Welcome to Simon's utak. This is a channel for lovers of cameras, lenses and camera gear. It should be of particular interest to amateur and professional photographers who enjoy using film era lenses on modern digital DSLR cameras.
My name is Simon, but why utak? Because in some languages utak means "brain". To me, the camera/lens is like a brain for artistic endeavours.
The content is based on my film and digital photography experience over four decades using a wide range of lenses - including Carl Zeiss Jena, Takumar, Yashica, Tomioka, Helios, Pentagon, Fujinon, Pentax, Leitz and Meyer-Optik Gorlitz.
My photos on Flickr have attracted over 12 million views, here: www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums.
If you'd like to donate to my channel, there's a link below.
This is not a review but a waste of time. Would it be a review, it would not compare two lenses that cover full format to two crop lenses. Also it would not praise the shit bukeh of one and at the same time ignore that the other one was thinkered with.
As always, Simons's video is a great summary. I got my copy today and compared it to my 2 versions of the Helios 40. My results are very similar; SOCC, the new lens, is sharper and more contrasty and a lot cooler color balanced. Both of my Helios 40s had less CA; however, when edited to almost match and not pixel peeping, the bokeh balls on the 40 are slightly more defined and a little busier, but I prefer them. The lenses are so close it really takes pixel-peeping to see the difference, even regarding sharpness.
Simon, do those two lenses that you mentioned hold up for astrophotography? The only vintage lenses that I have used for astro that hold up to enlargement are the Pentax Super Takumar 200mm f4. The two others are not M42 lenses, being the Minolta MD 50mm f2 (and possible other older models) and the Nikkor 50mm f2 and f1.8. these perform well with just a little CA, but withour the batwing coma that seems to be in all myu vintage glass. It is the one catagory that I use modern Zeiss focal lengths. If anyone knows of M42 or other mount vintage glass that works for them I am all ears. Thanks
For me the future of camera is so small as possible and is fully suitable for both: High end still and high end moving picture imaging together with permanent possibility to extract highest quality still pictures taken in a video. I think modern phone cameras represents this approach very good today. I think for "normal" mass users there is no need to think about developing new devices, which are cameras only. I think cameras today are always one of the features of digital every day carry devices. Currently this is realized by smart phones and things like smart watches.
For me the biggest disadvantage of digital cameras is the addiction to electronic energy supply. The full mechanical abilities to take a high quality image is restricted to so equipped still film cameras only. Therefore I still like high quality bellow medium format cameras and e.g.: Praktica cameras for 35 mm Film. For 16 mm format I still like Kodak mini instamatic. I know, film requires ecoligic critical chemical processing of film, but as photographer the pure mechanical possibilities to take pictures is fascinating.
I own the Canon FD 100mm f2.8 SSC lens. It too is very nice and has that classic, Canon FD lens look. Its only slightly taller than the Canon FD 50mm f1.4 SSC lens that I also have. Its a nice combo to have and use. The 100 SSC takes well to the Canon FD 25 U extension tube. It makes for some rather nice, macro-esque shots. Allowing you to be a bit further back from the subject, unlike using that same extension tube on say the 50 SSC. Overall, I'm very happy with my 100mm lens. One that you should look into. In fact all the Canon FD SSC lenses are worth a look. The 50/1.4 is especially nice, but so are the 135/f2.5 SC and the 24mm f2.8 SSC. I've been collecting these SSC lenses when I can find them for a good price. The 35mm f2 'concave' and the 85mm f1.8 are also on the list to find, but those are expensive, not hard to find, just never cheap.
I love what Mr Li at TTArtisans is doing. I bought the 11mm f/2.8 for my Lumix S bodies. It is great if it’s used as it’s supposed to be used, and very reasonably priced! The use of M42 mounts on this one is genius. An adapter costs peanuts and you get a brand new lens for half the price of the lens it’s emulating.
When I was looking vor my first DSLR, I intended to go for Nikon, but by chance, due to some el cheapo (30 bucks!) Zenit with PK-bajonet and ... a Helios I had lying around, I got interested in the Pentax and M42 ecosystem and went with it (Pentax K100D super) and never regreted it: it was the cheapest way (Nikon charges 3x as much for a body that can do that) to be able to use aaaaaallll these nice old lenses and even for the later MFT camera I instantly ordered the matching adapters. Guess, I should re-start hunting for some of these treasures.
It doesn't make sense financially to own the trioplan 100mm 2.8 for people who enjoy vintage lenses. TTArtisan offers an excellent/ alternative choice: the best of both worlds!
Rather than the lens design... the whole lens is the reverse engineering and shameless copy of the original Zeis Biotar 75/1.5 'fat' version. Possibly 3D scanned, after dismantling one, and reworking it for modern production. The only thing that is not identical, is the lens design (from the graphic they provide): glass is different (not Zeiss glass) and the shapes of the elements are not exactly the same. This lens gives me the impression of a subtle fuzziness being present (also in these images). Anyway you should compare it with the Biotar not the Helios. Helios is not same focal length and has a character of its own, despite being a Biotar clone too.
