80's M Lenses vs Takumar

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My M lenses are older (1980's), so I'm sure they are not a match for the modern M lenses.

I still say it is one sided comparing lenses only at the widest aperture. There are plenty of things like aberration and swirly, busy bokeh that makes vintage lenses not suitable for some people. These Takumar lenses are hard to criticise at one or two stops above 'wide open' and a fraction of the cost of a modern M.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[tri_fom]

2 hours ago, Chris W said:

My M lenses are older (1980's), so I'm sure they are not a match for the modern M lenses.

I still say it is one sided comparing lenses only at the widest aperture. There are plenty of things like aberration and swirly, busy bokeh that makes vintage lenses not suitable for some people. These Takumar lenses are hard to criticise at one or two stops above 'wide open' and a fraction of the cost of a modern M.

This is very true. 

I have tried many different lenses of all ages. You can perform a test that shows lens A to be as good as lens B but there might be other areas where lens A is worse than lens B for you. 

I have found that, very generally speaking, Leica lenses tend to be strong in all several key areas that appeal to me; image quality, weight and size. I am also interested in where it was made. 

You can definitely find good glass outside of Leica - cheap and expensive. 

 

[jankap]

What is better and what is worse? Weight, performance in the center, in the corners, Leica glow, price ticket  ....... Size was/is important for M and LTM, because of the rangefinder window.

Far more important is the construction, the QC, see Jim Kasson´s blog.

[wda]

4 hours ago, Chris W said:

My M lenses are older (1980's), so I'm sure they are not a match for the modern M lenses....

Chris, I view older lenses as having a different 'character '. To many users, that is a desirable quality, not available on modern lenses. I have both. Each has a valid purpose and value. Once you recognise that difference,  you will be happier. In my opinion. 

[earleygallery]

The very best lens is whatever one you have on your camera when you get 'that' shot.

[tri_fom]

6 hours ago, earleygallery said:

The very best lens is whatever one you have on your camera when you get 'that' shot.

100% correct.

Thing is though, being me, I start wondering if I could have got a ‘better’ picture with a different lens… 

[Chris W]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/17/2022 at 12:33 PM, jankap said:

What is better and what is worse? Weight, performance in the center, in the corners, Leica glow, price ticket  ....... Size was/is important for M and LTM, because of the rangefinder window.

Far more important is the construction, the QC

The Takumar lenses are very well built.

What's the point several of you seem to be asking. It's GOOD to know you can get very close performance to a $1000 M lens from an undervalued Takumar at $100.

[Chris W]

On 6/17/2022 at 3:09 PM, earleygallery said:

The very best lens is whatever one you have on your camera when you get 'that' shot.

Sure, but the point is comparing a $100 lens to a $1000+ lens - and it's good to know the differences are slight, even very hard to see.

[jankap]

14 hours ago, Chris W said:

Sure, but the point is comparing a $100 lens to a $1000+ lens - and it's good to know the differences are slight, even very hard to see.

A metal with gold plating lens with glass elements will possibly (and in every situation) produce no better pictures as a lens in plastic construction. The long term value is different however.

A superfluous thread, my opinion. The producing company decides the selling price of its products, according to the circumstances. If the prices are too high or too low something will happen with the company.

[250swb]

Photographers during the Vietnam war often carried both a Leica and a Nikon for shooting different focal lengths, but can anybody now tell which was used by looking at anonymised photographs, no of course not. You can have your suspicions about which camera could have been used, but a large body of work where everybody was shooting similar subject matter demonstrates that it doesn't matter whether it was a Leica, Nikon, or Pentax. The same holds true today, nobody could pick out just the Leica photographs from an anonymised set based on 'the Leica look' because the Leica look is how the individual makes a Leica lens work for them, it's not a thing you buy. Hence the fact that shooting with a Noctilux or Summilux does not make a bad photograph any better.

[spydrxx]

On 6/17/2022 at 4:12 PM, tri_fom said:

100% correct.

Thing is though, being me, I start wondering if I could have got a ‘better’ picture with a different lens… 

IMHO it's not the lens, it's the photographer, his/her vision, and technical competence. Hence f/8 and be there☺️

[Chris W]

14 hours ago, spydrxx said:

IMHO it's not the lens, it's the photographer, his/her vision, and technical competence. Hence f/8 and be there☺️

Yes, that's a given. But it's a Leica forum, not a photography forum, therefore it's 100% valid to discuss Leica gear and compare it to other gear.

