VINTAGE $100 Pentax Takumar Macro Lens vs a Modern $600 Canon Macro Lens

[@anthonycongiano8890]

The Takumar definitely looks sharper, thanks for the comparison! The quaility of vintage glass is extraordinarily comparable to the modern lens, if not actually sharper. The price point makes purchasing a vintage lens, which was at a high price point in the 70s (especially if you adjust for inflation) makes the vintage lens a great choice. Provided someone is comfortable in full manual mode.

[@MarkHoltze]

Agreed, I tested the Tak 85 1.8 against the Canon USM 85 1.8 and the overall consensus in the comments was the Tak wins in a landslide. I see people make some pretty weak arguments against using old lenses, I have no issue if its' not someone's cup of tea, but a big part of doing these lens reviews is to show WITHOUT A DOUBT the promise these lenses still hold today. This is not a new world vs old world hyperbole, I'm trying to show people there are options that are much less $$$ but can still open doors when it comes to photography. Especially when dealing with fast prime lenses, where modern cost a LOT, making them harder to acquire for many hobbyists. Anyway, thanks for your time Anthony!

[@ChimaChindaDev]

Pentax looks sharper and has a better image rendition.

[@MarkHoltze]

I can’t aegue that. The native 1:1 for me is an advantage for the canon but extendor tubes can fix that. There is just so much going for the Takumar especially at its price point.

[@randallstewart175]

That's because it is and does.

[@theblur4828]

Bokeh rendering is not even in the same timezone though. The Pentax wins image rendering, contrast and color rendering by a country mile. Also, I have never used autofocus when shooting macro subjects, the dof is so thin, it will invariably focus on the wrong subject, I stopped trusting it ages ago (but I shoot on Sony, so YMMV).

[@MarkHoltze]

I agree, the contrast on the Pentax is also pretty great. Totally agree with the auto focus...despite the fact auto on a macro is next to useless given that shallow depth, some still find it a deterrent to have fully manual lens. I'm not sure how the L series 100mm 2.8 auto focus works (in portrait mode, never mind macro). Given the price point and cool factor for me, the Pentax wins hands down. $100 you really can't go wrong given it's strengths. Thanks for the comment mate.

[@thisisforlife]

@@MarkHoltze Just bought one for €50 in very good shape and I love the first images with it. Thanks for the review.

[@MarkHoltze]

@@thisisforlife My pleasure, great price! I honestly have been using this Macro for pretty much everything since this review. It's SO good. It's the lens probably most on my camera for my lens review b-roll or any sort of macro stuff My poor Canon 2.8 ;)

[@peoplez129]

I think you're confusing the images. The Bokeh rendering on the Canon is way better at 4:30. And the focusing is clearly different, which can affect the look of point light sources. But the Canon is a more powerful macro lens too, so it will have design differences. I use an 85mm 1.8 (non macro) and let me tell you, the Bokeh is WAY better than the Pentax for non macro shots like the one of that camera. Depending on focusing distance and aperture, I can make Bokeh smooth as butter, or light point sources smaller/larger, or blurry or sharp. There's definitely something off with these tests though. The f/22 shot on the Pentax is clearly using a lower ISO than the f/22 shot on the Canon. In fact, It's using video for the Canon aperture comparison....while using still snapshots for the Pentax shot. On top of that, the focusing was completely different at 4:29, which can affect how the bokeh of point light sources is rendered....and is a NON macro shot. And the light sources clearly shifted between the shots, in fact in most of these comparisons, the lighting has changed drastically. So what you're really doing in confusing different composition with rendition. I mean heck, these shots aren't even white balance corrected, and white balance can shift dramatically between shots with different content. The point is, if you want to get really close macro, the Canon will get you there. Clearly there's trade off's. The Pentax is more like a psuedo macro lens by today's standards. That doesn't mean either is bad, just different. They are used differently to achieve the same effects. Once you know how to use a lens, you can exploit its strengths and work around its weaknesses.

[@charlieross-BRM]

@@peoplez129 I wish the producer didn't stagger the images and the titles like they are. it leaves me confused. Which image is the Canon for example. the top left that has the hard edged balls or the bottom right?

[@Salamiel]

Automatically subbed because of the editing. Man i love this.

[@MarkHoltze]

Shiku R! Thanks YOU! Appreciate it! :) THE EDIT! I live in the edit!

[@lenzielenski3276]

The Pentax was designed to work with an extension tube to yield 1:1 or greater. It was clearly sharper and sharper corner to corner.

[@MarkHoltze]

It's definitely something I want to experiment with, extension tubes! Thanks Len!

[@doddsy995]

Great video, I loved the pacing and visuals, keep up the great content!

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks for the compliment and words of support mate.

[@Noealz]

I really love them Pentax lenses

[@shang-hsienyang1284]

Your presentation is amazing

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks so much for your kind words Shang-Hsien Yang. I’m having fun doing these videos especially if it shows there are options out there vs expensive lenses for photographers on a budget or who want to experiment.

[@beppuccio7803]

Just bought the pentax lens on eBay and I can't wait till it's in my hands!!! Thanks for the review Mark!

[@MarkHoltze]

My pleasure mate! fantastic value in this lens!

[@churchaudiolife]

I have a kodak that is even a couple years older. plan on adapting it's lens to my Sony

[@MarcFSpina]

I've just bought up this lens for $99 on Ebay. I want to start exprimenting with product photography, but the Sony G 90mm and Sigma Art 105mm art beyond my budget at the moment. I'm really encouraged seeing the quality in this video. Thank you for taking the time to make it.

[@guyfroml]

Excellent video showing an honest comparison. Thanks!

[@MarkHoltze]

Thank you! I had fun making this one and was surprised by the results persoanlly.

[@robertbreish8182]

You ever look back at your older videos and say damn have I come a long way? 🤣 Just busting your balls. I love your content and am currently looking for what you say is the absolute best vintage macro lens. Subbed long ago. Hope you are doing well sir and staying safe! 🙌🏻

[@MarkHoltze]

All the time lol. But that’s part of it, very different process here than in the work I do. Had to figure it all out for myself over time, but it’s going in the right direction for sure lol. Same to you mate, best for 2021

[@AgnostosGnostos]

Most Asahi Pentax Takumar were made with Thorium oxide which even today are phenomenal with unparalleled optical quality. However Thorium oxide despite its fantastic optical properties is slightly radioactive and after late 70's was banned and replaced by the inferior Lanthanum oxide.

