Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
As i understand it, the same 7 element optical formula was used for all the rest of the 50mm f1.4s. The only thing that changed was the coatings (other than obvious build differences on the change to the SMC Takumar). On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:38 AM, Alan C c...@lantic.net wrote: So where do the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar SMC Takumar versions fit into this puzzle? Alan C -Original Message- From: Darren Addy Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4 Don't know how many will be interested in this, but it is kind of a big deal if you are looking for the original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 (or think you already own one). It started when I found this photo on Flickr: 3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/8312126654 The poster here believes that the middle lens is a hybrid between the 8 element and the 7 element. He goes on to dissect it and prove that it is a 7 element design. But I discovered taht one thing that threw him off is actually a Pentax mistake: If you look at the Red Infrared focusing mark and compare the three lenses, you will see that the spacing of the lines is different on the true 8 element, as compared to the other two. The hybrid actually has the wrong line painted red. This gives the impression that it is an 8 element, but if you look closely you will see that they have actually painted the f4 line red on the hybrid. I don't know how many example of this there might be out there, but if you were counting on the red infrared focusing mark as the identifying feature you might want to look again. I placed a comment in that photo's thread showing the same thing. So the hybrid IS a transitional lens, in that they are still using the A/M designation (like they did on the original 8 element) and not the later Auto/Man. But it is in all other respects a 7 element lens. To help narrow it down a bit, in a later post, Andreas gives the serial numbers of the two lenses: 1585445 the 8 element 1591478 the hybrid Side note: The majority of people who are registering the serial number of their original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4s are on crack (or believe they have one since they procurred it from an unscrupulous seller that listed it as such) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-serial-number-database/?do=viewserialsid=127 -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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. -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
Alan C wrote: So where do the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar SMC Takumar versions fit into this puzzle? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
Pin, Straight - one each - head for angels dancing upon -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
I suppose your comment, John is that all of this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps you are also of the mindset that all wines taste the same. Great photographs are not totally dependent upon great equipment, but that doesn't mean that there aren't differences in that equipment and that some people will be able to notice that difference (and want to have the better tool in their toolbelt). Certainly those who wish to remain ignorant are free do do so. Those who can't discern the difference would be silly to care. It is also a waste of time to try to educate anyone who doesn't want to be educated. But I suggest that you don't have to have the greatest pair of eyes in the world to discern the difference and to decide for yourself which was the superior optical design (the 8 element or the cheaper to build 7 element): http://www.addicted2light.com/2013/07/08/battle-of-the-50s-an-update-on-the-pentax-takumar-war/ On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 8:59 AM, John johnsess...@yahoo.com wrote: Pin, Straight - one each - head for angels dancing upon -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.addicted2light.com/2013/07/08/battle-of-the-50s-an-update-on-the-pentax-takumar-war/ I don't understand how such a difference in depth of field can occur due to differences in the optical configuration. I think it far more likely that they are focused differently, and/or the 8-element is stopping down more than the 7-element (e.g. due to a mechanical problem). Do you own these lenses? I would be curious whether the result can be reproduced. -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
I've got a black-bodied Spotmatic with the 8-element on the way. I already own the Super-Multi-Coated and SMC Takumar versions. So, yes, I could theoretically reproduce such a test (sans mountain haze) after it arrives. On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 9:41 AM, Matthew Hunt m...@pobox.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.addicted2light.com/2013/07/08/battle-of-the-50s-an-update-on-the-pentax-takumar-war/ I don't understand how such a difference in depth of field can occur due to differences in the optical configuration. I think it far more likely that they are focused differently, and/or the 8-element is stopping down more than the 7-element (e.g. due to a mechanical problem). Do you own these lenses? I would be curious whether the result can be reproduced. -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
8. Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4 (Darren Addy) From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com I suppose your comment, John is that all of this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps you are also of the mindset that all wines taste the same. Great photographs are not totally dependent upon great equipment, but that doesn't mean that there aren't differences in that equipment and that some people will be able to notice that difference (and want to have the better tool in their toolbelt). Certainly those who wish to remain ignorant are free do do so. Those who can't discern the difference would be silly to care. It is also a waste of time to try to educate anyone who doesn't want to be educated. But I suggest that you don't have to have the greatest pair of eyes in the world to discern the difference and to decide for yourself which was the superior optical design (the 8 element or the cheaper to build 7 element): Yawn... scratch... scratch... scratch. You've awakened a slumbering bear Darren. Funny, because you summed up quite nicely my rationale for changing brands. :) John probably drinks jug wines (some of which are actually OK). :) Tom C. -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
Yeah, well, that may be your rationale but it also comes with a heft price tag that has to be factored in for anybody wishing to make a similar evaluation involving chucking their PK m42 glass. What I particularly like about this particular bit of kit (the original 8 element Super Takumar) is that you can get the superior optical performance for a relative pittance (particularly since the interwebs are full of misinformation on this particular lens). You could even use it on your D800E, if you didn't mind losing infinity or introducing an adapter with an additional optical element. At least Canon owners don't have THAT problem. (Tee-Hee!) On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Tom C caka...@gmail.com wrote: 8. Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4 (Darren Addy) From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com I suppose your comment, John is that all of this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps you are also of the mindset that all wines taste the same. Great photographs are not totally dependent upon great equipment, but that doesn't mean that there aren't differences in that equipment and that some people will be able to notice that difference (and want to have the better tool in their toolbelt). Certainly those who wish to remain ignorant are free do do so. Those who can't discern the difference would be silly to care. It is also a waste of time to try to educate anyone who doesn't want to be educated. But I suggest that you don't have to have the greatest pair of eyes in the world to discern the difference and to decide for yourself which was the superior optical design (the 8 element or the cheaper to build 7 element): Yawn... scratch... scratch... scratch. You've awakened a slumbering bear Darren. Funny, because you summed up quite nicely my rationale for changing brands. :) John probably drinks jug wines (some of which are actually OK). :) Tom C. -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com Yeah, well, that may be your rationale but it also comes with a heft price tag that has to be factored in for anybody wishing to make a similar evaluation involving chucking their PK m42 glass. What I particularly like about this particular bit of kit (the original 8 element Super Takumar) is that you can get the superior optical performance for a relative pittance (particularly since the interwebs are full of misinformation on this particular lens). You could even use it on your D800E, if you didn't mind losing infinity or introducing an adapter with an additional optical element. At least Canon owners don't have THAT problem. (Tee-Hee!) It's not a problem since I'll never be using that lens on the D800E. There are plenty of 50's for it, including the AF-S 50mm f/1.4G SIC SW which is one of the best modern 50's out there. -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
On 8/14/2013 1:05 PM, Tom C wrote: 8. Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4 (Darren Addy) From: Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com I suppose your comment, John is that all of this is much ado about nothing. Perhaps you are also of the mindset that all wines taste the same. Great photographs are not totally dependent upon great equipment, but that doesn't mean that there aren't differences in that equipment and that some people will be able to notice that difference (and want to have the better tool in their toolbelt). Certainly those who wish to remain ignorant are free do do so. Those who can't discern the difference would be silly to care. It is also a waste of time to try to educate anyone who doesn't want to be educated. But I suggest that you don't have to have the greatest pair of eyes in the world to discern the difference and to decide for yourself which was the superior optical design (the 8 element or the cheaper to build 7 element): Yawn... scratch... scratch... scratch. You've awakened a slumbering bear Darren. Funny, because you summed up quite nicely my rationale for changing brands. :) John probably drinks jug wines (some of which are actually OK). :) Tom C. All wines may taste the same, but all GIN does not. Nor, are all brands of tonic created equal. And don't get me started on who grew the limes. Still, I don't drink much of anything nowadays. Towards the end of my honky-tonking lifestyle I got in the habit of being the designated driver it's kind of stuck with me. I have a glass about the size shape of a tennis ball. If I've got insomnia REAL BAD, I'll fill it half full of wine let it sit out for an hour or so before I want to go to bed try to sleep. Works better than sleeping pills. I do have a partial 5-Litre BOX of Merlot in the fridge. I don't remember how long it's been in there, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 10 years old. No, correct that, it's an Almaden Mountain Burgundy of California. I just went looked. Also, there's half a bottle of Chateau Chevalier 2006 Cabernet Sauvignon from the Spring Mountain District of Napa Valley. I know it's only been in there for a year. I'm pretty sure I've got at least one other bottle of wine around here somewhere, but I don't know where it's got to at the moment. The two bottles of wine were part of a prize I won in a charity raffle. The box of wine was so I could offer SOMETHING other than tap-water on the rare occasions I have guests. Not everyone drinks black coffee. I keep forgetting that other people put stuff in their coffee neglect to stock cream/creamer or sugar. Lenses are indeed tools, but I haven't seen that the optical design makes all that much difference in how well they drive nails. But, to each his own. -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
