PDA

View Full Version : List of old lens ?



flatlander
05-30-2012, 11:53 PM
I was looking at this today and wanted to find out if someone out there could do up an list of old lens that will work on
the BMC?

http://cheesycam.com/super-takumar-50mm-f1-4-lens-review/#comments

Barry Green
05-31-2012, 12:35 AM
The Super Takumars were kind of legendary for their day. I had a ton of those lenses at one point, a bunch of M42 Super Takumars and Super-Multi-Coated Takumars. And a whole set of M42 Zeiss Jena lenses.

That old glass can be surprisingly good. You usually have to stop the lenses down at least 1 to 2 stops to get the best from them, and sometimes the lenses will yellow a bit (some of them actually have radioactive glass elements that yellow over the decades). But the build quality on the Takumars is exquisite.

I wouldn't trade any of my modern lenses for the older glass, but if you like vintage glass the Takumars and Jenas are worth looking into.

Barry Green
05-31-2012, 12:38 AM
Just googled, and yes the Takumar 50 is one of the more well known radioactive lenses. Here is a YouTube video that might raise some eyebrows, even though I think most folks would agree that from three feet the radiation level isn't noticeable, but you might think twice about holding one of these for a few hours...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ozOMssiP2E&feature=youtube_gdata_player

yoclay
05-31-2012, 03:05 AM
Legendary lens. The super Takumar 50/1.4 is radioactive, yes. But pretty much non-offensive. It has Thorium in the glass bit it's isotope has a half life of 14.6 billion years. So pretty much only dangerous if you decide to make an afternoon snack of your lens. But then I suspect you may have a few digestive problems first.
In terms of image quality, it is soft wide open (but not mushy if you can understand that - preserving extremely well the contrast in the blacks such as around the eyes) and thus incredibly appealing for portraiture wide open, stop down 1.5 stops and it becomes one of the sharpest lenses out there. Like having two lenses in one. The radioactive element was included to increase light transmission by the way, so f1.4 might be brighter on this lens than on another. You can also leave it in the sun with a piece of tinfoil underneath it and the UV rays should clear it in a couple of weeks, getting rid of the yellow cast.
There are five different versions of this lens, so do a little research first. I believe the first and second generation were the best. You can often pick them up for less than $100 if you are patient.

daveswan
05-31-2012, 05:33 AM
According to the list so too is the 35 f/2.0 which I have. It's a wonderfully sharp bit of glass, even wide open, but so yellow that I've stopped using it in favor of my Leitz 35 f/2.8 Elmarit.
May put it under a UV lamp for a few days, see if that has any effect.

rick.lang
05-31-2012, 08:21 AM
Yoclay:
"The super Takumar 50/1.4 is radioactive, yes. But pretty much non-offensive. It has Thorium in the glass bit it's isotope has a half life of 14.6 billion years. So pretty much only dangerous if you decide to make an afternoon snack of your lens."

I can't comment on the level of radiation that would be a concern as you hold or carry the lens, but you might misunderstand the significance of a very long half-life. The longer the half-life, the longer it remains radioactive. Since the half-life is longer than the presumed age of the universe, it will be radioactive for a very long time. If it had a half-life of 14 minutes, that means every 14 minutes one-half of the element decays to a non-radioactive isotope and is then harmless. By the time a lens was shipped to you, the radioactive material would be almost all gone.

yoclay
05-31-2012, 08:28 AM
Yoclay:
"The super Takumar 50/1.4 is radioactive, yes. But pretty much non-offensive. It has Thorium in the glass bit it's isotope has a half life of 14.6 billion years. So pretty much only dangerous if you decide to make an afternoon snack of your lens."

I can't comment on the level of radiation that would be a concern as you hold or carry the lens, but you might misunderstand the significance of a very long half-life. The longer the half-life, the longer it remains radioactive. Since the half-life is longer than the presumed age of the universe, it will be radioactive for a very long time. If it had a half-life of 14 minutes, that means every 14 minutes one-half of the element decays to a non-radioactive isotope and is then harmless. By the time a lens was shipped to you, the radioactive material would be almost all gone.

Thanks for the info. This from the wiki on it:

Natural thorium decays very slowly compared to many other radioactive materials, and the alpha radiation emitted cannot penetrate human skin meaning owning and handling small amounts of thorium, such as a gas mantle, is considered safe.

Philip Lipetz
05-31-2012, 10:20 AM
not all radioactive particles penetrate the skin, for example you could handle U235 used to make atomic bombs but plutonium would kill you easily.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo
05-31-2012, 10:21 AM
... list of old lens that will work on the BMC?

A lens adapter such as ...
http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=30&osCsid=12270aaf4d9460f33cd229a14b1eae5c

... will enable use of old Nikkor lenses:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html

KEH sells them; for example, here's the list of Nikkor primes they have in stock:
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Nikon-Manual-Focus/category-Fixed-Focal-Length-Lenses?s=1&bcode=NK&ccode=6&cc=80342&r=WG&f

Abobakr
05-31-2012, 11:01 AM
I got myself the SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4.. It is so beautiful lens.. the manual ring is so smooth.. it is true it has a yellow cast on the image.. it has a slight soft diffusion when I open to 1.4.. I love the lens and it is beautiful, one of my very favorites..

I have the Tair-11A 135mm F2.8.. this lens has sliding built-in Hood, and a "20 blade-iris" (I know that's complete madness).. and 2 aperture rings, there are no clicks with the rings so smooth and silky, and you can limit the minimum with the second aperture ring.. this lens is a BEAST!! I bought mine from a guy who had it for quite sometime and was not using it and sold it to me for about 160 usd.. but this lens has one issue, it doesn't do good with flares from light sources directed to the lens.. and it is heavy, weights about 1.5 lbs

both of these lenses are m42 mount

Abobakr
05-31-2012, 11:17 AM
about months a go, I was about to buy me a very nice lens called "Yashica ML 15mm Fisheye f/2.8".. I heard so much positive reviews about it.. the guy who was going to sell it was asking for about 280 usd but he was kind a Jerk and has a bad attitude.. I was about to buy it and I asked him kindly to sell it to me with the ring adapter but his behavior got me pissed and so I didn't.. but I kinda don't regret it, because I almost never use a fisheye lens.. I prefer using Rectilinear lenses over them

also you might want to look at Leica-R lenses!! they are beauty if you can get hold on some

razz16mm
05-31-2012, 11:46 AM
Lenses with thorium elements will yellow over time when stored with lens covers,it's more like a brown sepia tone on mine. Supposedly if you set them out in bright sunlight, the UV radiation will reverse the reaction and clear them up. I have a rare 8-24mm f1.6 Taylor Hobson 16mm zoom that has this issue.
I have a set of Minolta MD Rokkors, including a 35-70 f2.8 zoom that can easily adapt to a Canon mount. They came from a period when Minolta was partnered with Leica and at least as far as my use of them on 35mm film are very high quality.

Abobakr
05-31-2012, 12:17 PM
I have a rare 8-24mm f1.6 Taylor Hobson...

Taylor Hobson at f.19!! wow that is a nice lens.. if it is only can fit to the BMC sensor, I would steel it from you, haha