Jumpling jiminy! I just discovered the original biotar a month ago and have been drooling for it. Nice to know i don't need to save up pennies. I'm odering this right away. In the meantime I've been contenting myself with ny Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.5 in prominent mount adapted to my Canon R camera. The results are fabulous. I also slapped on a Canon 35mm f/2.0 LTM lens that's been in a droor for years. Hello busy beautiful bokeh! Also gorgeous flair Thanks for another great video Simon!
thanks for the great videos you shared, very well exposed. The only certain way to recognize the 8 lens version is to refer to the rear lens. There are copies of 7-lens lenses built with parts typical of the 8-lens version
Thank you! Ive watched this video several times now and this week i purchased my first vintage lens, a 55mm auto takumar f1.8 zebra lens and it arrived today. Its such a beautiful lens and i got one in mint condition, now to get an adapter and get shooting, i cant wait!
Could you do a video on how you disassemble and clean old lenses? What tools you use and any tips? I'm starting to think that this might be a useful skill for a user of Vintage lenses
I just recently bought a vintage lens. It's the Nikkor 105mm F2.5; a lens most commonly connected with the famous picture "Afghan Girl" from National Geographic. I got it imported from Japan, and despite it being decades old, it was in perfect condition. It's extremely sharp and has already blown me away and I haven't even had a great chance to really use it. (It's the middle of the work week, so I'll get to it during the weekend.) I didn't expect that it would be 'bad', being from the 1950's, but I also didn't imagine it was going to be so amazing and sharp either.
The Leica Barnack cameras have my vote for rangefinders. I told myself for years that I would never buy a Leica. They’re overhyped, overpriced, they’re basically the Rolex of the camera world. But I started looking anyways, and the ones that stuck with me the most were the Leica III series. Now I have a Leica IIIf, with the original 5cm Summicron, and I get the hype. It’s truly a beautiful piece of kit, the machining is exquisite, and the images it produces are stunning. It’s my daily carry. I’m not much of an M-line guy, but with how I shifted for the Barnack model, I could be swayed!
tbh after hearing it called bouquet instead of bokeh; i pretty sure im just going to call it blur. yeah soap bubble blur, this lens has great blur. sounds right
I actualy checked my brown lenses with a Geigercounter, they are not radioactive (anymore?) perhaps the amount of radioactive material is so small that it barely has an impact but better be save cause perhaps not all of these lenses are equal in that regard
Hi Simon, Ray from the UK. Thank you so very much for this video! Pentax's lenses is minefield for those like me, that don't know or are very unfamiliar with the brand. This really clarifies things. Much appreciated.
A lovely mix of insight and practical detail, as is usual from Simon. Having ordered this lens already, specifically for moon shots, the verdict on this as a credible, affordable choice is very reassuring.
This overview certainly represents the apotheosis of Helios lens reviews. Excellent and intelligent review. Looks like the 42-2 is almost as pleasing as the 44 M39's (my opinion). Excellent - and intelligent - review! Thank you.
Fast typically refers to wider apertures (lower f-numbers). F/2.8 is usually not fast; it lets in less light and needs more time for any particular exposure. F/1.5 or f/1.4 is fast, and if shot wide open, it can take an exposure at 1/4th the time as an f/2.8 can. I couldn’t exactly place where the dividing line is, and it depends on focal length and film format.
Thank you for this, my father was a collector, (about 650 camera's) 6 Leica's + 4 extra lenses are coming my way, thanks to your video i ordered the right connectors for my sony.
Vintage Lens addict here: For me at least, it's not about the lens being objectively BETTER, but adding a challenge that adds fun - I even enjoy some outright garbage _because_ of the difficulty of getting a "good" shot.
Actually it's nice lens, also it's great that M42 mount is back. But I have Helios 40-2 and Jupiter 9, so see no reason to buy another similar lens. Btw, Helios 40 has blue glass coating, which gives that colour cast visible, when 40-2 has yellowish coating, which provides more neutral colours.
Yes, it will work normally on APS-C. You'll need a M42 mount adapter, of course. If you want to see a lot of swirls (in the right light/composition), you need to step back a little - a foot or so - from your subject in focus; so more of the background is in the frame.
Bummer about what I'd consider boring flares, but what can I expect for the price? Thank you for this review, it seems to be a good performer optically.
@@carlosandreviana9448 In this video, the TTArtisan’s 75mm f/1.5 lens is compared to the Carl Zeiss Jena 75mm f/1.5, the Helios 85mm f/1.5, and other “King of Bokeh” lenses that are all completely different lenses.
@@carlosandreviana9448 Before the TTArtisan’s 75mm f/1.5 lens can be crowned the “King of Bokeh,” I felt it only appropriate that it be compared to the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 which had earned the reputation of being the “cream machine.” I did not consider the Nikkor’s design linage to be of importance.
Was watching a video, not this one about this lens while at lunch today and when I entered a customer's home (home security tech) I noticed that he had a collection of cameras and lenses. Upon looking I noticed a very distinct looking lens and sure enough it was a Biotar 75mm f/1.5 using the Exakta bayonet mount. Not in the greatest condition, but one that I believe could be cleaned up nicely
Near the back of the lens there are 3 small screws that you can loosen and rotate the lens mount for the markings to line up completely depending on your camera, adapter etc. * from a review.