Darren, A 40+ year old hybrid lens nobody has ever discovered? Lots of dis-assembly and re-assembly possible over the years. In the old days, people paid VERY close attention and missed it? Regards, Bob S. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Don't know how many will be interested in this, but it is kind of a big deal if you are looking for the original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 (or think you already own one). It started when I found this photo on Flickr: 3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/8312126654 The poster here believes that the middle lens is a hybrid between the 8 element and the 7 element. He goes on to dissect it and prove that it is a 7 element design. But I discovered taht one thing that threw him off is actually a Pentax mistake: If you look at the Red Infrared focusing mark and compare the three lenses, you will see that the spacing of the lines is different on the true 8 element, as compared to the other two. The hybrid actually has the wrong line painted red. This gives the impression that it is an 8 element, but if you look closely you will see that they have actually painted the f4 line red on the hybrid. I don't know how many example of this there might be out there, but if you were counting on the red infrared focusing mark as the identifying feature you might want to look again. I placed a comment in that photo's thread showing the same thing. So the hybrid IS a transitional lens, in that they are still using the A/M designation (like they did on the original 8 element) and not the later Auto/Man. But it is in all other respects a 7 element lens. To help narrow it down a bit, in a later post, Andreas gives the serial numbers of the two lenses: 1585445 the 8 element 1591478 the hybrid Side note: The majority of people who are registering the serial number of their original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4s are on crack (or believe they have one since they procurred it from an unscrupulous seller that listed it as such) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-serial-number-database/?do=viewserialsid=127 -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
I'm not saying it is a hybrid, but that was what the OP called it. The infrared mark is clearly a mistake. The wrong line is painted red. Disassembly and reassembly have nothing to do with changing what lines are painted what colors on a single part. As an aside, I'm told via a comment on my Flickr page that this same mistake is found on some FA 43 Limiteds. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com wrote: Darren, A 40+ year old hybrid lens nobody has ever discovered? Lots of dis-assembly and re-assembly possible over the years. In the old days, people paid VERY close attention and missed it? Regards, Bob S. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: Don't know how many will be interested in this, but it is kind of a big deal if you are looking for the original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 (or think you already own one). It started when I found this photo on Flickr: 3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/8312126654 The poster here believes that the middle lens is a hybrid between the 8 element and the 7 element. He goes on to dissect it and prove that it is a 7 element design. But I discovered taht one thing that threw him off is actually a Pentax mistake: If you look at the Red Infrared focusing mark and compare the three lenses, you will see that the spacing of the lines is different on the true 8 element, as compared to the other two. The hybrid actually has the wrong line painted red. This gives the impression that it is an 8 element, but if you look closely you will see that they have actually painted the f4 line red on the hybrid. I don't know how many example of this there might be out there, but if you were counting on the red infrared focusing mark as the identifying feature you might want to look again. I placed a comment in that photo's thread showing the same thing. So the hybrid IS a transitional lens, in that they are still using the A/M designation (like they did on the original 8 element) and not the later Auto/Man. But it is in all other respects a 7 element lens. To help narrow it down a bit, in a later post, Andreas gives the serial numbers of the two lenses: 1585445 the 8 element 1591478 the hybrid Side note: The majority of people who are registering the serial number of their original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4s are on crack (or believe they have one since they procurred it from an unscrupulous seller that listed it as such) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-serial-number-database/?do=viewserialsid=127 -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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. -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
