Like I reported in the previous post Battle of the 50s, the two Pentax Takumar currently I own, both 50mm f/1.4, behave in a striking different way regarding the depth of field at any given aperture.
The 8-elements in particular exhibit a much more extended sharp field, compared to its sibling.
This gives to it probably even a slight margin in the sharpness department, if not for anything because the focusing it is less critical.
Both of the pictures above were taken focusing with the aid of the 10x zoom in Live View on the tree in the center, that was nigh at infinity, on a Canon 5D Mark II. The roof in the foreground, instead, was at about 10 meters.
The details are from the dead center of the frame, and both from shots made at the same stop: f/4.
I guess that the optical differences – sharpness aside – between this two lenses are more deep that the elimination of just one element…
As a side note you can also appreciate the wildly different tint each lens has.
And yes:
- white balance was set on “Daylight” for both pictures
- they have been taken just a few seconds apart from each other, without changes in the ambient light
- my sample of the 7-elements 50mm f/1.4 Takumar hasn’t yellowed
Unlike the different depth of field, though, this would be easily modifiable in postproduction to make the two results look more alike.
How do you know which version you have? What information/criteria are you using to determine an 8 element from a 7 element? If you have relied on information to support a difference, where are those facts and the facts used to support the information you obtained?
Your test has a fatal flaw.
You failed to establish any factual criteria for determining how to identify an 8 element from a 7 element version. Without solving this before performing your comparison, there is ample room to believe all you did was compare different samples of the same lens as much as your unsupported claim that they are allegedly different lenses.
Hearsay is not fact and your foundation for this comparison is built on hearsay, which ruins a great effort performed by you. Wouldn’t it make sense to factually determine and then designate 2 test subjects BEFORE publishing results?
Hello Kaz, sorry for the delay but your comment ended up into the spam folder and I’ve just seen it…
So, my criteria were (short version):
THE 8 ELEMENTS
– that my 8 elements has a nice “H” (8th letter of the alphabet) engraved in its lens mount
– it reads “Super-Takumar”
– the IR index mark is on the right side of the left “4”
– the rear element protrudes (i.e. it is convex)
THE 7 ELEMENTS
– it reads “Super-Multi-Coated”
– the serial number
This is not hearsay, sorry; these are the standard criteria to actually distinguish one (of these) lens from another. It would be nice if the manufacturers had tagged each lens neatly with model and specs, but unfortunately it isn’t so.
The post wasn’t intended for determining the criteria to distinguish a 7 from an 8 elements; to do so properly would have required quite a bit of space. I had to check quite a few sites to be sure of the differences.
If I remember correctly a discussion on this topic on forum.mflenses.com (I can’t find it anymore) went about for 4 or 5 pages…this because the 8 elements version was produced almost with artisanal methods, so some of them have all of those signs, while others have just some of it or different ones.
And by the way, to see a basis for my “unsupported claim that they are allegedly different lenses” just look at the pictures! 🙂
Hi,
I came here quite by accident, but I think that this single post is one of THE most interesting Resources about the mystical Takumar. I came here by trying to find out whether my lens is a 8 element or a 7 element copy, I still am not entirely sure.
But I think that the findings you present here would merit going a bit more in-depth:
I think a portrait series comparision, and a flower series comparision between both lenses would be incredibly useful.
I for one would perhaps try to get a 8 element copy additional to my suspected 7 element, if I would find out that the 8 element copy makes focusing much easier. My copy of the lens I really good, but pulling good focus is darned difficult.
Hi Floris,
first of all: thanks! 🙂
You’re right, it would be necessary to shoot a much comprehensive comparison.
I actually had one planned, but then I ended up trading the full-frame Canon 5D mk II for a (much better image quality wise, IMHO) Sony Nex 7 that is only Aps-c. So now I’m waiting for Sony to release their much rumored 50 megapixels full-frame Nex-style camera (should come up in January). Why I’m waiting for it? Because 50 megapixels will give me the ability to get square crops (I love the square format, and not because of Instagram but because of Hasselblad and Rollei) of 36 megapixels without resampling!
Then the comparison will make sense, especially because a lot of the difference it is in the way both lenses draw the details at the borders.
Btw, assuming your copy is an 8 element (and the most sure clue is the convex rear lens; the optical scheme doesn’t lie) you could pick up a 7 element fairly cheaply if you want just to try it out; plenty of them around on eBay, just be patient to snatch a bargain.