Nikkors vs Takumars

[Dirk]

The SMC Takumars 28mm 3.5, 35mm 3.5, 55mm 1.8 and 50mm f/4 macro are stunners. Beautiful color rendition and character. And perhaps the most beautifully built lenses of that period. (Even the Leica R aren't as well built). I have never tried their 85mm 1.8, but the images I have seen taken with it look great. Their famous 50mm 1.4 is not my cupa tea; I much prefer the 55/1.8. Now, by and large, their Nikkor counterparts made for the Nikon F during that period are almost as well built, but the rendering in color or b&w is not as nice. They are more clinical and have less "character". The 105/2.5 is very nice, but if you can afford it, the 105/1.8 is even better due to the way it can isolate a subject wide open.

 

[raid]

I love the 28/35 which was very cheap in price. I have the macro 50/4 too.

 

[Crazy Fedya]

Thank you for your responses once again. I am purging a lot of cameras from my collection. I have to think what to do with the F. On one hand, I would really like to hold on to it, on the other, besides money, I need another system, like I need a hole in my head.I would like to try 105/2.5 and 28/2. Hopefully I sell other stuff first, and it will be enough to finish what i have to finish at home. I hate to make decisions like this.

 

[aleksanderpolo]

If you haven't already came across it:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1

The 28/2, 28/2 Ais are both excellent. The 105/2.5 Ai/AiS is better than the Takumar equivalent. The K/SMCT 85/1.8 is amazing...

 

[Noserider]

Chriscrawford I'd have to agree, that set of Nikkors you have can be quite harsh in B&W. If you want a finer tonal rendition in B&W with Nikkors I'd generally stay away from AF versions, which IMO were more optimized for c-41 and chromes.

 

[Borghesia]

I have the Nikkor 35/2 pre ai, and its results are far from clinical. Its my favorite 35mm lens for the 'oldfashioned' feel it gives in my pictures.

 

[redisburning]

Chriscrawford I'd have to agree, that set of Nikkors you have can be quite harsh in B&W. If you want a finer tonal rendition in B&W with Nikkors I'd generally stay away from AF versions, which IMO were more optimized for c-41 and chromes.

my (first hand) observations led me to believe the same.

@OP I think youre feeling that "don't need it" vs "want it" battle. normally, it's ok to just buy and resell later but not if you have other things you need to spend the cash on.

 

[Crazy Fedya]

...

@OP I think youre feeling that "don't need it" vs "want it" battle. normally, it's ok to just buy and resell later but not if you have other things you need to spend the cash on.

I have made a decision to sell it. It is too much of a temptation at the times when I don't really need it. Listed it on Ebay so far, ad in RFF Classifieds is coming soon. As much, as I am interested in exploring new system, especially Nikon F,now is really bad time for me.
Thank you everyone for your input.

 

[leicapixie]

Nikkors are basically stronger built than Takumars. My 105 f2.5 Nikkor defies that! The helicoids way easier to damage. Nikon built for pro usage. Takumars were for more easier life than in a newspaper shooter's bag. PJ's are way more careful with equipment..
I do not use any auto-focus so have no idea what is good and reliable.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Don't ya just love new photo terms? I think I'll try to invent one in the next weeks. I may come to you for advice.

Maybe something to do with the angle at which aperture blades (shutter) meet at a given f-stop and the effect they have on "rendering" the color blue when processed with a given sensor or film type..

"Rendering" is new?

Cheers,

R.

 

[sparrow6224]

Chris remarked, for instance, that his Nikons render harshly in b/w. He posted pictures. The porch shot in particular is.... harsh. Rendering is how photographs taken with a certain lens look, in terms of acutance, separation of values, brightness. It's not at all scientific. (I mean, it is, insofar as a line of lenses are designed a particular way, coated a particular way, to enhance certain characteristics and diminish others. The glass used, the various aberrations, etc, all contribute to this idea of rendering. ) I suspect you know all this and are challenging those of us who believe we can see it to prove to you we're not full of ****. But everyone, it turns out, is full of ****. And some **** renders a worse stench than other ****. Unless my nose needs a CLA.

PS "Pseudo" is a Greek word spelled as you see here.

 

[I Love Film]

I think Nikkors "render" as well as they "draw".

Judging a lens by an online jpg that comes from a scan, and where the original came from a negative that was printed is impossible. It means nothing. So many factors are at play you cannot call a lens "harsh" or "bad rendering" or whatever by a digitized photo of a porch on a computer screen.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think Nikkors "render" as well as they "draw".

Judging a lens by an online jpg that comes from a scan, and where the original came from a negative that was printed is impossible. It means nothing. So many factors are at play you cannot call a lens "harsh" or "bad rendering" or whatever by a digitized photo of a porch on a computer screen.

Or if not impossible, then so nearly so as to be effectively meaningless.

"Renderings" and "drawing" are terms that go back for many decades, perhaps well over a century. I'm not sure that the definitions (insofar as they exist) have remained constant. But there are always those who would rather be precisely wrong, rather than approximately right.

Cheers,

R.

 

[I Love Film]

Well, to be honest, I can tell if I like a lens after 10 or 20 test shots.

A "good" lens just makes pleasing images. There can be something that is intangible about it that just agrees with one's perceptions.

I've found very few lenses that are really terrible, unless they are defective, but I have a number of lenses that I really like and will pick up just for the pleasure of using them.

One is a 1949 50mm f1.5 ZK Sonnar, where the optical block was mounted in a Jupiter-3 LTM body and tweaked by Brian Sweeney.

This is my favorite 50mm on the Leica M9, hands down, for any purpose. I prefer it over the 50mm Summilux, 50mm Summicron, and even the modern 50mm C Sonnar made by Cosina. There is just something about it that is a pleasure to see when I look at the images.

I don't really care about "bokeh", etc.

I like a lens that is very sharp, that resolves fine detail, and that has good color saturation. That's it. I can use any lens, but my left brain has its own preferences, and that is the lens I will usually pick up.

PS: I have been shooting Nikkor lenses my entire adult life, starting on a Nikon F, and they are generally excellent. There is nothing too "harsh" or unpleasant about them. The old non-Ai 35mm f2.8 is a gorgeous lens. The original fast "normal" lens for the Nikon F, the 58mm f1.4, is also a really interesting lens to shoot on a modern DSLR.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . It can be a useful catch-all phrase to describe why one does or does not like a lens, but such comments are individualistic and idiosyncratic as there is no commonly agreed upon measure.

Brekkekekek... Coax, Coax...

Cheers,

R.