What are SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 and 50mm lenses used for?

[carman]

I was wondering what are lenses like the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 used for, or 50mm lenses? what are their advantages, and what are they mainly used for?

[TheWengler]

On a full frame camera the lens is considered a "normal" perspective. On a cropped camera it becomes a short portrait lens. With the fast max aperture it can be used in low light or to create a shallow depth of field. Also primes in general are just used for the higher quality they produce.

[Rhys]

I was wondering what are lenses like the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4 used for, or 50mm lenses? what are their advantages, and what are they mainly used for?

The Super Takumar is one of Pentaxes most famed lenses. They're apparently very good. Personally I can't say as I'm that keen on Pentax lenses. I don't find them optically all that great.

[carman]

The Super Takumar is one of Pentaxes most famed lenses. They're apparently very good. Personally I can't say as I'm that keen on Pentax lenses. I don't find them optically all that great.

is there another lens that Sigma makes thats similar?

[Rhys]

is there another lens that Sigma makes thats similar?

The Super Takumar was a manual focus lens. Sigma's closest prime lens is the 50mm f2.8DG Macro lens. Most manufacturers now are making and selling more zoom lenses than primes.

Personally, I prefer primes. Why?

Because primes weight less.
Because primes are sharper overall.
Because most people only use zooms at either end of the length or perhaps in the middle of the range.

Using a 17-85 zoom range, I can replace the whole lot with:
17mm prime - no distortion
90mm prime - no dark apertures
35mm prime - decent middle range

If I then wanted a 70-200 zoom my existing 17-85 has overlapped somewhat. Using primes I would get the following:
135mm - very hard to get a bad 135mm lens!
200mm - faster than a dark 70-200 at 200.

So instead of having two lenses I now have 5 higher quality lenses. They are still lighter in weight. I also have the bonus that if I lose, drop or one fails, I'm not out a huge range.

[SpecialK]

The Super Takumar was a manual focus lens. Sigma's closest prime lens is the 50mm f2.8DG Macro lens. Most manufacturers now are making and selling more zoom lenses than primes.

Personally, I prefer primes. Why?

Because primes weight less.
Because primes are sharper overall.
Because most people only use zooms at either end of the length or perhaps in the middle of the range.

Using a 17-85 zoom range, I can replace the whole lot with:
17mm prime - no distortion
90mm prime - no dark apertures
35mm prime - decent middle range

If I then wanted a 70-200 zoom my existing 17-85 has overlapped somewhat. Using primes I would get the following:
135mm - very hard to get a bad 135mm lens!
200mm - faster than a dark 70-200 at 200.

So instead of having two lenses I now have 5 higher quality lenses. They are still lighter in weight. I also have the bonus that if I lose, drop or one fails, I'm not out a huge range.



It's fine you like primes and I agree with some of your points but you make sweeping generalities.

"Because primes weight less." Yes, but you carry 2 or 3 to cover a zoom range.

"Because primes are sharper overall." There are high and low quality primes and zooms.

"Most people only use zooms at either end of the length or perhaps in the middle of the range". Not sure about that one, and so what? That's three lenses in one. No lens changing, either.

"200 - faster than a dark 70-200 at 200". I don't follow, unless you are comparing a variable aperture zoom.

[Rhys]

It's fine you like primes and I agree with some of your points but you make sweeping generalities.

"Because primes weight less." Yes, but you carry 2 or 3 to cover a zoom range.

"Because primes are sharper overall." There are high and low quality primes and zooms.

"Most people only use zooms at either end of the length or perhaps in the middle of the range". Not sure about that one, and so what? That's three lenses in one. No lens changing, either.

"200 - faster than a dark 70-200 at 200". I don't follow, unless you are comparing a variable aperture zoom.

In my 35mm days, I didn't change lenses often. I normally carried 24, 50 and 135mm lenses or when I was doing a lot of portraiture, 35, 85 and 200mm.

You work differently with zooms and primes.

Most zooms are variable aperture. You can get constant aperture zooms but there's a severe weight penalty. Also the filters are horribly expensive.

Let's take the 70-200 range as an example. I'm looking at a 70-200 zoom, a lens between 50 and 90mm, one between 90 and 135mm and a 200mm for the primes...

The 50mm f1.4 takes a 49mm filter
The 77mm f1.8 takes a 49mm filter
The 200mm f2.8 takes a 77mm filter
The 135mm f2.8 takes a 52mm filter
The 85mm f1.4 takes a 67mm filter

So... for the fast 85 and 200 you have bigger more expensive filters but the rest are cheaper - far cheaper.

[SpecialK]

I only have one filter - on my cheapest lens. Shrug.

[Rhys]

I only have one filter - on my cheapest lens. Shrug.

Hoya UV SMC filters will protect the front element of your lens against damage. If the front element gets scratched for want of a $20 filter then it gets expensive because you have to replace the lens. If a $20 filter gets broken - so what - it's just $20.

Hoya SMC Polarising filters add a wonderful effect - reducing relections and deepening colours.