FWIW, The easiest way to tell a true 8 element is the rear glass element protrudes unprotected. On the later 7 element versions the rear element glass has a metal rim protecting it. jco On 8/13/2013 2:48 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Don't know how many will be interested in this, but it is kind of a big deal if you are looking for the original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 (or think you already own one). It started when I found this photo on Flickr: 3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/8312126654 The poster here believes that the middle lens is a hybrid between the 8 element and the 7 element. He goes on to dissect it and prove that it is a 7 element design. But I discovered taht one thing that threw him off is actually a Pentax mistake: If you look at the Red Infrared focusing mark and compare the three lenses, you will see that the spacing of the lines is different on the true 8 element, as compared to the other two. The hybrid actually has the wrong line painted red. This gives the impression that it is an 8 element, but if you look closely you will see that they have actually painted the f4 line red on the hybrid. I don't know how many example of this there might be out there, but if you were counting on the red infrared focusing mark as the identifying feature you might want to look again. I placed a comment in that photo's thread showing the same thing. So the hybrid IS a transitional lens, in that they are still using the A/M designation (like they did on the original 8 element) and not the later Auto/Man. But it is in all other respects a 7 element lens. To help narrow it down a bit, in a later post, Andreas gives the serial numbers of the two lenses: 1585445 the 8 element 1591478 the hybrid Side note: The majority of people who are registering the serial number of their original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4s are on crack (or believe they have one since they procurred it from an unscrupulous seller that listed it as such) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-serial-number-database/?do=viewserialsid=127 -- J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -- -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
That's true, J.C. but that is the part you are least likely to see when looking at photos (online auctions, etc.) The lens will either be on the camera or they will have a cap on the back. Unless the seller knows what they actually have, in which case somebody else can buy it. : ) On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote: FWIW, The easiest way to tell a true 8 element is the rear glass element protrudes unprotected. On the later 7 element versions the rear element glass has a metal rim protecting it. jco On 8/13/2013 2:48 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Don't know how many will be interested in this, but it is kind of a big deal if you are looking for the original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 (or think you already own one). It started when I found this photo on Flickr: 3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/8312126654 The poster here believes that the middle lens is a hybrid between the 8 element and the 7 element. He goes on to dissect it and prove that it is a 7 element design. But I discovered taht one thing that threw him off is actually a Pentax mistake: If you look at the Red Infrared focusing mark and compare the three lenses, you will see that the spacing of the lines is different on the true 8 element, as compared to the other two. The hybrid actually has the wrong line painted red. This gives the impression that it is an 8 element, but if you look closely you will see that they have actually painted the f4 line red on the hybrid. I don't know how many example of this there might be out there, but if you were counting on the red infrared focusing mark as the identifying feature you might want to look again. I placed a comment in that photo's thread showing the same thing. So the hybrid IS a transitional lens, in that they are still using the A/M designation (like they did on the original 8 element) and not the later Auto/Man. But it is in all other respects a 7 element lens. To help narrow it down a bit, in a later post, Andreas gives the serial numbers of the two lenses: 1585445 the 8 element 1591478 the hybrid Side note: The majority of people who are registering the serial number of their original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4s are on crack (or believe they have one since they procurred it from an unscrupulous seller that listed it as such) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-serial-number-database/?do=viewserialsid=127 -- J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -- -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
I'm going to be the dumb guy here and ask is there any real major differences between the 7 and 8 element version optically? IIRC the earlier version is more desirable? Or do I have it the wrong way around? I never got what the big deal was over the Takumar 50/1.4. I have a M50/1.4 and its very, very good for portraits with delicious smooth bokeh. From some sources, I heard the takumar is slightly softer. So what's the deal with this lens? On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: That's true, J.C. but that is the part you are least likely to see when looking at photos (online auctions, etc.) The lens will either be on the camera or they will have a cap on the back. Unless the seller knows what they actually have, in which case somebody else can buy it. : ) On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote: FWIW, The easiest way to tell a true 8 element is the rear glass element protrudes unprotected. On the later 7 element versions the rear element glass has a metal rim protecting it. jco On 8/13/2013 2:48 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Don't