[@MarkHoltze]

It's really interesting! I actually did a review on my 50mm 1.4 in a more recent video. Mentioned radioactive properties. Super interesting backstory there. Thanks for the additional context! Appreciate it!

[@randallstewart175]

True as to fabled 50mm 1.4; not true as to nearly all of the many other Takumar lenses, nor was the use of such glass "banned". Over a few years, the glass tended to degrade and change lens coloration of the image. The usage of "radioactive" to label the lens scarred the hell out of many potential customers, being the 1960s and the Cold War scares. At the time, there were some great articles about this feature, the best wondering what would happen if you disassembled the lens and swallowed the radioactive element. (Answer: nothing, except a tough poop.)

[@MarkHoltze]

Great bit of history there Randall! Thanks! I did a 50 1.4 review actually. My fav 50mm lens!

[@TheReTurnersFlips]

It's a shame they stopped using them. The amount of radiation was miniscule as best. You get more from walking to your car on a sunny day. But They produced such amazing images

[@MarkHoltze]

Agreed!

[@theideastring4706]

I love my old Pentax lenses, for film and stills. The SMC lenses in particular really bring out the light better than plastic kit lenses. Having to focus manually really makes you think about the shot. I rarely take my AF kit lenses with me now, just a couple of pentax primes.

[@MarkHoltze]

My sentiments exactly. This video was a bit of a “holy smokes these lenses are amazing.” It’s pretty much all I shoot with now, collected a bunch since this video as well. Also use them for film. So great.

[@Bembeleke]

@@MarkHoltze cant go wrong with takumar try the 150mm

[@MarkHoltze]

@@Bembeleke will do mate! Thanks!

[@andyvan5692]

one other plus for the pentax, as there is less tech in the image coatings, etc. the lens gives you a character all of its own just like shooting with a vintage or modern leica M lens, the bokeh, due to the high aperture blade count and the lens design gives an image look that is unsurpassed today, due to the "clinically perfect" design coming out of the factory, good for commercial still shooting, but what about the enthusiast who wants more classic film looks, or to replicate a film style.

[@derronki]

Very nice video, genius editing and the most important thing is that it was really useful vid :-) Thank you for the video!

[@MarkHoltze]

Wow, thanks for your comment Pinky Drake. I aim to be useful! ;)

[@djtoman6875]

Another fantastic video. That macro "reveal" shot starting at 5:12 is epic!

[@MarkHoltze]

that was pulled at 120fps on the Sony using a tripod in MONO pod mode while resting on a bench lol. So unglamorous but whatever works ;)

[@TheLucyMartin]

I really want to try out some vintage lenses - so cool 👏

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks Lucy. Would love to hear your take on them.

[@argos-53]

Did you remove the filter from the Takumar for your test shots? If not, the Takumar would have been even better without it!

[@MarkHoltze]

I did yes.

[@KamenKunchev]

Half of my lenses I use with my Nikon are vintage produced in the 80's, 70's or older. There's no denying once you get the manual focus done right, the images are just amazing. In probably a lot of the cases better. MF photography is not for everyone obviously, however we all should face and overcome adversity to improve. I'd never sell my MF lens collection. My Jupiter 11 is coming soon and I can't wait to test it out. For USD 25 I can really enjoy some amazing photo quality. Good job with this comparison. The Canon lens for $600 seems to just not cut it.

[@savagegloryphotography4654]

Great video! Very nice review material and cinematography. I Particularly liked the background music you used, a bit step up from most videos I see on KZbin, so I subscribed. The only comment I would make is a bit of the unfairness of 1:1 comparison. Normally you use a macro lens with an extension tube or bellows to get to 1:1 or greater. Getting closer than 1:1 is a common thing one would expect to see out of a macro lens, but to see how a lens performs, looking at specs won’t tell you, you must test (or trust claims from the mfr that the lens is optimized from 5:1 to 1:5 for example). Whether it focuses down to 1:1 or 1:2 depends on the mechanical design (the helicoid size) but doesn’t imply it has an optical limitation. A lens that does 1:2 will be smaller and lighter than the same lens at 1:1; the downside is you need to remove the lens, add an extension tube, and put it back on. Then when you shoot at non-macro distances you have to take it off, which is a hassle. Thanks again for the great film. It was fun to learn from you and be entertained at the same time. I’m switching from Sony a7 to Sigma fp and have been debating the Canon EF 100L vs vintage macros since I’ll be giving up my beloved Minolta Maxxum 100 2.8 which isn’t practical ($$$ for electronic coupling needed for aperture control) to adapt to L-Mount.

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks mate! Appreciate it! Ya, I couldn't get around the 1:1 and 1:2 as I don't have any extension tubes, but just wanted to compare the $100 lens vs the $600 lens, the 1:2 is one of those concessions you would make by the naked adaptation. I've personally never experimented with tubes, but might be a good idea. I shoot A LOT of product stuff with macro's, but the default magnification works well enough for me for video. Put these on a super 35 and you'll get a bit more magnification thanks to the crop and shooting in 4k I can push in a bunch as well. I'm using the Contax Carl Zeiss 60mm Macro 1:1 F2.8 right now, I think it's my all time fav macro lens. super versatile and it gives me 1:1 without the messy tubes. Still cheaper than a modern,but optically it's perfection. Thanks for the great comment! Happy to have you!

[@scottparis6355]

The canon has internal focusing, but notice that at infinity it's already as long as the Takumar when the Takumar is racked all the way out. You never get something for nothing.

[@MarkHoltze]

Always a trade off, but I don’t miss internal focusing at all with these lenses. ;)

[@flatearth9140]

“Photography is a way of feeling, of touching, of loving. What you have caught on film is captured forever… It remembers little things, long after you have forgotten everything.”

[@Zodiac_Mack]

@Mark Holtze Hello and keep up the good work, if you can find a 2X CFE Macro Teleplus MC7 adaptor you can pick various macro depths of field including the 1.1 ratio for the older type macro lenses which have a 1.2 ratio,

[@FrankP83]

and here we go...again Mark!Every time i search something about vintage lens...you are on TOP! I search something to use with my Canon FD Bellows for scan film (HP5+) ...

