You forgot to mention that most but not all Super Multicoated Takumar's allowed open aperture metering with Spotmatic F and ES cameras. While most Super Takumar's did not. (Although there were exceptions).
At 02:02 PM 9/12/2002 +1000, John wrote: >Hi Keith: >Here's my understanding of the various combinations of Takumar, SMC >etc: >Takumar was the original name for the non-auto diaphragm lenses of the >1950's - 60's. Some of these were pre-set diaphragm lenses, with an >additional control ring. You focussed these at full aperture, then >stopped them down for exposure (and for metering with the Spotmatic and >later). >Auto-Takumars were introduced with semi-automatic diaphragms, where you >opened up the aperture for focussing, and the camera closed it on >pressing the shutter release >Super-Takumars were introduced with the fully auto-diaphragm mechanism >when the Spotmatics, SV's and S1a's were produced, beginning about >1963-4. Lenses of 200mm and over continued to be produced with no >automatic diaphragm, and remained designated as Takumar or >Tele-Takumar, whether pre-set or manual diaphragm. >(Source: 'Asahi Pentax Guide', Focal Press, tenth edition, August >1967) > >Super-Takumar, then, does not necessarily refer to the coating used. > >Super-Multi-Coated coatings were introduced in 1971, and the lenses >were Bagdad "Super-Multi-Coated" in full. Pentax lenses were coated >prior to this, but part of the marketing of the SMC was that it was >more efficient for less thickness of coating - test reports at the time >said it blew away competitive coatings, and IIRC, had been either >jointly developed with, or licensed to, Carl Zeiss, who designated it >as T* coatings, or something similar. These seven-layer coatings, >according to the LX brochure, reduced the loss of transmitted light to >0.2%, compared with 1-2% for conventional coatings. > >It was with the change of mount to the bayonet that Pentax lens were >designated "Pentax" rather than "Takumar", and the SMC abbreviation >replaced the full text. I have a brochure for the original "K" series >release in which all of the new lenses are named "SMC Pentax" with the >suffix "Shift", "Macro", etc., where appropriate. > >The generally physically smaller lens range introduced for the M series >was designated "SMC Pentax-M". > >The LX brochure lists both SMC Pentax-M and SMC Pentax lenses, and I am >not sure whether the non-M ones are new introductions or a continuation >of the K series: for example the SMC Pentax 15/3.5 appears in both >brochures, but the SMC Pentax 30/2.8 only appears in the LX list > >The "Takumar Bayonet" range, introduced as a budget range in the later >'80's, did not carry the "SMC" tag at all, and, while my example of the >28/2.8 is optically good, it undoubtedly would be prone to more flare >than the M-series, which looks like a totally different design. > >HTH > >John Coyle >Nicholas John Consultants >Brisbane, Australia > > >On Thursday, September 12, 2002 2:02 AM, Keith Whaley >[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > 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