know how many will be interested in this, but it is kind of a big deal if you are looking for the original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 (or think you already own one). It started when I found this photo on Flickr: 3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/8312126654 The poster here believes that the middle lens is a hybrid between the 8 element and the 7 element. He goes on to dissect it and prove that it is a 7 element design. But I discovered taht one thing that threw him off is actually a Pentax mistake: If you look at the Red Infrared focusing mark and compare the three lenses, you will see that the spacing of the lines is different on the true 8 element, as compared to the other two. The hybrid actually has the wrong line painted red. This gives the impression that it is an 8 element, but if you look closely you will see that they have actually painted the f4 line red on the hybrid. I don't know how many example of this there might be out there, but if you were counting on the red infrared focusing mark as the identifying feature you might want to look again. I placed a comment in that photo's thread showing the same thing. So the hybrid IS a transitional lens, in that they are still using the A/M designation (like they did on the original 8 element) and not the later Auto/Man. But it is in all other respects a 7 element lens. To help narrow it down a bit, in a later post, Andreas gives the serial numbers of the two lenses: 1585445 the 8 element 1591478 the hybrid Side note: The majority of people who are registering the serial number of their original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4s are on crack (or believe they have one since they procurred it from an unscrupulous seller that listed it as such) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-serial-number-database/?do=viewserialsid=127 -- J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -- -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
Oh I see. Reading a bit on this there appears to be little quality difference in pictures between the two optical formulas and that the 8 element is rare, and obviously more valuable. Pretty much as much as I assumed. I guess if hybrids existed they would be rare yet and worth a bit more. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: I'm going to be the dumb guy here and ask is there any real major differences between the 7 and 8 element version optically? IIRC the earlier version is more desirable? Or do I have it the wrong way around? I never got what the big deal was over the Takumar 50/1.4. I have a M50/1.4 and its very, very good for portraits with delicious smooth bokeh. From some sources, I heard the takumar is slightly softer. So what's the deal with this lens? On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: That's true, J.C. but that is the part you are least likely to see when looking at photos (online auctions, etc.) The lens will either be on the camera or they will have a cap on the back. Unless the seller knows what they actually have, in which case somebody else can buy it. : ) On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote: FWIW, The easiest way to tell a true 8 element is the rear glass element protrudes unprotected. On the later 7 element versions the rear element glass has a metal rim protecting it. jco On 8/13/2013 2:48 PM, Darren Addy wrote: Don't know how many will be interested in this, but it is kind of a big deal if you are looking for the original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 (or think you already own one). It started when I found this photo on Flickr: 3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/8312126654 The poster here believes that the middle lens is a hybrid between the 8 element and the 7 element. He goes on to dissect it and prove that it is a 7 element design. But I discovered taht one thing that threw him off is actually a Pentax mistake: If you look at the Red Infrared focusing mark and compare the three lenses, you will see that the spacing of the lines is different on the true 8 element, as compared to the other two. The hybrid actually has the wrong line painted red. This gives the impression that it is an 8 element, but if you look closely you will see that they have actually painted the f4 line red on the hybrid. I don't know how many example of this there might be out there, but if you were counting on the red infrared focusing mark as the identifying feature you might want to look again. I placed a comment in that photo's thread showing the same thing. So the hybrid IS a transitional lens, in that they are still using the A/M designation (like they did on the original 8 element) and not the later Auto/Man. But it is in all other respects a 7 element lens. To help narrow it down a bit, in a later post, Andreas gives the serial numbers of the two lenses: 1585445 the 8 element 1591478 the hybrid Side note: The majority of people who are registering the serial number of their original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4s are on crack (or believe they have one since they procurred it from an unscrupulous seller that listed it as such) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-serial-number-database/?do=viewserialsid=127 -- J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net -- -- 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. -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