[@MarkHoltze]

This was one of my first ones lol. This is something I would love to try. Scanning film with a macro!

[@FrankP83]

@@MarkHoltze this is a nice and fast solution...a Canon FD Bellows cost about 80 dollars complete of slide copier... =)

[@fmpApps]

Add the extension tube and you get 1:1 but the f/stops will change from marked values by what, 1/2? One interesting difference would be to test whether the internal focusing does away with the light loss at higher magnifications in the older lenses. That wasn’t clear in the tests, at least to me. The second is that with the fixed lens size of newer lens you don’t have to worry about squashing your subject when you move closer using a focusing rail. :) OK, during focusing. You can still move too close as I did recently and a bug spit on my lens. Not mentioned was how the newer conveniences affect the price of the lens (hard to compute). Auto exposure control, auto focusing, etc. Those added features and electronics add something to the cost. I would have liked to see a horizontal comparison in that one instance rather than a vertical since the light was on the right and the comparison was fudged a bit because of that. But regardless, a great well produced video. Also left out and possible most important for me is the ability to manually focus and or lock the focusing adjustment allowing me to use a focusing rail for precise focus during macro work. Auto focus is truly brilliant but there are times when it manual is best and that old focusing ring or rail is best. All said, I am subscribing since this guy is good.

[@MarkHoltze]

Hi Jack, thanks for the amazing comment my friend as well as the sub. I would like to see how it would compare with extension tubes. I had just purchased the Pentax Macro and I love the Canon one so much (macro photography gets me some great cutaway stuff as you've probably seen in my videos hehe). Would be an interesting observation. But spit lol! Ya the extending tube is a bit annoying, I wouldn't say deal breaker though given it reduces quite a bit in size when you retract it making it easier to carry. For me the auto features on a macro are pretty useless at close range. Using it as a portrait lens maybe, but when shooting wide open I would like to be able to control my focus point and manual allows me that. Especially shooting video where almost ALL of my lens control is manual. I also love having aperture control ON the physical lens vs through a dial on the camera. Ya comparing side by side is tough given the format of TV. I'm still trying to figure out the BEST way to do this while showing all of the details especially at the edges where it's super important. Maybe when I do stuff like this I zip up the jpeg files for a full rez side by side comparison. Since Ive used both lenses quite a lot lately, the Pentax Tak gets me some really great shots. Especially with the flaring properties and just how nicely it works adapter to my mirrorless vs when I adapt the Canon and don't have F-stop control on a dumb adapter (no electronic connection). The L lens in this series has the advantage only of IS really vs the USM version, for much more and proper weather sealing now that I think about it. IS is helpful but again at super close range can't do much. Thanks again Jack, your comment made my day.

[@TheReTurnersFlips]

Thank you for doing true comparisons! I have watched so many comparison videos where the person will keep both lenses wide open, but one will be (for example) f2.8 and the other f4 and then give the winning nod to the 2.8 but never show us how they both look at the same aperture.

[@MarkHoltze]

That’s just not scientific ;) need to do a proper performance check. I don’t care to fudge results either. I like seeing what people like and why. I prefer the Tak, but photography and results are often quite subjective.

[@raymondvaughan6262]

Used pentax lenses years ago with lx great optics great pics off them don't use so much now going digital never sell the lx and lenses so many memories might try out again some day

[@supermalevitality6651]

i have the Pentax 100mm but it only zooms with a 1:4 ratio like yours. it's in perfect condition

[@MarkHoltze]

You can help it out by getting macro tubes with it, I cheat it a bit by switching to APS-C mode (mirrorless can shoot full frame or crop frame if it's a full frame camera). Pretty useful actually as it gives you that 1.6x to your focal length on any lens essentially giving them two effective focal lengths.

[@supermalevitality6651]

what is your opinion on macro tubes with this Pentax style lens ?

[@MarkHoltze]

I don’t have an informed one unfortunately. So it’s hard to say. Some people love them some can’t stand them. Depends I guess on the work you are using them for.

[@supermalevitality6651]

@@MarkHoltze thanks for your Input

[@Warren3carpentry]

Great review on both lenses, amazing the small difference for age difference.

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks Warren, i actually never use the Canon any longer, it's almost exclusively the Contax Carl Zeiss 60 2.8 right now as it's 1:1 macro and sharp as a tak. I still love the 100 and the 50 super tak though.

[@robertuskoppies444]

Hi Mark, another great review/comparison! 1. When doing macro work, I always focus manually. 2. The Takumar wins it even at F4, usually a stopped down lens (as the Canon is in this case) has a big advantage. 3. Did I mention that I'm a big Takumar fan? By the way....did you manage to find a Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50/1,8?....;o)....

[@MarkHoltze]

I haven't yet no! STILL looking! ;)

[@JavierArellano]

Hello Mark. I love your videos and always learn a lot. Do you happen to have a suggestion for a vintage macro 1:1? I do have one modern Tamron 90mm f2.8 but I would like to try a vintage one. Have a great weekend.

[@MarkHoltze]

Been using the Contax Zeiss 60mm 2.8 AEJ, it’s 1:1 a bit pricy but holds up to any modern lens for sure. Takumar does have a 50mm F4 1:1 I believe. Never used it however

[@MarkHoltze]

You could also get extension tubes for this which would bring it to 1:1 for a lot less

[@JavierArellano]

@@MarkHoltze Yeah I just saw in eBay and they go for more than $300, I think I will look for one like this with extension tubes. Many thanks for your prompt response! :-)

[@MarkHoltze]

​@@JavierArellano My pleasure mate, best of luck.

[@col]

I can feel the editing experience when i watch your content! Funny we uploaded macro content so close together lol :D another great video mark keep sharing your knowledge!

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks Colin. Appreciate it man.

[@rahadianhardak7330]

just love your vid editing

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks Rahadian. I works as aprofesssioanl editor so I’ve had lots of practice ::)

[@newmagicfilms]

Your review produce goose bumps

[@MarkHoltze]

That’s a good thing right? Goosebumps are good? ;) macro lenses old or new are a lot of fun.

[@newmagicfilms]

Yes! Your content is GOD! Thank you for sharing information

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks mate! Trying to give some options for hobbiest or people just starting out. They’re great professional tools as well even today ;)

[@yaosio]

I couldn't understand how you got the still images but then I heard the camera sound and it clicked for me.

