No problem, just explaining my thought processes. I'm a software
engineer by trade by the IT market is only just recovering. I've been
doing odd jobs mostly dealing with end users who are none to precise
about their requirements and needs, it's almost like developing esp.
God help me when I'm wrong...
Keith Whaley wrote:
Okay, Peter...
I was trained to read precisely what was written, and so many people
"sort of" get it right when they identify something, you have to be
come adept at reading between the lines, which is literally guessing.
Based on a few clues, we all did alright, didn't we.
Re SMC, there's quite literally several, such as smc, SMC,
Super-Multi-Coated, and they were all applied to their given lenses
for a reason. They meant something specific.
While "smc" and "SMC" both represent Super Multi-Coating, what lenses
they were engraved on were different from each other. For a lens
collector, or just someone with a motivated interest, they simply are
not the same.
Sorry to be a pedant about it all, but what one calls something should
represent a specific item, not generalities.
I find the minutiae of identifying a specific lens part of the
excitement of collecting.
They all had their specific place in the production line of lens
manufacture.
To assign a "name" to a lens more or less arbitrarily is shuffling the
deck.
Others have no problem with calling all of them SMCs, no matter what
the factory called them...
Hey! If they're happy, more power to them.
I'll try to be less of a nit-picker, honest. <grin>
keith whaley
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Keith,
He also called it SMC, so I'm assuming that he knew Asahi was
Pentax. In my mind I substituted as I assumed he did. So my
conclusion was
that he asking about the the M42 lens. I have both and they are both
equally good. I could be wrong but the assumptions seemed reasonable.
Keith Whaley wrote:
Hi Peter,
I gather the buyer knew it was an M42 mount, since he called it a
Takumar.
The only thing up to question is, is it an Auto- or S.M-C Tak?
No, I'm wrong, he called it a Pentax Takumar, of which there were
none...
So, we have two things to determine, is it an Asahi or a Pentax.
Then, of course, he has a choice depending on what camera body he
wants so use it on.
I had the same dilemma a couple or three years ago.
I had a chance to buy a model II of the f/2.5 135mm /sc takumar.
While I had a few M42 bodies, I wanted to use it on my M-series
bodies (MG, MV, MX.)
So, I left the adapter ring on it, and really enjoyed it!
Later I found a K-mount 135, a Vivitar Series 1 f/2.3, a lovely
piece of glass...
keith whaley
Peter J. Alling wrote:
The SMC Takumar is one of the lenses that became a K mount with
virtually no changes except the mount of course.
Comments about the Pentax should apply to the Tak as well. 150
seems to be a reasonable price, but remember it
is a M42 lens so you'll need an adapter...
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Mon, 6 Sep 2004, Dr. Heiko Hamann wrote:
I've got the chance to get a Pentax Takumar 85/1.8 for 150,-
Euro. Is
that a good price and should I go for it? Stan's website shows
very good
comments on this lens.
I don't think Stan's site has anything like that. If it's the K85/1.8
it is meant to be a good lens. I don't think there is a Takumar
bayonet 85mm lens.
Kostas
--
Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested
in dogs.
P. J. O'Rourke