[Chris W]

23 hours ago, jankap said:

 

A superfluous thread, my opinion. 

Wow, you seem to have a problem understanding the usefulness of a $100 lens compared to a $1000 lens.

The Takumar lenses are as well built (for their time) as the 80's Leica lenses. It IS interesting, and should be noted by wannabe Leica owners, that the image quality difference between a 70's Takumar lens and an 80's Leica lens is minimal.

[Chris W]

21 hours ago, 250swb said:

You can have your suspicions about which camera could have been used, but a large body of work where everybody was shooting similar subject matter demonstrates that it doesn't matter whether it was a Leica, Nikon, or Pentax. 

Sure, I basically agree.

There are quite a few M mount lenses that aren't as good as Leica M in my opinion. I had an older Voigtlander that had visually obvious issues. I've watched video reviews of the newer Chinese lenses that sometimes have softness issues, or aberrations. I've had older lenses (adapted) that have weird swirly out of focus areas or purple fringing.

So I just thought it was worth noting that these Takumars don't have any of those issues - some of the Takumar lenses can be bought for under $50. 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Chris W

[adan]

You are perfectly right that using M lenses on anything but an M rangefinder camera is not cost-effective (unless one already owns the lenses, and even then......).

A significant part of the cost of an M lens is for the precision mechanics to couple to the RF and viewfinder - focus cam surface and helical; special mount-flange to key the correct framelines; flange mating surface. All need to be down to 100ths of a mm.

That is wasted money on any other viewing and focusing system. Stuff one doesn't need and can't make use of, but still has to pay for.

Which is why Canon, Nikon and others bailed on rangefinders in the 1960s. So long as the customers would accept the heavier weight and size, and mirror slap and sound, SLRs and SLR lenses could be made less expensively (even with their own aperture levers and connections - the precision only needed to be "open/stopped-down," at least until "Shutter priority" came into existence in the 1980s).

Another part of the cost is and was making the lenses extra-small (mostly) while maintaining image qualities that were at least as good as equivalent, larger SLR lenses. Both for better balance on the smaller RF bodies, and to avoid blocking the RF/VF.

On the flip side - the Takumar lenses don't work that well on an M body, unless one is willing to guess the subject distance and then scale-focus, and sticks to wide-angles.

BTW - Pentax did do a decent job of making good, solid, fairly small SLRs and lenses - at the cost of leaving out some pro features, and sticking with slower apertures on many lenses (35 f/3.5, 20mm f/4.5 - gaaah! ). I used Pentax Spotmatics and Takumars in college - right up to the moment that the pros and instructors pointed out that I'd have to get Nikons to fit into the "Pro Ecosystem" that Nikon dominated until the AF era. I didn't test Takumars against M lenses, but the Takumars did the job fine.

An analogy: There exist small aircraft engines that are roughly comparable to a 4-cylinder boxer-style car engine. Let's say a Continental O-200 putting out about 100hp.

With some effort, one could fit one into a car, preferably an old VW Beetle to avoid modern car electronics and sensors. And get it adapted to run on unleaded auto fuel. But they aren't cheap, because they (like Leica lenses) are made in small numbers. And have to have special engineering to meet special certification standards to fly around 5000 feet above people's heads. $27000 each. And your VW (or Subaru, or Porsche) probably won't go that much faster if you chose to install one.

Putting one in a car would be a waste of money, except maybe for the "cool factor." But they are brilliant at doing the job they are intended to do, on the aircraft they are designed for.

M lenses are kind of like that.

Edited June 20, 2022 by adan

[Chris W]

On 6/20/2022 at 10:58 AM, adan said:

You are perfectly right that using M lenses on anything but an M rangefinder camera is not cost-effective (unless one already owns the lenses, and even then......).

A significant part of the cost of an M lens is for the precision mechanics to couple to the RF and viewfinder - focus cam surface and helical; special mount-flange to key the correct framelines; flange mating surface. All need to be down to 100ths of a mm.

 

Sure. I bought my M lenses when I owned an M6. I use them now on an M240 (digital).

People DO use M lenses on the CL, SL and Sigma FP - so I tested how a $1000 lens compared to a $50 lens on my FP and found there not to be much difference. that's all the thread was about.

I have used both M and Takumar lenses on my CL, but never A/B'ed them. I can test them on the SL, which is supposedly optimised for M compatibility?