[@MarkHoltze]

Sound design always gives clues ;). At least I try to :)

[@markharris5771]

I have a Canon L Macro f2.8 IS which is an amazing lens especially for small wildlife. I also have a Helios 44-2 with macro tubes which I use solely on my Zenit E. I'll let you guess which is the most fun, especially with a decent distance between my subject and the background. A good video.

[@linmariel2717]

por eso me encantan los objetivos antiguos!

[@flatearth9140]

“Which of my photographs is my favorite? The one I’m going to take tomorrow.”

[@MarkHoltze]

Is that what you always say? Forever chasing that next photo? The thrill of the hunt. Love it.

[@sidneyken9737]

Wha's that song, tho? 0:20

[@MrPhins]

Excellent video. I've been looking for an affordable vintage lens for my Sony A6500 and already have the M42 adapter. This looks like a good option but I really want that 1:1. Internal focusing would be nice too but I could probably live without it with a 100mm focal length. It seems "affordable" and those features seem to be mutually exclusive. Well done comparison...I love the color and contrast of the Takumar.

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks Pando! honestly it was WAY more fun that I expected. Anytime one big event like this comes to Toronto I'm going to go. Even if I don't buy anything it's a nice place to have a conversation with like minded people. I will HONESTLY say that given the price point of the Takumar 100mm it's WELL worth it despite not being true 1:1. You can always get extension tubes as well which will increase the magnification to bring it in line with that. Auto Focus on a macro level wide open is pretty useless. Portrait mode when i'm not so close it's nice to have, but on the Canon 100mm in full macro wide open the thing searches fOREVER and never lands. The focus range is MINUTE. Image stabilized cameras (sensor) do a good job so missing the internal lens stabilization isn't that big of a deal for me. If you can find it, for a good price in good condition...consider it. These vintage M42's feel like they're built for SONY full frame mirrorless. :)

[@flatearth9140]

“Photography for me is not looking, it’s feeling. If you can’t feel what you’re looking at, then you’re never going to get others to feel anything when they look at your pictures.”

[@MarkHoltze]

How you felt the moment you took the picture, or how the pictures makes you FEEL when you look at it. I wonder if that feeling is "inspiration". I agree though, well said mate. Thanks for your comment!

[@MarkHoltze]

The Macro world is a whole new world. I use mine on almost every shoot to get those CU cutaways. Do you MACRO? PS: the snow is all gone...for now.

[@raventrophy]

3:50 - why is there that much noise?! does really the glass matter in terms of noise amount?

[@MarkHoltze]

the NOISE, yes that's video, I had to crank the ISO so that it wouldn't be too far underexposed with the lens aperture closed up like. Glass won't affect the noise, that's all the camera sensor. F22 is like bright sunny day light, all I had was a simple small LED light heheh.

[@raventrophy]

@@MarkHoltze Ahh I see.. I thought that at 3:41 is video too : )

[@MarkHoltze]

Ya problem with video is that shutter speed is locked.

[@redbeardproductions-kevind9806]

Do you prefer the S-M-C 100mm or 50mm macro?

[@NathanVMountain]

Nice comparison and very helpful man 😊

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks Nathan!

[@majinzed]

I gotta admit, your presentation is marvelous. The Pentax wins for me.

[@MarkHoltze]

Won for me too lol. It’s all I use now. :) thanks mate!

[@Needacreate]

I always thought (and still think) the Canon EF100 was one of the best macro lenses out there. Kind of shocking and uplifting at the same time how close, or, depending on the scenario, how insanely good the Pentax Takumar performs after all those years. (Full disclosure: I've been a Pentaxian for almost 12 years and never looked back.)

[@mredben]

very nice video editing and content

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks. Trying to showcase these lenses in the best light possible ;) best value in photography now.

[@crisrocchi2722]

If you know, Takumar is a radioactive?

[@MarkHoltze]

This one isn't no, they used it mostly in faster glass, F/1.4-F/2.0 in their older models as they reduce defraction, the F/4's are free from Thorium.

[@jimm5593]

Excellent video. New subscriber.The Pentax wins hands down.

[@MarkHoltze]

I sold my canon, all Takumar, all day ;)

[@aimanrazaxxx]

Please suggest a vintage macro lens for my canon dslr which is easily available.. Thanks!!

[@MarkHoltze]

The SMC Takumar 50 or 100 F4 are both good options mate.

[@aimanrazaxxx]

@@MarkHoltze Thanks a lot for such a prompt reply.. Do i need a adaptor for these lenses?

[@MarkHoltze]

@@aimanrazaxxx For the Takumar's, M42 to EOS should do it. They're cheap, Fotodiox makes a good one.

[@aimanrazaxxx]

@@MarkHoltze thanks mate!!!

[@VyroniQ]

Love your editing Mark, blows me away everytime

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks mate. Going to do some editing tips coming up. Any topics you’d like to see discussed?

[@VyroniQ]

What do you do for your transitions, what lens are you using normally for your B roll since, and what LUTS are you using for color grading.

[@MarkHoltze]

Transitions...mostly hard cuts. I use some light blending (will do an quick video tutorial on this...it’s easy but need to capture elements in camera. Will talk about it. I don’t use LUTs. I color grade everything after depending on the lighting. Every time I put a lut on I don’t like it. Prob cause I’m not shooting with them in mind and I like letting the video dictate the grade vs having go to ones. I shoot Log on both the Canon and Sony. Lenses I’m all over. For this video: on camera stuff was canon 16-35 F4. Super close shots I use the Canon Macro and pentax macro (canon to shoot Pentax, pentax to shoot canon) I also used a Vintsge Pentax 50 1.4 for a few shots. Fast primes create nice shallow depth of field. Looking forward for you next video mate.

[@VyroniQ]

I am looking forward to that video. i have a couple videos in the works to be edited. Actually when I think about it this will be a busy couple of weeks editing wise.

[@MarkHoltze]

Looking forward. How long does it take you to push out a video? I’m going to clock my next one.

[@HamiltonSRink]

What do the numbers 2 through 25 refer to?

[@musashi_kun]

Great video, thanks for sharing. I have the Pentax macro 50mm 1:1. Super sharp lens, and as you said works very good for portrait shots too.

[@MarkHoltze]

Beauty! I have the 50mm 1.4 (not macro) as well. Really happy with them both actually. You have a place to view photos? Would love to see some 50 1:1 examples if you have any?

