On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I've not yet decided on a DSLR, re Canon or Pentax. Doesn't matter yet, > because I can't afford one yet. Going to wait about a year for a drop in price, etc. > > However, I do have the Elan 7e now and would like to be able to submit to the > PUG now and then before I get a DSLR. > > So I'd like to pull a Cotty. :-) > > Screwmount Pentax lenses work on the Elan -- others won't. > > Anyone have a particular Takumar recommendation? I am not partial to 50mm, > seem to prefer either wide angle or 70mm or 90mm and above. Some go fairly > cheaply on ebay.
In general SMC designs are sometimes a bit more evolved optically than Super-Takumars, although many are optically identical, and the coating does make a difference. Auto-Takumars and many Takumars do not have fully automatic diaphragms, which may be a hassle in use. SMC Takumars and Super Takumars do, but of course you will be using them in stopped-down manual mode anyway! If you need an adapter with a glass element in it to make the screw-mount lenses work on the Elan then you may experience poor corner performance at wider apertures, especially with wide angles. I'm using some of my S-T lenses on a Nikon F3 with such a converter and they are fine at 5.6 or so but show adapter issues at wider stops. Also, my glass-element converter bumps into the metering lug on SMC screwmount lenses keeping them from mounting right, and into the rear element on most 50s and the 35/2.0 keeping them from focusing properly--just a caution if your converter has glass in it rather than being simply a tube. As to recommendations: SMC/S-T 28/3.5 is the best of the wide angles, almost equal to the best 28s anybody makes. The 24/3.5 is weak in the corners and the 20/4.5 is really weak in the corners. (Older ultra-wides without fancy aspheric elements and such had problems getting good corner performance. Everybody's lenses had these problems) SMC/S-T 35/2.0 is a quite good wide angle. The 35/3.5 looks like a cheap "beginner" lens and is not nearly as good. If you do get a 50, go for a 50 and not a 55 which is a lesser optic. SMC/S-T 105/2.8 has a fine reputation, as does SMC 150/4.0 (there are two versions of S-T 150/4.0, #2 sharper than #1). SMC 135/2.5 has two versions, #2 sharper than #1 (which is the same as the S-T 135/2.5), and #2 is presumably the same optics as the well-regarded Pentax K 135/2.5. SMC 85/1.8 is a legend for sharpness, and is expensive used. Auto-Takumar 85/1.8 is NOT the same lens! SMC/S-T 85/1.9 is supposedly soft wide-open in a portrait lens kind of way as the Pentax M 85/2.0 is. SMC 120/2.8 is apparently deliberately soft wide open for use as a portrait lens. SMC/S-T 200/4.0 is a decent lens but very big for its focal length and aperture. SMC/ST 300/4.0 is a very good lens and a more reasonable size for what it is (meaning it is a hair bigger than the butch 200, but not much larger than anybody else's MF 300/4.0). DJE
