Pentax SMC Takumar 50 1.4 lens bokeh

[Steve M.]

A friend gifted me one of the old style M42 Pentax SMC Takumar 50 1.4 lenses. The build quality is great, and the focus is smooth and well damped. I looked online at sample photos and they're quite nice, but a lot of them have a sorta nervous bokeh. A few reminded me of the swirley bokeh from the Helios lenses.

Is this in line w/ what people here see from their copies?

 

[zuikologist]

I found the 50/1.4 SMC to be generally well behaved. A lot depends on lighting, type of background, focused distance and distance between object and background.

 

[retinax]

I think it's average. Agree with Zuikologist it just depends on these factors. That's the case even with lenses with the best of bokeh, and the shots that convince us of their awesomeness are just carefully crafted/selected. Like so many lenses with less than fantastic background OOF, the foreground OOF is pretty decent.

 

[Steve M.]

Thanks for the feedback. The samples I saw had nice IQ on the subject, and f1.4 gives low light shooting, so I may keep it. I'm actually hoping for a Helios like bokeh like the one below.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pen...hVExoMKHYfDA4AQ9QEIKzAA#imgrc=C86IeGm8Hdn20M:

 

[charjohncarter]

I was shooting with your lens at f 1.4 and the DOF is very thin but the effect I like. 1971:

Oldies from 1971-2 by John Carter, on Flickr

 

[Steve M.]

That's a great portrait.

 

[charjohncarter]

Thanks, but if I knew what I was doing (back then) I would have used f2.0. I still use this lens, and it is still one of my favorite 35mm camera lenses.

 

[bjolester]

There is an interesting review of how the Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4 performs on the Pentax K-1 fullframe DSLR, at the UK pentaxuser.com:

https://www.pentaxuser.com/review/asahi-super-takumar-50mm-f-1-4-review-1375

 

[Ccoppola82]

Ahhh. The good old planar killer. I have a few of these. They are actually quite nice, but the bokeh can get a bit busy in certain scenarios. They are thoriated glass, so a good UV treatment from an IKEA led lamp will help clear yellowing. I have to say, for the $ it's really a no brainer lens in my opinion. I personally find the combo of build quality and IQ to be an absolute killer bargain. I blame this lens for my dive into Leica.

If you'd like I can pop it on my xpro2 with some busy background along with a cron rigid, Helios 44-2, Nokton 50 1.5, and a couple other m42 50s so you can judge for yourself. Let me know as I'd be happy to do a little test for you.

 

[peterm1]

I have found the bokeh to be very good with this lens. I should also add that the bokeh from the 50mm f1.8 of similar vintage (either the Sumper Multi Coaed or SMC version) is also very smooth in most situations I have used it).

 

[raid]

Some compared the Pentax 50/1.4 to the Summilux 50/1.4.

 

[valdas]

It is quite OK bokeh I see from my SMC Takumar, but nothing special, I like much more Hexanon 50/1,7 (which is much cheaper)...

 

[leicapixie]

I purchased a 50mm f1.4 Takumar some time ago for my Spotmatics.
It is a great lens, giving a beautiful rendering esp. of close portraits.
Comparing a F1.4 to a f1.7 is wrong.
My Pentax f 1.7, f 2.0 are quite different.
I cured "yellow" by leaving lens facing sun on a window shelf for a few weeks..
If only shooting B/W don't bother.

 

[kuuan]

The 1.4/50 Takumar used to be my most used and cherished lens. Bokeh I'd say it is quite smooth but also can be a bit busy, even at times a bit swirly, if that makes sense, I'd say it's a pleasantly ballanced mixture.

There is a flickr group with 24.9k photos taken with this lens ( actually it was me who had created it, just saw almost 10 years ago ): https://www.flickr.com/groups/takumar_50mm_f14/

Of the 1.3k+ photos I have taken with a 1.4/50 S-M-C Takumar that I uploaded almost all were taken on APS-C digital: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/albums/72157605746644529
only some 15 of them on a "FF" Sony A7. a "bokeh" sample taken wide open on the A7, nothing special but possibly showing a bit of it's behaviour

Untitled by andreas, on Flickr

 

[Swift1]

The SMC Takumar 50/1.4 that I had was IMHO the best 50mm that I ever used, and a lens that I really regret selling.
Bokeh is so subjective and circumstantial at the best of times, but I always thought the SMC Takumar 50 had great bokeh. From what I know, the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 doesn't have lanthanum glass, unlike the 7 element Super-Takumar version and the earlier Super-Multi-Coated version. I could be wrong though.

Not long after selling my SMC Takumar 50/1.4, I bought myself the original SMC PENTAX 50/1.4, which is the exact same lens in K mount.

 

[raid]

I have a Pentax M 50/1.4 in M mount.
Have a SMC 50/1.4 in Pentax M42 Mount too.

 

[Steve M.]

I think mine is a 7 element version. Hard to count the reflections w/ a flashlight test, but my infrared dot is to the left of the 4 on the DOF scale, not the right, and the switch says Auto and Man.

I have a link to the photo of my lens and the Pentax website below. After looking at bokeh samples online until my eyeballs froze up, I'd say these have more of an busy, edgy bokeh rather than the swirley Helios bokeh. I'll probably sell this and get a Canon FD 50 1.4 or another early Nikkor pre ai 50 2 because I loved the bokeh from those. Razor sharpness is not a priority to me. I love the softness of the portrait Robert posted w/ his Tak, but the background is a little busy.

https://i.imgur.com/O3QUAUe.jpg

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Super-Takumar-50mm-F1.4-Early.html

 

[bjolester]

The SMC Takumar 50/1.4 that I had was IMHO the best 50mm that I ever used, and a lens that I really regret selling.
Bokeh is so subjective and circumstantial at the best of times, but I always thought the SMC Takumar 50 had great bokeh. From what I know, the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 doesn't have lanthanum glass, unlike the 7 element Super-Takumar version and the earlier Super-Multi-Coated version. I could be wrong though.

Wonderful images Colton!

 

[bjolester]

Your comment has me confused Swift1. I had assumed that SMC stood for Super Multi Coated. I think mine is a 7 element version. Hard to count the reflections w/ a flashlight test, but my infrared dot is to the left of the 4 on the DOF scale, not the right.

I have a link to the photo of my lens and the Pentax website below.

https://i.imgur.com/O3QUAUe.jpg

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Super-Takumar-50mm-F1.4-Early.html

Here is a description of all the different versions of the Takumar 50mm f1.4

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-S-M-C-Super-Takumar-50mm-F1.4.html

 

[Swift1]

Your comment has me confused Swift1. I had assumed that SMC stood for Super Multi Coated. This is my lens below. A flashlight test shows six elements in mine.

https://i.imgur.com/O3QUAUe.jpg

There are 4 variants of the Takumar 50/1.4

#1- The original 1964 Super-Takumar with 8 elements (and 6 aperture blades) All Pentax made 50/1.4 made afterwards are the same basic 7 element 6 group design.

#2- The much more common Super-Takumar with 7 elements (one Lanthanum element, 6 aperture blades)

#3- The Super-Multi-Coated 50/1.4 (looks basically like the previous Super-Takumar version, but has Multi coatings and 8 aperture blades)
From what I have read, this version has some with Lanthanum glass and some without. This isn't conclusive AFAIK. This model also has aperture coupling for open aperture metering with the Spotmatic F

#4- The last SMC Takumar version (basically the same optically as previous lens, but with new style lens barrel with rubber focus ring.) AFAIK, this model doesn't have Lanthanum glass.