[@musashi_kun]

Just amateur work :P youpic.com/image/11188234/ youpic.com/image/11245184/ youpic.com/image/11275210/ youpic.com/image/11281621/ youpic.com/image/11275258/ youpic.com/image/11295041/ youpic.com/image/11318054/ youpic.com/image/11421414/ youpic.com/image/11459986/ youpic.com/image/11453362/ youpic.com/image/11727476/

[@fmpApps]

Moisés Musashi Santana There were/are 1:1 lenses for 50, 100 and 200 mm lenses and I think wide angle. Mirrorless digitals eliminate problem I had after sneaking up on tiny flies I captured a lot of feet at the top of the frame as the mirror slap scared them away.

[@MarkHoltze]

Beautiful! Well done and thanks for sharing!

[@MarkHoltze]

Stealth mode on mirrorless is amazing mode.

[@shayan0245]

Great job. Can you tell me a good 135mm f2.8 or less for under 35$. Thanks

[@BaianoViajante]

I have found a pentax-m 100mm f2.8 that one u told is F4 so to do macro photo what do u tell me? Go with this f2.8 or 4?

[@MarkHoltze]

It's tough, do you need the extra speed? I don't find I need 2.8 much with a macro and when I do the depth of field is so shallow it's ALMOST useless unless a very speciifc point of focus is chosen. Even on my 2.8's I shoot F/4 most of the time.

[@BaianoViajante]

@@MarkHoltze thanks so much for answering me. I asked just because I found a 2.8 for 80 euros and a F4 for 130 so I was trying to understand if has a real difference haha

[@wadihogeil8867]

Blown away at how clear and clean the Pentax image was at 4.55.... I would much rather have it than the Canon. All these reviews and our perspectives are subjective. I have always loved the build quality of the Takumar lenses. They were in a league with the best European lenses, if not better than most.

[@joodhahmednaseer2703]

What's the minimum focussing distance of the Pentax?

[@MarkHoltze]

Min focusing distance is 45cm on the Pentax Takumar.

[@joodhahmednaseer2703]

@@MarkHoltze Ooooo I'm planning to get one, also, Awesome comparison 👌

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks! It’s a great lens, I use it for all my macro stuff, and I shoot a lot :)

[@joodhahmednaseer2703]

@@MarkHoltze Do you have an Instagram account by any chance?

[@MarkHoltze]

I do...mholtze

[@olafzijnbuis]

I own the 50mm and the 100mm SMC Takumar Marco lens. Both are great. Don't be fooled by the lack of autofocus. If you use a tripod you should use live-view, zoom in, and manual focus. And in the digital age, you can make a few test shots. Use a DOF calculator (an App on your phone) to get a feeling of the depth of field. Avoid closing the aperture to the last stop or so. Diffraction will limit the sharpness. Take test shots and check on a PC, NOT on the back of your camera! When you work carefully and take your time there is nothing wrong with a manual lens. Spend the USD 500 saved on something nice...

[@MarkHoltze]

Nice said mate! Definitely no shame in manual. I’m video/motion film background and we do it all manual. Full control Go! :)

[@certs743]

I have a Tamron 90mm F 2.5 from the 80s and I a very happy with it.

[@globally123]

You can't beat old glass. Just an opinion I hold. Cheers for a good review,I'll keep enjoying your video's thanks. "Takumar Sir?"

[@MarkHoltze]

I share that opinion :)...I sold the canon macro by the way. ;)

[@globally123]

@@MarkHoltze It sounds like you share my love of old lenses ,particularly the glass. I only own one modern lens and that came as a kit for my Canon 5D Mk IV. All my other lenses are Russian and Japanese made, I recently shot with a newly acquired Helios 40. I was gob smacked at the results, it's a bit soft at centre wide open but it gives it 3D pop in exchange. I'll be shooting soon with a recently bought Takumar Macro 50/f4 soon. Sorry for the long rant, I just wanted to share my excitement with a fellow enthusiast. Cheers.

[@karenholtze4511]

Useful! And entertaining!

[@monlegaspi]

New Subs here! 👍 Is there any adapter for this lens for Fuji x mount?

[@MarkHoltze]

Hi mate! Thanks and welcome. Yes there is an adapter. Like this one: www.keh.com/shop/fuji-x-series-adapter-m42-lenses-to-fuji-x-mount-mirrorless-fotodiox-667949.html?m=Grouped&prod_id=1206886&aid=1206886&rmatt=tsid:1014300%7Ccid:749195939%7Cagid:39530049055%7Ctid:pla-264800297904%7Ccrid:177113507740%7Cnw:g%7Crnd:8043983078310409464%7Cdvc:m%7Cadp:1o4&gclid=EAIaIQobChMImpjW0te63gIVikwNCh3lMwrAEAQYBCABEgIEivD_BwE M42 to FX (Fugi X).

[@monlegaspi]

@@MarkHoltze great! Thanks Mate!

[@MORCOPOLO0817]

How vintage is it.? 70's, 80's, 90's?

[@MarkHoltze]

Vintage is 25 years technically. Anything after 1995 can be considered “vintage”. The Tak I believe is 1971

[@MORCOPOLO0817]

@@MarkHoltze I have an old Super 8mm camera. It is an off the wall brand called ALSTAR. I was wondering if the lens on it was made by Pentax. Don't know if you would have any information this. I thought that maybe it is a giveaway in the name AL being the pentax designation for automatic exposure lens. And STAR being the air/ water tight construction of the * series of Pentax lenses. Thanks

[@andyvan5692]

if you are comparing manual lenses, why not the Nikon, 105mm f2.8 lens, as this goes down to 1:0.88 if you add the necessary ext. tube the PN-11 just the same advantages, but Manual focus only.

[@MarkHoltze]

Sounds cool! I would love to, but don't have one. I've only been doing reviews and comparisons between the lenses I do have :)

[@modernslice2238]

Where do you buy vintage lenses?

[@MarkHoltze]

Online mostly if you’re looking for something specific. EBAY, Kijiji, Craig’s list etc. Estate sales, garage sales if you’re feeling especially lucky. :) good luck!

[@modernslice2238]

Cool thanks Mark, nice video! I see lots of value in Vintage!

