Hi, this is my first post on this forum - so hello everyone - but I have read this topic for a few month now (since I have bought E-P1), because I wanted to get as much information about Contax G lenses as I could get. I know that Planar 45 and Sonnar 90 are superb lenses but I would like to know how do they perform in portrait frames? Thing is - I want mainly portrait lenses and I'm considering both SMC Takumar 50/1.4 or Planar 45/2. I know Planar is damn sharp but what about bokeh? There are more portrait examples on internet from Takumar but I'm not sure about it's coatings and age. Also size of the planar and how it looks on E-P1 makes me dreaming more about it. I haven't bought any lenses so any samples or suggestions would be highly appreciated.
In my experience the Planar 45/2 and the Takumar (or any of the later reincarnations) are very different lenses.
The Planar is a modern high contrast lens with a resolution beating even the Zuiko 50/2 Macro or the Zuiko OM 50/2 Macro. The bokeh can be a bit rough wide open but from f/2.8 it does everything right.
The Pentax series of 50/1.4 lenses are truly soft wide open, sports quite some veiling flare and the background bokeh is worse than the foreground bokeh. There is also more, quite some actually, of defocus CA than with the Planar.
That said all these lenses can be used for portrait work (the 90 being a bit long to my taste but otherwise impeccable) if the user thinks about what he/she is doing.
Some say a portrait lens can be too sharp. I don't know where that opinion comes from, perhaps somebody liking a lens they have that is soft until stopped down. It is very easy to make an image softer in PP, getting lost details back is otoh impossible.
The Takumar you are thinking about is of course cheaper, just as it should be. The Planar 45/2 and the Sonnar 90/2.8 are both bargains in my opinion, also when including the more expensive adapter.
well, there you have my 2 cents,
/Jonas