NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: richardHaw on April 24, 2021, 15:16:51
-
surprisingly, the Nikkor appears to perform better...in my initial tests :o :o :o
-
surprisingly, the Nikkor appears to perform better...in my initial tests :o :o :o
Not really surprising. The 8 element Tak is highly overrated. Actually the 7 element performs better at some apertures.
-
the humble Nikkor is better in some cases but the takumar is lovely.
of course, the Biotar and 50/2.8 tessar are both amazing, nothing could render as well as these :o :o :o
-
The Pentax lenses of that era have the very nice feeling of finely crafted machinery. There is a "photo-legend" that Pentax lost money on every lens they sold, in a bid to gain a good reputation in the marketplace.
-
that was what i though too until i overhauled a takumar, its not as rugged as a nikkor and allowed some mechanical slop. its better built than an fd lens but its unfortunately not on the same level as a zeiss or a nikkor. ::)
ive heard of that urban legend :o :o :o dont know if that is true...
-
Empiricism beats web hearsay any time as indicated by Haws post above. To judge Asahis accounts one would need more detailed info than usaually found in company annual reports.
p.
-
i will post the repair article within the month...material used inside is inferior :o :o :o
optics are nice, there is something that makes it look great to be honest but nothing that makes me raise my brows ::)
the biotar, tessar did make me raise both brows...theres something about the german (Zeiss) glass that the japanese were never able to achieve. not even Leicas gave the same impact
-
Empiricism beats web hearsay any time as indicated by Haws post above. To judge Asahis accounts one would need more detailed info than usaually found in company annual reports.
p.
Ha! Yes...there is always the possibility that the urban legend is true, but because they weren't particularly good businessmen!
-
Ha! Yes...there is always the possibility that the urban legend is true, but because they weren't particularly good businessmen!
i wonder when that urban legend started ::)
was it during the lens' run or maybe many years later?
probably started by someone writing a magazine article :o :o :o
-
Perhaps the photo-legend refer to the 55mm 1.8 Super Takumar? I have one of these (M42 product code 37101) and the results are excellent.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-F1.8.html (https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-F1.8.html)
-
Perhaps the photo-legend refer to the 55mm 1.8 Super Takumar? I have one of these (M42 product code 37101) and the results are excellent.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-F1.8.html (https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Auto-Takumar-55mm-F1.8.html)
that one is a good performer, too. and very cheap in the used market :o :o :o
the 50/1.4 takumar has somewhat reached more reasonable pricing compared to how it was before. i have to give it credit, thats one of the lenses that began the vintage lens craze some time in the late 90s around 97 if i am not mistaken. ::)
-
Takumar's have brass helicoids vs aluminum for Nikkors?
I was assuming brass like Leica-M because of the very smooth focus feel....and probably brass is regarded higher quality material than aluminum?
-
i can only speak for this one. it has a mixture of brass and aluminum helicoids, typical of many lenses from this era. ::)
while adequate it is not as precise as a nikkor it the sense that you will have to seat the keys properly in order for the helicoids to be smooth with no play :o :o :o this is something that i almost never experience with nikkors even from the ais era.
i did a couple of more tests with the takumar. the nikkor is sharper, cleaner when shot wide-open but the takumar renders smoother. technically the nikkor is superior but the takumar appears to be better in the intangibles of what makes a picture look nice.
the takumar flares horribly and the added element ends up adding more blobs when shot in contra light
-
Ok.....thank you!
Brass and aluminum is also said to "like" each other so make sense to make one part of helicoid brass and the other aluminum. What I have been told is that it is almost self-lubricating and alu against alu makes more friction if not lubricated.
It seems we can still be happy with our old Nikkors......even with pure alu helicoids. Maybe some very old ones have brass included.......
-
pure aluminum ones will bind, aluminum is notorious for it you can even friction-weld it :o :o :o
maybe the nikkor is too common so nobody cared. the takumar renders more pleasing photos if you ask me but not as clean as the nikkor
-
Indeed some of the old MF Nikkors are susceptible to Galling due to the aluminum design, however it's an extremely unlikely situation that only occur if the lens is damaged ie. bent out of shape by a big impact. In all normal conditions the lubrication will prevent Galling of the threads even if the lubricant stiffens up over the decades.
However, newer re-assemble a lens without lubrication, to test fit or the like, you will do irreversibly damage to the threads immediately :o :o :o
-
Both lenses in this comparison are known for having radioactive thorium in some lens elements, which over time become browner and browner...
See this article, where some Nikkors are also having numerical radioactivity levels: https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses (https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses)
Nikkor-S 50/1.4 has a level of 178 μSv/h, and BTW the Noct-Nikkor has a greater radioactivity level (211 μSv/h front, 183 back)
Not a big deal, you get more radiation by having a CAT scan or an international plane flight, but can you confirm the brownish color?
Ciao from Massimo
-
the 8-elements takumar isnt thoriated to my knowledge, i am not sure about the nikkor but i doubt ::)
i am in the process of bleaching my 35/1.4, it's going to take more than 72 hours on this one :o :o :o