[@jandallas1754]

Mate! The switch on the Canon is NOT an apertiure control- it's an AF-Manual switch. And as the aperture reduces in size, i.e. stops down, the bokeh does NOT reduce "as more light comes through the lens". That's total crap. Go and read about what the aperture really does. Other than that, fine.

[@MarkHoltze]

Hi Jan, I made the correction in the description the day after I posted video. It was an editing error as I was meant to switch the images but I mixed up the order: also for the aperture control I wasn’t referring to the AF switch on the camera. I was referring to the fact the canon lens does have an electronic aperture control from the camera body where the Pentax does not. I have no idea why I missed it in the review before posting, prob cause it was too late lol. Thanks for catching it. That aside the images are accurate at least even if what I’m saying it over it isn’t. But again I made a annotation note ion description..:my face still hurts from the facepalm ;)

[@jandallas1754]

Cool mate. I've obviously got too much time on my hands!

[@MarkHoltze]

No you don’t mate, it’s a good catch. I appreciate you taking the time to even comment. Nobody reads the description and I prob shouldn’t have shown a shot of the AF switch as I’m saying it...see and say medium. I’m an editor first and foremost so both things I should have caught before posting. Sincerely appreciate it.

[@jandallas1754]

No sweat, Mark- I really appreciate the trouble taken by you and so many others to present different ideas and comparisons. All power to you!

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks Jan! Just need to make sure I don’t make editorial errors like this one lol.

[@Sertao2013]

Your're doing a review inside, so why are you outside in the first place ?

[@MarkHoltze]

Location changes keep things feeling dynamic? Honestly I don’t even remember why, just felt like it.

[@vittalams5138]

Nice video. But not fully convincing due to the two odd, dissimilar factors-Max-Aperture(f2.8 vs f4) and the Magnification ratio(1:1 vs 1:2). The perfect pair for comparison would be Pentax A or FA 100mm f2.8 vs Canon 100mm f2.8. The Super Tak is producing warmer colors than the Canon.

[@MarkHoltze]

The differences are reflected in the prices, this wasn’t intended to be a direct equal footing comparison. You are right though. For the test shots I kept the max aperture of the canon at 4 to be equal footing as the takumar, also showed the default frame size so you can see what 1:1 vs 1:2 looks like. What is interesting is that the colours are warmer on the Tak, I compared an 85 tak to an 85 Canon usm and found the results to be similar with colour rendition. Extension tubes could bring the Tak to a 1:1 but I don’t think it would be fair to cheat it up vs the default. Plus I have both lenses and thought might as well show the differences as a testament to the vintage much cheaper takumar vs the canon. Thanks for your comment mate. I’m going to check the Pentax A and FA to see what lens you’re referring.

[@vittalams5138]

@@MarkHoltze Using the Extension tubes does the job-somehow. But extension tubes eat lots of light. The A series lenses are the first Pentax 100mm 1:1 magnification @2.8. It's a wonderful lens but dificult to find one. The FA series lenses are with Auto focus capability and excellent in both optically and mechanically. It's not that difficult to find this. Due to the advancement of Mirror less technology and the high resolution video capability, these vintage lenses will breath fresh again.

[@MarkHoltze]

Well said mate. I agree about the tubes, too much compromise for my liking. Agreed about the mirrorless, with Canon and Nikon now in the game combined with the expensive tags on these new mirrorless lenses, the demand I suspect will certainly go up. Shooting vintage on my mirrorless is much easier than on my DSLR, and my cine camera loves adapted vintage since we keep everything manual when we shoot anyway. Thanks again! Enjoyed this discussion! Thanks for bringing your knowledge to the board.

[@vittalams5138]

@@MarkHoltze Thank you mate for sharing the video and prompt response. This video definitely helps to those who're thinking to switch to Mirror-less. Expecting more videos like ' Vintage on MLs' from you. Actually, I'm curious to see a video of Vintage 'Super Takumar 50mm f1.4(8 element and non-radio active) which's very famous for it's sharpness and color rendering.

[@MarkHoltze]

I’m keeping my eyes peeled. I did one on the 1.4 radioactive one, but would like to clean up my lenses if possible ;)

[@rc-wingman5719]

Is this model of the takumar radioactive?

[@dima1353]

Canon 100 2.8 is not bad portrait lens, but comparing for example to 135 2 it not focusing well, especually on old bodies like 5d2. For studio macro its fine, but for outdoor macro you need stabilization... But speaking of takumar vs canon, i really used to automatic aperture control when shooting still life and macro, and just cant imagine work without it.

[@mjoelnir58]

Seems there is no real progress in some products.

[@jurandirbezerrapereirajota7007]

Boa noite, sou Jurandir do SP/Brasil, vou aguardar a Canon FD 28mm F/2.8 Vs Pentax . Gratidão pelo belo trabalho no canal!

[@XxmattitudexX]

Cannon lens is noisy in the contrast areas to right of image

[@spyder1212]

Pentax is better..

[@MarkHoltze]

I echo that sentiment especially after so many more months of use. Really can’t beat it at the price. Thanks for the comment mate!

[@ChadCarney-hu3du]

Where'd you get the music?

[@MarkHoltze]

I have a subscription to these guys: www.epidemicsound.com There was a retro 80's synth album I had found awhile back and just downloaded every track. I can't find the album though I just checked. You want song names? I can find them if you want.

[@ChadCarney-hu3du]

no that's okay i was just curious. In my future I wish to get into a little cinematography. I'll check out the link thank you very much

[@MarkHoltze]

No problem, youtube has some "free source' music you can use as well under the "creator section". Mostly not great stuff, but a few surprisingly good tracks. Good luck mate.

[@zvxcvxcz]

I haven't watched the video all the way through yet, but I noted that the lens you have there was released 17 years ago, not the paramount of modern, they released a newer 100mm macro in 2009.

[@MarkHoltze]

Are you talking about the L series? I agree, it's not the latest, but from almost all reviews i've heard the Canon L series and the USM version are very similar in sharpness. Major thing lacking in the USM version is image stabilization which isn't really that useful at macro level anyway. Also i don't have the latest so I can only compare what I own specifically. In the general scheme of things, the Canon lens is much newer than the Pentax lens by at least 40 years. It's more about a general idea of what you can expect to get in a vintage lens v it's modern equivalent. Overall i'm trying to illustrate that vintage glass based on the price points is a great alternative to people who don't want to spend the money on the modern equivalent. Thanks for your comment mate.

[@zvxcvxcz]

Yes, the L series, I considered it but didn't get one. I couldn't decide between Canon 180 or 100L. I mostly agree with what you're saying, except that IS can be very useful for niche macro use cases. I often photograph wild flying insects that don't like to let you get close, certainly not for a long enough time to use a tripod. I wanted the best of both worlds between the Canon 180 (slightly more working distance) and 100L (IS and f/2.8), it was about 10 months actually before I heard of the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 OIS, which I ended up getting. I've been pleased with pretty much every aspect of this lens. Some recent lens designs without electronics can also be a bargain, like the Venus Optics 60mm (APS-C), which is pretty unique in being a 2:1 (only other DSLR lens I know going further than 1:1 being the Canon MP-E, which does up 5:1 but doesn't focus to infinity). At 349 (B&H) right now it falls in the middle ground. Their 15mm macro is also a pretty unusual lens. Vintage macros are indeed a particularly good bargain, because they often really were truly sharp, which can't be said of most vintage lenses, especially the zooms.

[@MarkHoltze]

Ya the L series came down in price quite a bit since I bought the USM 100mm. I'd for sure of sprung for the additional cost for the L had I known I was going to love Macro so much and had it been the price difference now vs when I bought it. Such a nice versatile lens. I might still pick it up and sell the USM one if I feel compelled too, so much other stuff I'd need to get before though. Sigma's are a great altnerative, I need to try some on my Canon as I see them regularly on Canon cameras as less expensive alliterative with sharpness and other lens qualities not taking any loss at all really. Agreed on the zooms, I have a fixed 200 which isn't very sharp at all. Was my grandfather's but I've mostly got primes to play with. I can see how older zooms would be image problematic. Do you have a place where you showcase your work? I'd love to see some of your macro insect work. So much fun shooting bugs. :)

[@hannibalcosta]

It doesn't surprise me. I am used to using old Pentax lenses and sometimes I see no difference from my modern lenses. The difference is in taste or aesthetic.

[@MarkHoltze]

I'm seeing that myself using these old takumar lenses so much these days.

[@Primerohan]

Very nice

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks Prime! Can I call you that? (Optimus)? :)

[@Primerohan]

Mark Holtze yeah sure,mark

[@ChristianThueringer]

great fun!

[@Abhi-ul5nv]

Is it true that takumar lens are radioactive?

[@MarkHoltze]

I’ve never heard that before but maybe? Where’s did you hear it?

[@Abhi-ul5nv]

www.pentaxforums.com/forums/8-pentax-film-slr-discussion/137774-how-radioactive-super-takumars.html Not sure about the authenticity though! Which is why i wanted to clarify.

[@MarkHoltze]

Thanks for the link, that's super interesting. First i've heard of it, but an interesting little bit of backstory none the less. Thanks mate!

[@ravajaxe]

Only a handful of them are indeed radioactive due to the thorium used in some glass elements. The radoactive Takumars are the 35mm f/2 ; second versions of super-Takumars standards lenses (50 / 55mm) and the SMC standard lenses. 100 mm macro, as most others, is not radioactive.

[@MarkHoltze]

Awesome, thanks so much for the additional info Ravajaxe! Appreciate it

[@romanzaytsev4661]

From time to time I use 35mm Macro (DA Limited) and I am more than happy with it.

[@MarkHoltze]

I would definitely like to experiment with a few different macro focal lengths. Thanks for your comment Roman.

[@romanzaytsev4661]

Forgot to mention, that I do not consider manual focus to be a huge disadvantage when it comes to macro work. For example here : flic.kr/p/VV2XRh I manually focused on the desired part of object for each shot. I would also like to explore different focal lengths for macro work. From what I read, the closer you get to the subject the more you amplify the distortion lens introduces, but I am not entirely sure.

[@MarkHoltze]

ABSOULTELY! Great shot by the way, love that camera! I don't shoot anything auto unless i'm in front of camera with no operator. I also like to choose my focus point and sometimes it's not centre frame or on so and so's face. I tasted out the manual focus on the Canon, it's not great for macro. Takes too long to search (not it's fault) if if i'm wide open the focus point is SO tiny that it will never hit what i"m going for. Manual all the way. I'd have to look into the distortion bit. There's so much science and particularities with lens comparisons/reviews etc. I didn't even THINK to dive into that. Every photographer/cinematographer likes different things as well. I'm more of a video story teller, a professional editor by trade who does shooting on the side (video). As an editor I appreciate a strong image especially when it pertains to telling a story. Do you do a lot of shooting? Professional? Hobby?

[@romanzaytsev4661]

Considering that I do not make a living out of photography and rarely sell my works, I would not call myself a professional. I am a highly skilled enthusiast. Nothing more, nothing less :) I indeed do a lot of shooting, both film and digital. Sometimes after shooting I look for some articles to better understand why the things ended up being like this or like that.

[@MarkHoltze]

“This looks cool, but why?” Love it. Doing something because you love iit, nothing beats that. Thanks for your comments Roman.

[@EleanorPeterson]

Oh, behave! 🤭 I must admit that I really liked the Pentax. It's obviously been well treated over the years, but it was clearly a fine piece of kit to begin with. For a full 1-to-1 image (and more), I'd be inclined to experiment with some extension tubes. Lots of fun for just a few quid. Of course the Canon's rock-solid reputation and modern sophistication will attract a lot of people, but my perverse nature makes me favour the oldie. Macro is usually completely manual anyway, so having to open and close the aperture for each shot isn't too much of a pain. Watch out for hungry bears under all that snow. 👀

[@jonlouis2582]

Very interesting. I shoot EOS but I liked the Pentax lens images better. Hmmm.

[@vaskoobscura_]

Thumbs up

[@MarkHoltze]

This one is getting a bit dusty 😂 thanks mate

[@WittyBonita]

Hi bro I Love your camera 🎥 looks very nice Ang high tech and for sure I can’t afford that hehe. Canon product is absolutely high quality saw lots of them in professional level photography. Me I only using 1 phone for vlog etc all in 1 hehe. Ohhh snow love you hehe never see snow in real been dreaming to see. We never have here in Philippines 🇵🇭

[@MarkHoltze]

When I was young I had nothing but a hi8 camera, didn't stop me. SO much to learn and the phone can help you! Just have to get out there and shoot!

