The C/Y lens was not that much sharper than the Takumar. I know that
from personal experience. I worked with a photographer who had one,
while I had a SMC Pentax M f1.4. I got to print enlargements from both,
and I didn't see a noticeable difference under similar lighting that
is. Additionally the Takumar isn't noticeably different from the Pentax
in practice. I have found lens reputations to be highly suspect. The
less common the lens the more likely the reputation is to be
exaggerated., (kind of like beers actually). Very few fast lenses are
very sharp wide open. It certainly wouldn't justify the difference in cost.
Adam Maas wrote:
Why don't you expect it to be sharp wide open? The C/Y mount version
was known for it's sharpness, even wide open.
-Adam
P. J. Alling wrote:
Lets assume that we're discussing the SMC Takumar 50 f1.4. It's very
available, very reliable, easly repairable, and not particularly
expensive,. I would guess that for the cost of one of the new Zeiss
f1.4 50mm M42 lenses you could probably buy 5 or 6 of them. The only
reason anyone would want the Zeiss, given the alternative, would be
if it were exceptionaly sharp wide open, something I don't expect to
be true.
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Juan Buhler wrote:
Exactly. Who cares how long ago it was made, if it is cheaper and most
probably better?
How available is it, though? Who can service it and with what parts?
Kostas
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
