex or Speed Graphic to use it with.

    Any used lens, or other used equipment, should be suspect until it has been proven to be a good example.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    513
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    This is an important point to keep in mind when acquiring any used gear. I use old lenses on my 8x10 camera, and by old I mean pre WW I old. To get the lenses I now use, there was a selection process - for instance 3 9 1/2" Goerz Dagors were needed to find one good one in a good shutter. Then another good one in a barrel mount came along.... so now I have to get a 5x7 Graflex or Speed Graphic to use it with.

    Any used lens, or other used equipment, should be suspect until it has been proven to be a good example.
    I always just assumed, as I think most people would, that gear purchased used from someone reputable (a longtime member of the PentaxForums site is who sold me the 50 1.7) wouldn't sell a broken lens. I'm assuming the best and believing it got jostled unduly in shipping or he didn't use the lens much and didn't notice the blurriness.

    The good news is I will have a newly refurbished example in a few days or so. I'll still run a roll of film through the camera to test it and the lens obviously, but I have confidence in Eric Hendrickson's work. He worked on my LX a few months ago and did a fantastic job.
    Pentax MZ-S, Calumet 4x5 Monorail

    Favorite Films: Foma 100, Acros 100, Delta 400, Portra 400.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,295
    Quote Originally Posted by brofkand View Post
    I always just assumed, as I think most people would, that gear purchased used from someone reputable (a longtime member of the PentaxForums site is who sold me the 50 1.7) wouldn't sell a broken lens. I'm assuming the best and believing it got jostled unduly in shipping or he didn't use the lens much and didn't notice the blurriness.

    The good news is I will have a newly refurbished example in a few days or so. I'll still run a roll of film through the camera to test it and the lens obviously, but I have confidence in Eric Hendrickson's work. He worked on my LX a few months ago and did a fantastic job.
    Well, you just learned that assumptions are unsafe. Even when buying new, you don't know something works until you yourself verify that it works. When buying used, this goes double - if not quadruple. Even though the merchant is honest and reputable, you cannot expect that every item for sale used has been thoroughly tested as it would be at the factory. Usually, it's been eyeballed for obvious flaws or damage and then put up for sale. My experience with the three lenses I mentioned was in dealing with reputable and honest sellers; one lens was returned as unacceptable, one was traded to a friend who didn't care about the unrepairable shutter (which is precisely how it was represented to me), and one was kept and is still used. Oddly enough, I bought this last one as a junk lens at the end of a camera show.
    So the best practice is "trust but verify". And never ever use a piece of equipment, be it new or used, on a job until you yourself know it does what it's intended to do.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 08-14-2012 at 09:41 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #20
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,037
    Images
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by brofkand View Post
    I always just assumed, as I think most people would, that gear purchased used from someone reputable (a longtime member of the PentaxForums site is who sold me the 50 1.7) wouldn't sell a broken lens.
    Without testing the image output, its near impossible to identify a problem like that. Most sellers will inspect the item and make sure there is nothing visibly wrong.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin