Part 2 " Sharp or not" prompted via dixeyk

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by LVL8hacker, Feb 3, 2012.

  1. LVL8hacker

    LVL8hacker Mu-43 Veteran

    322
    Jan 4, 2012
    Pinehurst, North Carolina
    Larry Anderson
    Inspired by dixeyk and Ned, I wanted to do a quick comparison for you folks with my collection of 50mm legacy lenses. This is as non scientific as you can get but I just wanted to share what you would get with each lens.

    I will be taking 2 shots with each. One at f/2.8 and one at f/8. WB is set to shade and all shots are taken with a OLY E-PL1 @ ISO 200. Here is a picture of the setup.

    IMG-0559.

    Here is what we will be working with:

    Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C
    Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar DDR 50mm f/2.8
    Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4
    Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.7
    Nikon Nikkor-s Auto 50mm f/1.4

    Asahi Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (the yellowing with this lens is noticeable. It needs some UV love :)

    Yashica ML 50mm f/1.9
    [​IMG]

    OK here we go
    Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C @ 2.8
    P2030768.

    Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 S.S.C @ f/8
    P2030769.

    Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar DDR 50mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8
    P2030770.

    Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar DDR 50mm f/2.8 @ f/8
    P2030771.

    Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2.8
    P2030772.

    Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4 @ f/8
    P2030773.

    Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.7 @ f2.8
    P2030774.

    Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.7 @ f/8
    P2030775.

    Nikon Nikkor-s Auto 50mm f/1.4 @ f/2.8
    P2030776.

    Nikon Nikkor-s Auto 50mm f/1.4 @ f/8
    P2030777.

    Asahi Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 @ 2.8
    P2030778.

    Asahi Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 @ f/8
    P2030779.

    Yashica ML 50mm f/1.9 @ f2.8
    P2030780.

    Yashica ML 50mm f/1.9 @ f/8
    P2030781.
     
    • Like Like x 9
  2. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Your Asahi Super-Takumar appears to be radioactive. That is what is turning the glass yellow. You can bleach the glass by putting in sunlight, but since it is low-level radioactive material, you may want to get rid of it...
     
  3. LVL8hacker

    LVL8hacker Mu-43 Veteran

    322
    Jan 4, 2012
    Pinehurst, North Carolina
    Larry Anderson
    Yeah..thanks...after the test its now sirring in a UV light box.
     
  4. phigmov

    phigmov Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 4, 2010
    I kinda like it.

    Its got a weird 60's vibe to it that various camera-phone apps seem to aspire to include as a filter these days.
     
  5. LVL8hacker

    LVL8hacker Mu-43 Veteran

    322
    Jan 4, 2012
    Pinehurst, North Carolina
    Larry Anderson
    HA!..I hear you...I guess I never noticed that much in the past due to the fact I shoot B&W about 90% of the time but I am taking care of that right now. I have it in my home made UV light box. A couple days in there should do her some good
     
  6. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Awesome!!!

    I like the Canon FD and the Minolta quite a lot...especially the Rokkor at 2.8 but the one that stands out to me is the Super Tak (yellowing and all). After seeing your setupI tea;ice I need to redo mine with a tripod and get more serious :big grin:.

    Tomorrow is supposed to be sunny...maybe I can get out and do a round III (bokeh).
     
  7. Brian S

    Brian S Mu-43 Top Veteran

    714
    Apr 11, 2009
    These are good tests for Bokeh and for contrast.

    The statue would not be my choice for testing sharpness of a lens. There are not a lot of "sharp" features in it.
     
  8. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    Thanks for doing this! The Minoltas seem to be quite sharp... although I agree the statue might not be the best test subject for sharpness.
     
  9. LVL8hacker

    LVL8hacker Mu-43 Veteran

    322
    Jan 4, 2012
    Pinehurst, North Carolina
    Larry Anderson
    That sounds good....I think the next test will be a B&W show down.. Round IV :smile:
     
  10. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    The radioactivity and glass really peaked my interest ... so I goggled and this was the first link I read ...

    "I was recently reading some previous postings and web articles about certain lens glasses containing radioactive elements, and wondered if any of my collection might be 'hot'.<br>Initially, I was more curious than worried, but after doing some tests, I'm now definitely worried, and I think my findings deserve wider attention.<p>I have a sample of a 7" Kodak Aero-Ektar, which is a lens that has a big reputation for being potentially radioactive.<br>However, all the articles I've read state that the radioactivity is mainly in the form of alpha emmission, and shouldn't give much call for concern, since alpha particles are quite low energy, and easily stopped by any solid object. I'm told that alpha particles can only penetrate about 40 microns into human tissue.<br>Anyway, to cut to the chase: I just got our radiation protection officer to run a geiger counter and a dosimeter over the Aero-Ektar, and he found that the rear element was quite hot, giving about 200 counts/second. Worse yet, we discovered that it was mainly GAMMA emmission, since even an inch of perspex and a steel plate hardly affected the counts at all. The active element used in making the glass is Thorium, and a quick check of the table of its decay products confirmed that they're mostly gamma emmitters, after about 6 years of decay.<br>Dosimeter readings showed that within 1" of the rear lens surface, the dose was above the limit allowed for monitored radiation workers, and only fell to the publicly allowable safe limit at more than 6" from the lens.<br>I don't think I'll be using that lens as a paperweight, or handling it too much from now on. By all modern standards, that lens would be classed as downright hazardous, and not to be used without protective clothing!<br>I'll be testing the rest of my lenses as potential gamma sources as well in the near future."

    I think Hikari is right again ... dump the lens.

    G
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    At least don't carry it in your front pocket...

    To be honest, I am not sure the difference between the Tak and Aero-Ektar. The Kodak lens is older and much more massive--they tested one at RIT by putting it on a piece of film for a week or so and developed it, a circular image was formed. Still, with everything in the environment, I am not sure I would want to hang onto a known radioactive source.

    BTW, hot (radioactive) glass was used in early 20th microscope eyepieces until they found they were damaging operator eyes.

    You may find this illuminating:

    [ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL3D7FQTHXo]Radioactive lens (SMC Takumar 55/1.8) measured with Polaron-Pripyat and RKSB-104 dosimeters - YouTube[/ame]

    and this:

    [ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ozOMssiP2E]Radioactive Lens -- Pentax 50mm f/1.4 S-M-C Takumar - YouTube[/ame]
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. LVL8hacker

    LVL8hacker Mu-43 Veteran

    322
    Jan 4, 2012
    Pinehurst, North Carolina
    Larry Anderson
    I hear you guys.. and I have seen those vids on youtube, even though this was not the point of my thread post I think I will keep it. It takes wonderful pictures that I just cant get out of todays glass. On that note, I will make sure not to put the lens to close to my nads :thumbup:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
  14. LVL8hacker

    LVL8hacker Mu-43 Veteran

    322
    Jan 4, 2012
    Pinehurst, North Carolina
    Larry Anderson
    LOL...that was so wrong in so many ways. I have had the lens in a home made UV box the better part of the day and I can already see it clearing up. Ill give it a couple more days and post what it looks like and see if it clears up.
     
  15. zerotiu

    zerotiu Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    Sep 13, 2011
    Indonesia-Singapore
    wow, radioactive lenses. This is new for me :biggrin:
     
  16. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    It was news to me as well, hence the Google. The SMC Takumar 50/1.4 has Thorium doped lenses. Thorium, named after the Norse God Thor, is a natural radioactive chemical element. Thorium was used to obtain larger refraction ratio and keep relatively low dispersion at the same time.

    Gary

    PS- Also, you can read the aperture numbers in the dark.
    G
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. fin azvandi

    fin azvandi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 12, 2011
    South Bend, IN
    I was under the impression that the Super Takumar 50/1.4 and the S-M-C Takumar 50/1.4 (with scalloped metal focus ring) had the radioactive element, but the slightly later SMC Takumar 50/1.4 (with the rubber focus ring) did not. But some quick searching turns up inconsistent reports...all I know is that my SMC Takumar is not yellowing, but maybe I should find someone with a geiger counter and check it out!
     
  18. LVL8hacker

    LVL8hacker Mu-43 Veteran

    322
    Jan 4, 2012
    Pinehurst, North Carolina
    Larry Anderson
    Sooooo...To get back on topic :) What do you guys think about the shots. I think we are all on the same boat not to put the Super Tak next to my junk for long periods of time :2thumbs:
     
  19. Jorge Ledesma

    Jorge Ledesma Mu-43 Veteran

    200
    Aug 27, 2011
    Miami
    Thanks for sharing, I've always been interested in the Minolta's, they look very sharp!
     
  20. zerotiu

    zerotiu Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    Sep 13, 2011
    Indonesia-Singapore
    Well I plan to tell my family members who have old lenses, especially SMC takumar :eek: . Even when the lens is disposed or hammered, I believe the glass still has radioactive element? I still don't have any idea what to do. It can harm other people if it isn't disposed well

    -----------------------------
    About the sharpness, it seems yashica and minolta are sharper than the others? Although I like the color from the radioactive one..it has gorgeous yellow :biggrin: