Isn't a Takumar like, uh... not so very coated, a Super Takumer a bit coated and a SMC Takumar very coated...?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 18:01 Subject: Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210 > Hi Rob, > > You've brought up an interesting point. Well, to me anyhow! <g> > > By your statement "...I assume that the Takumar doesn't employ SMC > coatings," you made me wonder why you would assume such a thing. > So I checked all my M-42 Takumar lenses, and some do indeed include > the SMC coating, so just because it's a Takumar is not necessarily > associated with SMC coating or not. At least going by what's engraved > on the front bezel: > > . Super-Takumar 1:1.4/50 - looking at the front lens I see evidence of > numerous (11 or 12?) colored reflections, so it is definitely coated, > but no "SMC" on the lens bezel. This is my only 50mm lens with so many > coating reflections! > > . Super-Takumar 1:3.5/135 - only 4 reflections, but obviously coated. > Not SMC. Will it be less contrasty and subject to flare? I love this > lens for it's build and compactness. Shall I not use it because of > it's diminished contrast? I think not... > > . SMC Takumar 1:1.4/50 - 6 reflections. My Spotty F's always-attached > normal lens. Compare with the topmost listed 1.4/50 - are these two > different designs, or does the Super-Takumar have more coastings than > the SMC version? > > . Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:1.4/50 - 6 reflections, just like the > one above. There are obviously build differences, if only in how the > SMC is spelled out or abbreviated, and rubber vs. metal focus rings, etc. > > . Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 1:2.5/135mm - Only 3 reflections on this > lens, yet it's SMC. Different design than the f/3.5 version? > > How interesting... > What's the difference between a plain Takumar (is there any such?), a > Super-Takumar? Is the coating change all that takes place in a SMC > Takumar the only thing that makes it different from a Super-Takumar? > > If all this is too boring or elementary for you folks [smile] maybe > someone lead me to a site that describes the differences? > > Thanks to all, > > keith whaley > > > Rob Studdert wrote: > > > > On 10 Sep 2002 at 23:54, Steve Pearson wrote: > > > > > According to Boz's site, both these lenses are of the > > > same build (most importantly with the ED designation). > > > I would like to know if anyone out there has actually > > > ever owned both lenses at the same time and can verify > > > that the SMC F is better than the Takumar version? > > > Past posts have commented that the SMC is better, but > > > I wonder if that has ever been confirmed? > > > > Steve, > > > > I've no experience with either lens however I assume that the Takumar doesn't > > employ SMC coatings? If so you can expect it to exhibit reduced contrast and to > > be more prone to flare in any case. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html >
