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. 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.
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
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|