I believe the Takumar variants were not multi-coated, and were meant to be a low-consumer version of the lens.
> Since the specifications aren't published who knows. But the odds are > they are identical, (but subject to change without notice). > > Trevor Bailey wrote: > > >G'day All. > >I have a similar lens. > >It is a TAKUMAR-F ZOOM 70-200 4-5.6 > >I wonder what the difference is between the TAKUMAR and the PENTAX? > > > >Hooroo. > >Regards, Trevor > >Australia > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Peter J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Friday, 31 December 2004 11:21 AM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Strange > > > > > >Peter Smekal wrote: > > > > > > > >>I've seen a Pentax F-zoom 70-200 4-5.6 lens for sale, but I can't find > >>any information about it. Bojidars comprehensive site shows a F-zoom > >>70-210 4-5.6, and a FA-zoom 70-200 4-5.6, but not a F-zoom 70-200. The > >>same for Stan Halpin's site. Is the F-zoom 70-200 4-5.6 a hoax, or ... > >>has anybody seen it? Peter, Sweden > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >Look on Boz's site under non-smc zooms: > > > >http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/_non-SMC/pen-F_70-200f4-5.6.htm > >l > > > > > > > > > -- > I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. > During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings > and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during > peacetime. > --P.J. O'Rourke > >
