>When my FA50 was in the shop, I was using a supertak 50/1.4 with an adapter >for dance photography. The difference in tactile quality between the two >lenses is unbelievable.
I agree. However, one of the funny aspects of AF lenses is that they require no tactile/hands-on for ANYTHING. The "old school" MF lenses REQUIRE you to put your fingers on them and (IMHO) that is a big part of what we old farts have come to think of as Real Photography - as opposed to simply button pushing. (I know there is a lot more to Photography than focus, but you may get my drift.) Before I got this one I really hadn't paid a lot of attention to the differences between the various 50mm f1.4 Takumars. I've now got a Super Takumar and the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar. Looking at the front elements, the Super Takumar glass appears more "golden" in color, but this must be a quality of the coating (reflection) because when I hold them both up and look through them at my computer monitor (on white) the S-M-C is definitely a yellow/brown cast (Thorium element needing UV treatment). Other than that, the Super Tak is a few millimeters shorter and has 6 aperture blades as opposed to the S-M-C's 8. After doing some research, I see that there were two versions of the Super Tak. The earlier version was an 8 element design and is reportedly less sharp than the later 7 element Thorium design (which continued through the S-M-C - not sure about the SMC rubber focus ring version). That's the one I have. You can tell by the placement of the red IR focus indicator. If it is between the f4 marks it is the older 8 element. Outside the f4 marks it is the newer 7 element design. Should be fun running some side-by-side tests of these lenses on my K-x. Does the AWB compensate for the thorium color shift or is the UV clearing on the S-M-C required? Darren Addy Kearney, NE -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
