All the screwmount era Pentax takumar macro lenses are indeed very sharp but only in the closeup range for which they are designed. They are only average at infinity and only then if stopped down quite a bit. JCO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 5:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SMC 2.4/50 macro >Gidday, >I have the oppurtunity to buy a Takumer 2.4/50 macro lens(screw >mount). It is in excellant condition in its original case. I have >been asked by the elderly gentleman who owns it to make him an >offer, but I'm not sure if it is a lens that I would use a lot. I >know there has been discussion about the 2.8 recently and could I be >a nuisance and ask the same questions about the 2.4, price , >opinions etc. I guess it would be an interesting item to add to my >screw mount lens collection, but I don't seem to be using my >Spotmatic F much anymore. >Anyway, any feedback would be great, maybe there is someone out >there who could use this lens more than me. >Cheers, >Ross I have never heard of a Takumar 50mm f2.4 macro. You probably mean a f4... It could be the version that goes to 1:1 without accessory. If so, the focusing mechanism is fragile. OK if it is in nice mechanical shape and you don't handle it roughly. Next ones are Super-Macro-Takumar and Super-Multi-Coated Macro. Both have the same optics but goes "down" to only 1:2, which is about the limit for hand-held photography. Better lenses mechanically, and the last one is multi-coated, which is better but only in some specific circumstances. It is a good macro lens (as most macro lenses have always been...) and you might want to use it if you don't have any macro lens. An old test in a french magazine found the first 50/4 (1:1) to be the sharpest 50mm lens of the normal lenses tested. But I think it is quite normal that a f/4 would be very sharp compared to a f2 etc. as it is easier to correct a f/4 lens. But to focus a f/4 lens is not as easy as with a f/2 lens. A bit like comparing an apple and an orange, one is more acid but both can have the same amount of vitamin C. I'm not sure I get myself understood here... Andre