[@artistjoh]

It is not reasonable to compare the Tak, which was top of the line for a Spotmatic, against a budget Canon. A better comparison would be the 100 f2.8L. However having said that, the Tak is not a true 1:1 macro, plus it is a stop slower. For most people the Canon is a more versatile lens, it has autofocus, plus it is a true macro. Both of them are cheap, and at $600, the budget Canon is a bargain and AF makes it much more useful for general purpose shooting, and the macro is 1:1. It is worth the money.

[@MarkHoltze]

It is reasonable given the conditions mentioned for the test in the video. I mention the fact it's not 1:1 and it's not as fast. Once those parameters are set the audience can make up their own conclusions of value based on the test images. I don't have the 100mm 2.8 so I can't compare it, I use what I own and as long as I state the differences in the thesis of the video I think it's fair game. You can't scientifically compare a 40 year old lens to a much newer one anyway. I'm simply using it as an example to show the value of the Tak and vintage lenses in general for those who are skeptical. Also, that 100mm macro 2.8 isn't optically that much better than the USM lens. Image stabilization it's the one major difference, but a comparison video will show the differences aren't substantial between the USM and the L. :)

[@artistjoh]

Mark Holtze I was aware of the fairness in your video, Mark, my comment was more directed at the commenters, many of whom seem to be focusing purely on the optical qualities rather than considering the overall package. Once factoring in the autofocus plus 1:1 the Canon is the value proposition here, and the Tak is the overpriced lens even though it costs less to buy. As with most things, you get what you pay for. There are other things to consider as well, that I don’t think you mentioned, such as the unfortunate pentagonal bokeh balls produced by the Pentax habit of the day, of putting “cheap” 5 bladed apertures into most, if not all, their lenses. Another factor to consider is that Pentax was one of the worst offenders when it came to using radioactive glass. I don’t know if this particular lens does, but a general rule of thumb is that the sharper the lens, the greater the likelihood thoriated glass is present. It was, after all, the “cheaper” way of improving a lenses performance. Without a gieger counter, however, it is impossible to know for certain with individual lenses. While all manufacturers experimented with radioactive glass, buyers should be aware that the worst offender of all was Kodak, but Pentax was also “generous” with the thorium, and Nikon used it the least, with Canon also being a lower user of it. In fact, any manufacturer which was using the more expensive (but non-radioctive) flourite was less likely to be using radioactive glass, and one of the advantages of the “L” designation in earlier Canon lenses was that the lens definitely used flourite instead of thorium. Canon was a pioneer in flourite technology starting in the 1950’s. Leica was also one of the better manufacturers in this regard and was a pioneer of several new types of non radioactive glass, for many of which it held patents. I am very familiar with these old Taks and Pentax M’s, because I was a Pentax shooter back then, and still have some old Pentax glass including several 50’s. I never owned the f1.2, but have owned all of the rest of the examples you have. You should keep a lookout for the 1.7 as its wide open performance is a cut above these others, and the 50 f4 macro has equally excellent optical qualities but again you have to put up with slower aperture, and of course it is a 1:2 macro. 50mm is too short for any lens to be used as a macro, but the 1:2 is really useful at 50mm as a portrait close focus lens, if you can live with f4, although, the Tak is even better at its longer focal length. I do love these old Pentax lenses, however, I am also very aware of their limitations, and as a professional, I am very aware of the practical advantages that both the budget, and the L Canon 2:8 macros hold. The budget Canon is especially good value considering (as you say) it is almost as good as the L version in terms of sharpness, and at its price I regard it as a real bargain.

[@MarkHoltze]

Appreciate the wealth of additional info, this is all very relevant. One could make a deep dive on the topic for sure. I’ve addressed a lot of this stuff in various videos I’ve done since. The Tak 100 and 50 7 element were my first and I didn’t know nearly as much as I do on the topic now. Including thoriated glass. The history is part of what I enjoy about all of it. Appreciate your knowledge my friend, thank you!

[@10secondsofglory33]

Cool music

[@TubeDupe]

What's the advantage of internal focusing?

[@MarkHoltze]

The physical length of the lens is fixed. It makes it an overall longer lens, but the focus tube is contained within the lens body.

[@mauritsvw]

Also of course it changes the distance between the front element and the subject, but that should not pose a problem in most cases.

[@HodajuciParadoks]

I like the Pentax lens more, looks better...I mean pictures looks better.

[@MarkHoltze]

My feelings are the same. They seem to have better natural colors/contrast. The focus throw on these old lenses are so smooth though, makes the very act of manual focusing on newer lenses (focus by wire) feel less good. Hehe. Especially when you look at the price difference. Thanks for your comment Adriana.

[@jannevellamo]

An extension tube is all you need to get 1:1 and if you add another, you can easily get 2:1. M42 extension tubes are dirt cheap and the world is full of them.

[@mikepxg6406]

It's Canon not Cenan. ?

[@MarkHoltze]

Are you referring to the way the word is pronounced? Chalk that up to accents mate, tomato Tomahhhhhhto.

[@DoFurther]

I like that button )

[@MarkHoltze]

🤓

[@robbeard6929]

Why test a 1:1 against a 1:2, thats like test a 300bhp car against a 150bhp car,. why not test lenses both at 1:2 with the same price difference.

[@MarkHoltze]

Because I was testing a $100 lens vs a $600 lens was the thesis of my video. Acknowledging the speed differences and 1:1 magnification differences in the video as something to consider, but optically I'm making a point the $100 lens does a pretty good job. Extension tubes can be added to the 1:2 to bring it in line, but I wanted to test the two lenses I had against one another to showcase the performances differences.

[@69782775]

Is ok, i like that button!

[@ADNZ5442]

I would buy but I’m worried about radiation

[@MarkHoltze]

Non on this lens

[@ADNZ5442]

@@MarkHoltze Thank you. What great vintage lenses are there that are not radiative? Having trouble finding some without.

[@SammyandTex2]

pentax rules

[@MarkHoltze]

I agree :)

[@IAMIRIE]

I better buy an old lens cheap then spending on a new higher-priced ones

[@MarkHoltze]

You can see if you like it or not. Experiment with it and if you do decide to get modern version you know what you can and can’t do with it. Perfect for experimentation.