Canon 1DM4 with Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 85mm Lens F1.9

[Damon]

Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified & Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9

 

What a refined piece of glass this lens is. Marvelous to use as a vis lens. Super fine focus. Can't wait to try as a portrait lens on the 1DM4.

Had to try for UV with my flashes. I didn't play with the focus too much as I was merely seeing of it would pass UV. I suspect it has focus shift. The lens was made/came out in 1964 & has an M42 mount. I also have a suspicion I don't need iso1600. I did try it at f1.9 and iso 800 was way more than enough--but the depth of field was ridiculous.

It might not be ideal for UV work but it does pass it easily. I took this in my dining room as it is ~2 F out here among the swamps and Pines and I just didn't have it in me to hit the UV shack and finish my test for the Blak-Rays. Surely my ball bearings would have been frozen...

 

Here is a quick pic;

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's Unfiltered, 1/250 s @ f/5.6 ISO 1600, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K, taken indoors

 

This lens mounts directly to the 1DM4 like any other regular eos lens (thin metal bayonet adapter to M42 which puts the lens right where it has to be)--no spacers, helicoids, step up, step down, step sideways, step over Aunt Mable rings either. etc. and focuses to infinity. 58mm filter

BTW--I don't use helicoids with the EL-Nikkor either on the 1DM4. Bayonet to threaded spacer adapter but not a movable helicoid. Not sure if I still have infinity with that now.

 

-D

[nfoto]

You can get excellent UV captures with the AIS Nikkor 85 mm f/1.4, even quite useful wide open. At f/4 to f/8 it is extremely sharp in UV. However, these lenses do show the difference between transmitting 'some' UV high up in the UV-A and those which go much deeper. So there is a general lack of fine UV detail when such occurs below say 370 nm.

 

I wonder if the combination exhibited there belongs in the same category. The image simply lacks sparkle. Maybe it is just the processing, hard to tell. Sharpness appears to be good, though.

 

Whatever the UV response of the camera/lens turns out to be, it can hardly be designated stellar. f/5.6 @1600 ISO with flashes at close range is not that promising compared to better alternatives. Interesting though that the pro-calibre camera at all passes some UV in this stage of DSLR development.

[Andrea B.]

Interesting though that the pro-calibre camera at all passes some UV in this stage of DSLR development.

 

We have all been surprised by that in Damon's recent threads!!

 

While not stellar, the 1DM4's [ f/5.6 @ ISO-1600 with 3 Flashes ] is only about 4 5 stops & 2 Flashes away from [ f/11 @ ISO-400 with 1 Flash ] which is my typical indoor setting for the converted D600. Of course, two more flashes is adding a lot of light to the subject, and I'm not sure how many stops to add for that. And there was a non-UV lens in use. So I would love to see what this 1DM4 could do with a UV-Nikkor.

 

What I cannot figure is why there are not more reports on the 'Net about UV or IR contamination with this Canon.

[nfoto]

Difference amounts to 5 stops, Andrea (3 for aperture f/5.6

 

Of course it is nice to know there are alternatives, but in order to be viable, these should perform better. Otherwise you have to add massive UV illumination perhaps to the extent of frying your subject (or getting impractical long exposures).

[Andrea B.]

Too blasted cold here to count properly!! Really. It was 2°F = -17°C this morning. You would not be able to place even a toe outdoors for fear of triggering some bad assmar.

 

That's a really good characterization which I'm going to post in the Lens Sticky - so thank you.

A decent UV-capable lens should be max. 3 stops down overall compared to a UV-Nikkor or Coastal 60 APO.

 

Yes, with 2 flashes I could probably also go to f/16 & ISO-100 with the D600-bb and the UV-Nikk.

[Damon]

I am becoming more convinced the lens coatings are the key.

FYI--I got pics from sunlight yesterday morning that I will post--with no flashes at all and I still got decent pics. I hope my suspicions are right and it will do just fine in blazing sunlight.

 

Feel free to send over the UV-Nikkor. There was one for sale on ebay the past coupe weeks for 3995. Bona-fide lens and good shape too.

[Damon]

Second attempt:

 

Re: A decent UV-capable lens should be max. 3 stops down overall compared to a UV-Nikkor or Coastal 60 APO. I'm using f/11 or f/16 at ISO 100 on most of my setups, with 2 studio flashes.

 

Sounds reasonable. Keep in the back of your mind--this is an unmodified camera with a non UV dedicated lens.

Having said that, I am finding out that if I just move closer to the subject, the story changes even with this Takumar. While still not stellar--not too bad either. Obviously not enough DOF.

 

UV: Canon 1D Mark IV Unmodified, Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9, 3 Modified Vivitar 285 HV's Unfiltered, 1/200 s @ f/5.6 ISO 400, Baader U filter, WB color temp 2500K, taken indoors

 

-D