Jump to content

Loving the combination of the EM1 MkII and 'vintage' lenses


Recommended Posts

Building up a nice set of prime older lenses which will do double duty on the Olympus as well as my two Pentax film cameras. So far I am using the following on the Oly:

 

Auto Yashinon DS-M 135mm F/2.8

Tamron SP90mm F/2.5

Helios 44-2 58mm F/2

Takumar Super Multicoated 50mm F/1.4

 

I took the Tak out for the first time today and absolutely love it. So nice to handle and it pops into focus so easily.

 

This image was shot at F/1.4 though the window of a closed bridalwear shop that relocated last summer. Seems they left behind a shoe. Hey Cinderella.....! (Image underwent some PP in Luminar 4 but was sharp SOOC).

 

835394080_Bridalshoe.thumb.jpg.ab0ac4eed46291897145c68d00792e08.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The attached file is 13MB. DEFINITELY NOT WORTH THE EFFORT. The photo is crap

 

Was downloading 13MB a lot of effort for you? I am sorry if that was the case. I have a decent download speed but I guess not everyone does.

 

Thank you for your constructive feedback. :rolleyes:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was downloading 13MB a lot of effort for you? I am sorry if that was the case. I have a decent download speed but I guess not everyone does.

 

Thank you for your constructive feedback. :rolleyes:

Do I sense irony here? 13MB file may be nothing for you, but unnecessary waste of bandwith never the less. Please consider that not everyone has a fast connection and a 13MB file provides nothing that a 1MB file couldn't have provided in this case.

  • Like 1
Niels
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I sense irony here? 13MB file may be nothing for you, but unnecessary waste of bandwith never the less. Please consider that not everyone has a fast connection and a 13MB file provides nothing that a 1MB file couldn't have provided in this case.

 

The suggestion was that downloading 13MB was an effort when in reality it requires no effort at all. I then accepted that not everyone has a decent download speed like I do (so there was a point of learning). I also hadn't realised that I had linked to a 13MB image (another point of learning - I intended to put the image in the post but got confused) and in most cases would have offered an apology to the poster for doing so however I find them undeserving of one. If a person cannot say something nice, then they should say nothing at all or even better add some helpful constructive criticism, which is what I expected to find on this forum.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the photo is "crap". Could do with a bit more contrast IMO - easily done in post. As to whether the SMC Tak produced something special in and of itself, I can't tell really with a sample of 1.

 

I have not tried any 3rd party lenses on my Oly system, although I have a OM and a Canon FD adapter, so should do it. Every time I think about it, I realize I have a native lens that does the job probably better and quicker. Still I should try it just for kicks.

Edited by Robin Smith
  • Like 1
Robin Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the photo is "crap". Could do with a bit more contrast IMO - easily done in post. As to whether the SMC Tak produced something special in and of itself, I can't tell really with a sample of 1.

 

I have not tried any 3rd party lenses on my Oly system, although I have a OM and a Canon FD adapter, so should do it. Every time I think about it, I realize I have a native lens that does the job probably better and quicker. Still I should try it just for kicks.

 

Thank you. Yes it certainly needs more work in PP though my plan to keep returning to the site is I think the best option. There is something to be had there, I just need to figure it out.

 

Over time I'll be doing more shooting with the Tak of course so hopefully I can test it in enough situations to determine if it performs as well as I think (hope) it might. I can say it is lovely to use.

 

I currently only have two Olympus M4/3 lenses (17mm F/1,8 and 12-40 Pro F/2.8) so part of the experiment for me has been to see what focal lengths I like that I don't currently have. I'm picking up 28mm and 35mm vintage lenses over the next week or two. I'm particularly interested in the 70mm FFE focal length as I know that Olympus make a nice 75mm F/1.8 in M4/3.

 

It is a challenge going back to the completely manual lenses after a thirty-odd year break but it is fun. Plus it also means I will have a decent set of options for my Pentax ME Super and Spotmatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lens is a bit soft, but not in a bad way

This image was shot at F/1.4 though the window

I don't think shooting through a window in any way allows to draw conclusions about the sharpness (or lack thereof) of a lens or to judge the lens' characteristics.

I also hadn't realised that I had linked to a 13MB image (another point of learning - I intended to put the image in the post but got confused)

A clear indication that something is amiss with the size of an image is when it appears as a link rather than being displayed as the actual image.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
I don't think shooting through a window in any way allows to draw conclusions about the sharpness (or lack thereof) of a lens or to judge the lens' characteristics.

Not only does shooting through a window affect sharpness but also the angle of the shot: straight through/perpendicular vs shooting obliquely at something off to the side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some years ago I collected quite a few Takumars and Super-Taks along with a few Pentax 35mm film bodies. Looking back I'm not sure why.

 

Anyhow. None of those Takumars stand up to use on a modern digital camera in terms of sharpness, edge definition, colour aberrations, etc. All they mostly have going for them is lack of weight and size.

 

Optically, they're generally put to shame by cheap CZ Jena glassware from around the same era.

 

Sure, sharpness isn't everything, but when you can easily make a sharp lens soft in post-processing, and not vice-versa; it doesn't seem sensible to me to seek out these old 'pop bottle bottoms' deliberately.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

who gives a large pile of guano about sharpness?

Many people do though.

 

And many people do not.

 

Even before P.H. Emerson, people have understood that 'sharpness' is but one variable in imaging. Like other variables it can be, well, varied.

 

Insisting on 'sharpness' in all cases is just a limited a view as insisting that all images have to follow a rule of thirds composition.

 

I will grant, even insist, that scientific/forensic photography should be as 'sharp', as well-exposed, and as un-massaged -- in short as close to what is perceived as 'reality'-- as it can be.

 

AND, as always:

First, get the picture
Edited by JDMvW
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give it a rest. As I said, if the OP is happy, who cares?

Nobody suggested that the OP shouldn't be happy with the results. He shared some photos, and we gave some opinions, because that's what we do, and that's what this site is for. Do you have to be such a Debbie Downer all the damned time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, sharpness isn't everything, but when you can easily make a sharp lens soft in post-processing, and not vice-versa...

Maybe nobody bothered to read that section before 'going off on one'?

 

And am I not entitled to an experiential opinion on Pentax's early lenses? Which, IMO have an undeservedly high reputation - for, dare I mention the word again, sharpness.

 

Takumars are lightweight, small and mechanically well-made on the whole, but optically nothing special. Why go apoplectic about such a statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody suggested that the OP shouldn't be happy with the results. He shared some photos, and we gave some opinions, because that's what we do, and that's what this site is for. Do you have to be such a Debbie Downer all the damned time?

 

Wasn't the point. Suggest you chill and find a new chew toy. Not about you--surprise!

Edited by c_watson|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe nobody bothered to read that section before 'going off on one'?

 

And am I not entitled to an experiential opinion on Pentax's early lenses? Which, IMO have an undeservedly high reputation - for, dare I mention the word again, sharpness.

 

Takumars are lightweight, small and mechanically well-made on the whole, but optically nothing special. Why go apoplectic about such a statement?

 

You seem offended whenever anyone here regards your comments as less than canonical. Relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...