From the archives: test of a 55mm f/1.8 Super-Takumar lens with Technical Pan film

[Kodachromeguy]

Hi Everyone, a couple of weeks ago I wrote about how pleased I was with a 35mm Super-Takumar lens I had recently bought on the Bay. Several people responded that they thought the 55mm f/1.8 Takumar was one of the better 50-55 lenses. That jogged my feeble memory and I looked in my boxes of negatives. In 1984, I tried some Kodak Technical Pan film with my wife's Spotmatic in Sugar Land, Texas. I exposed at ISO 25, used a big tripod to hold the camera, and stopped down 2 or 3 f-stops from maximum opening. I developed the Technical Pan in the specific Technidol developer (please ignore scratches and dirt). I scanned the negatives in my Plustek 7600i scanner at 7200 dpi (which, I have read, really is about 4800 dpi). Regardless, it is a big TIFF file. The first picture below is a farm taken with the 55mm Super-Takumar, resized to 1600 pixels wide. Then two sections from the full size frame show detail. This isn't a scientific test by any means, but it shows how much detail was captured in the film with that wonderful 55mm f/1.8 lens. Finally, the last picture is a historic 1927 Southern Pacific depot neat the former Imperial Sugar plant, taken with a 28mm SMC Takumar. The depot has been moved and now serves as home for the Chamber of Commerce. After that, I only used Technical Pan once again, in Greece - another project to scan.

 

[ransel]

I have some test's I made with the film from about that same time period, though with Nikon lenses - I was testing the film it's self, not the lens. I was looking for a 35mm film that would give grain-less, or near grain-less enlargements. I'll see if I can dig mine out and share.

 

[Hatchetman]

Wow, I'd say those are pretty darn impressive!

 

[Ian Grant]

Back in the mid 1970s I tested my 55mm f1.8 SMC Takumar with EFKE Kb14 (later called Kb29 the ASA name) an exceptionally sharp lens, I preferred the film in many ways (not all -the emulsion was so soft) to Technical Pan though I found the results were sharper.

I doubt that scans from 35mm Tech Pan or Kb14 really do much justice once you start looking at the fine detail.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

Many people rave about the 50mm f1.4 M42 Takumar, but I prefer the 55MM f1.8. Yes, I have both and still like the results from the 55mm f1.8 better. Oh, and it works just fine on those digi cameras also.

 

[flavio81]

Many people rave about the 50mm f1.4 M42 Takumar, but I prefer the 55MM f1.8. Yes, I have both and still like the results from the 55mm f1.8 better. Oh, and it works just fine on those digi cameras also.

That's why I bought both!
The fact that Pentax made the 55/1.8 even in K mount says a lot about the quality!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Any opinions on the 55/2 Super Takumar compared to the f/1.8?

The 55/2 was what I bought in 1971 and I've been happy with it.

 

[tokam]

Wow. love the tonal gradation of Tech Pan in Technidol. I tried Tech Pan in the early '80s when I was living in NZ and was stumped for which developer to use, (no advice on internet - had to go with advice from photo mags of which I bought a lot). Ended up using Patterson Acutol but in bright Kiwi sunlight I found the contrast was way too high and switched to Patterson Aculux which was a bit more manageable at the printing stage.

What is undeniable though is the fine grain of this film and with various Canon FD lenses I got some very detailed pics but not with your gorgeous range of tones. This was about the time that Tmax 100 came onto our market and I switched to this for my fine grained film.

I also have an old Takumar 50mm lens. It's an Auto Takumar 50mm f2.2?, (not sure about max aperture), attached to a restored Pentax S2. Belonged to my late father-in-law. Will have to load a roll of TMX or Pan F and put it through it paces.

 

[Ian Grant]

Any opinions on the 55/2 Super Takumar compared to the f/1.8?

The 55/2 was what I bought in 1971 and I've been happy with it.

I currently have 55mm f2 Super and 55mm f1.8 SMC Takumars and there's no discernible differences, I've had a few others in the past and even with colour slide film the results were the same.

Ian

 

[haziz]

Many people rave about the 50mm f1.4 M42 Takumar, but I prefer the 55MM f1.8. Yes, I have both and still like the results from the 55mm f1.8 better. Oh, and it works just fine on those digi cameras also.

Great lens for a great camera.

 

[flavio81]

Any opinions on the 55/2 Super Takumar compared to the f/1.8?

The 55/2 was what I bought in 1971 and I've been happy with it.

This is something like a "mystery" lens to me. Because the lens diagrams show it to be identical to the 55/1.8; perhaps it was a 55/1.8 internally restricted to f2.0 (by a mechanical stop that narrows the mechanical aperture).

The question would by why would a manufacturer do that...

The Canon FD 50/2.0 (rare lens) was reportedly the same formula as the 50/1.8.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... the lens diagrams show it to be identical to the 55/1.8; perhaps it was a 55/1.8 internally restricted to f2.0 (by a mechanical stop that narrows the mechanical aperture).

The question would by why would a manufacturer do that...

The SP500 with 55/2 was marketed in 1971 as the budget alternative to the Spotmatic. It didn't have the self-timer and didn't have a marked 1/1000 speed (although you can set the dial to where that setting would be and trip the shutter).

