William Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Isn't this the same design as the SMCK 300/4? I'm curious as to how it compares to the M*/A* 300/4.
It is, indeed, the same fine design. Even better, most of the Taks came with a tripod mount; none of the Ks had the mount. Some collected comments (unedited): David: "This particular lens was very sharp, esp. 1/2 stop down, and held its own against many of the exotic 300s with LD glass, though you could still see a difference with the more expensive ones." Ken Kuo replies: "The 300/4 K is the only pre-M lens I owned, and dearly miss. If it wasn't for the weight and size I would have kept it. My understanding is that it is more or less identical to the Takumar version (which preceded it) in terms of number of elements and their configuration, construction, etc., so the only significant differences were the lens mount itself and availability of a tripod collar." Bill Casselberry; "My M42-mount pre-set 300mm f/4 Takumar is a real beauty: over 1500 grams, and takes 82mm filters (not 77?). Fortunately it has an integral tripod mount with sturdy spin collar, which makes it quite comfortable to use from a tripod. Now, trying to balance and steady this beast handheld is another story." See a photo at his site: http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb. Ken: "Generally the weight and length made it awkward to handle using the MX, but not as bad with my Super Program or LX, since they both had drives, which helped to improve the overall balance and feel. It's hard to maneuver it quickly by hand to follow action shots. The filter size was 78 mm (77? --Paul), which was costly. However, the lens performed wonderfully even though I wished for auto-aperture to couple to my Super Program." Michael Breen: "I purchased a Bogen device that provides for tripod mounting longer lenses that lack a built-in tripod mount. The K f/4 lens is reasonably sharp, though not clearly better than the A, which I also own. This old 300mm is quite sharp, though in hazy conditions etc. the lack of modern lens improvements can be noticed. Results greatly improve if stopped to f/5.6 or better. I compared the K and A by shooting a newspaper with each in my living room, wide open (at f/4). Neither was comparable to the 200 f/2.8 A. The A had a bit of vignetting, and was not quite as sharp at the edges. I couldn't detect any differences in contrast or resolution at the center. The K was introduced about the same time as the Nikon 300mm, which also lacked a tripod mount. Pentax decided to follow Nikon's lead." Michael Breen: "Quite a decent lens. A bit sharper and slightly better in contrast than the A*. Paul: I currently have the K version, which in addition to being a manual ap lens, has a minimum focus distance that exceeds even that of the M. I wonder how the K 300/4 compares? I know the SMC Tak 300/4 (which I believe to be the same optically) is quite sharp and contrasty -- and it has a tripod mount and a substantial built-in hood. It's quite large, but I can live with that. Michael Hubbar replies: " Look at the lens gallery for a comparison of the K and the M* 300. The K doesnt look sharp at all to me. Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, regarding Shel's 400/4A*: "Shel, Sounds like you ought to unload that turkey and pick up an SMC Pentax 300/4. I believe that lens is the same as the SMC Tak 300/4, which is one of my favorite screwmount lenses. Tripod collar, beautiful color, great resolution." As far as I can tell, there were no optical changes from the Super Takumar 300 to SMC Takumar to SMC Pentax 300. There was an improved anti reflection coating on the SMC versions however, with a seven layer coat used on the SMC and only a two layer on the Super Takumar. They went to a rubber focus ring on the Pentax while the previous ones had a harder material. Beyond this though, the three versions are the same. The 300 does not have a tripod mount so adding a 1.4x would really add to the shutter shake problem that this lens is infamous for. Of course if your shutter speed were high enough, it wouldn't matter. The ED 300 would be a better choice for what you propose. -- Steve Rasmussen , April 13, 2002; 08:28 P.M. Eastern [EMAIL PROTECTED]