I've never liked deliberately crippled devices that are intended to meet marketing feature/price points.

I first learned of this when a UCLA professor showed me his desktop Compucorp Statistician calculator and told me they made other versions which were functionally identical, but just left certain keys off the keyboard.

 

[BMbikerider]

The Takumar lenses for the Pentax SV, SP and all the others from that era were truly way ahead of their time. Of course they were well before zoom lenses took the limelight and even now you would be hard pressed to get them to equal a prime lens. At one time I worked with 4 lenses with a Pentax SV 28, 35, 50, and 135 and I never had any doubts as to their capabilities. As I think I have mentioned before, Pentax had an advert which read 'Just Hold A Pentax'. So simple, but very true, they were superb.

 

[BMbikerider]

I've never liked deliberately crippled devices that are intended to meet marketing feature/price points./QUOTE]

I don't think it was deliberately crippled, more like a cost cutting design. The speed was there but from comments made by Asahi in UK magazines at the time, the speed was not calibrated during manufacture and you may get 1/1000 or you may get 1/250th. I cannot remember the prices, that was too long ago, but I do recall there was not much difference between them regarding cost.

 

[Fixcinater]

...
I also have an old Takumar 50mm lens. It's an Auto Takumar 50mm f2.2?, (not sure about max aperture), attached to a restored Pentax S2. Belonged to my late father-in-law. Will have to load a roll of TMX or Pan F and put it through it paces.

I had an Auto Tak 55/2.2. Tiny little thing, very lightweight. It does some funny things in the corners (coma?) with point light sources but is a very good lens overall. The Auto series of Takumars make up for their lack of "auto" functions by way of charming old design touches and size.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Any opinions on the 55/2 Super Takumar compared to the f/1.8?

The early 55/2 Super Takumar was in effect a 55/1.8 with a ring inside to restrict the aperture to f2.0. It still had a position on the aperture ring for the missing 1.8.
Later versions no longer had the missing 1.8 position on the ring, but if I remember well it still had an internal ring to restrict its max aperture.

 

[Les Sarile]

I also have an old Takumar 50mm lens. It's an Auto Takumar 50mm f2.2?, (not sure about max aperture), attached to a restored Pentax S2. Belonged to my late father-in-law. Will have to load a roll of TMX or Pan F and put it through it paces.

Are you sure it's a 50mm as I only see 55mm for f2.2? If it came on the S2 then it is probably the Auto-Takumar 55mm f2.2 that was also available the same year the S2 was introduced.

I have the Takumar 55mm f2.2 preset that was available with the original Asahi Pentax and it is a tiny lens with 10 blades.

Very sharp and renders very nice out of focus elements.

 

[tokam]

Hi Les, Yes. It is the Auto Takumar 55mm f2.2. I have some Fomapan 200 in it at the moment as I haven't yet shot the S2 with this lens, ( I have only used it with a Super Multi Coated Takumar 28mm f3.5 with lovely results.

The camera belonged to my late father-in-law and about 8 years ago it had a very extensive overhaul including new shutter curtains and they also manufactured a 'sync bar' for it. Now working like a Swiss watch. Could be the best one still in captivity?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

This is something like a "mystery" lens to me. Because the lens diagrams show it to be identical to the 55/1.8; perhaps it was a 55/1.8 internally restricted to f2.0 (by a mechanical stop that narrows the mechanical aperture).

The question would by why would a manufacturer do that...

The Canon FD 50/2.0 (rare lens) was reportedly the same formula as the 50/1.8.

It's not unusual to do. I have a Schneider 50 mm F/4 enlarger lens that prevents the aperture ring from moving past f/4. The lens is actually f/2.8 if you do the measurements. The idea is to prevent edge aberrations present at full aperture.

 

[Les Sarile]

I doubt that scans from 35mm Tech Pan or Kb14 really do much justice once you start looking at the fine detail.

Ian

That is so true. I was so impressed with the results I was getting from my SMC Pentax 50mm f4 macro lens but didn't really know just how good it is until I tested it using Kodak Techpan shot @ ISO25 processed in Technidol. The left side bottom shows the center section scanned and shown. Above it are the 100% crops of scans using Pentax K20D (14.5MP), above it a 4000dpi scan from my Coolscan and above it a scan with a Nikon D800 (36MP). Notice that even though the D800 has more pixels than a Coolscan, the results are practically equal. To the right, I optically magnified the same section and you can see just how much more actual detail was not resolved.

Full res version-> http://www.fototime.com/8372250EA44CB06/orig.jpg

Of course I am still not sure if this lens could have performed better had it been factory new. But I do know that it will not be the reason for loss of detail.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Any opinions on the 55/2 Super Takumar compared to the f/1.8?

The 55/2 was what I bought in 1971 and I've been happy with it.

They're the same lens, the f:2 has an internal restriction.
The 55 f:2 and 55 f2.2 Auto Takumars are also the same lens, the f2.2 version has a restricting ring on the front element.

 

[darinwc]

Pentax made a variety of 50mm (and 55 and 58) lenses in the early years. This was a period of great innovation and competition.