The earlier 8-element version was sought after by collectors for a while because it didn't yellow with age, as the 7-element lens did. The 7-element 50/1.4 Takumar used thorium in (one?) rare-earth glass element, as did a couple of other Takumars of the time. I think the earlier lens was worse wide open and took longer to improve by stopping down, though it gave a dreamy effect when wide open that was sometimes desirable. The earlier lens' rear element may have also protruded more -- in fact, when it was released, it couldn't be used on earlier Pentax SV/H3v, S3/H3, S1a/H1a, etc. cameras because of the mirror box design. The SV/H3v mirror box was tweaked to allow this lens to be mounted without damaging the rear element (those later SV/H3v cameras had the green R marking the rewind lever rather than an orange one. Joe Oh I see. Reading a bit on this there appears to be little quality difference in pictures between the two optical formulas and that the 8 element is rare, and obviously more valuable. Pretty much as much as I assumed. I guess if hybrids existed they would be rare yet and worth a bit more. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: I'm going to be the dumb guy here and ask is there any real major differences between the 7 and 8 element version optically? IIRC the earlier version is more desirable? Or do I have it the wrong way around? I never got what the big deal was over the Takumar 50/1.4. I have a M50/1.4 and its very, very good for portraits with delicious smooth bokeh. From some sources, I heard the takumar is slightly softer. So what's the deal with this lens? On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: That's true, J.C. but that is the part you are least likely to see when looking at photos (online auctions, etc.) The lens will either be on the camera or they will have a cap on the back. Unless the seller knows what they actually have, in which case somebody else can buy it. : ) On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote: FWIW, The easiest way to tell a true 8 element is the rear glass element protrudes unprotected. On the later 7 element versions the rear element glass has a metal rim protecting it. jco -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
Just checked my H3b. It has the orange R. Paul via phone On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Joe J. Wilensky jj...@cornell.edu wrote: The earlier 8-element version was sought after by collectors for a while because it didn't yellow with age, as the 7-element lens did. The 7-element 50/1.4 Takumar used thorium in (one?) rare-earth glass element, as did a couple of other Takumars of the time. I think the earlier lens was worse wide open and took longer to improve by stopping down, though it gave a dreamy effect when wide open that was sometimes desirable. The earlier lens' rear element may have also protruded more -- in fact, when it was released, it couldn't be used on earlier Pentax SV/H3v, S3/H3, S1a/H1a, etc. cameras because of the mirror box design. The SV/H3v mirror box was tweaked to allow this lens to be mounted without damaging the rear element (those later SV/H3v cameras had the green R marking the rewind lever rather than an orange one. Joe Oh I see. Reading a bit on this there appears to be little quality difference in pictures between the two optical formulas and that the 8 element is rare, and obviously more valuable. Pretty much as much as I assumed. I guess if hybrids existed they would be rare yet and worth a bit more. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: I'm going to be the dumb guy here and ask is there any real major differences between the 7 and 8 element version optically? IIRC the earlier version is more desirable? Or do I have it the wrong way around? I never got what the big deal was over the Takumar 50/1.4. I have a M50/1.4 and its very, very good for portraits with delicious smooth bokeh. From some sources, I heard the takumar is slightly softer. So what's the deal with this lens? On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: That's true, J.C. but that is the part you are least likely to see when looking at photos (online auctions, etc.) The lens will either be on the camera or they will have a cap on the back. Unless the seller knows what they actually have, in which case somebody else can buy it. : ) On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote: FWIW, The easiest way to tell a true 8 element is the rear glass element protrudes unprotected. On the later 7 element versions the rear element glass has a metal rim protecting it. jco -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
Make that my H3v. Can't type on a phone. Paul via phone On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:02 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote: Just checked my H3b. It has the orange R. Paul via phone On Aug 13, 2013, at 10:55 PM, Joe J. Wilensky jj...@cornell.edu wrote: The earlier 8-element version was sought after by collectors for a while because it didn't yellow with age, as the 7-element lens did. The 7-element 50/1.4 Takumar used thorium in (one?) rare-earth glass element, as did a couple of other Takumars of the time. I think the earlier lens was worse wide open and took longer to improve by stopping down, though it gave a dreamy effect when wide open that was sometimes desirable. The earlier lens' rear element may have also protruded more -- in fact, when it was released, it couldn't be used on earlier Pentax SV/H3v, S3/H3, S1a/H1a, etc. cameras because of the mirror box design. The SV/H3v mirror box was tweaked to allow this lens to be mounted without damaging the rear element (those later SV/H3v cameras had the green R marking the rewind lever rather than an orange one. Joe Oh I see. Reading a bit on this there appears to be little quality difference in pictures between the two optical formulas and that the 8 element is rare, and obviously more valuable. Pretty much as much as I assumed. I guess if hybrids existed they would be rare yet and worth a bit more. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Zos Xavius zosxav...@gmail.com wrote: I'm going to be the dumb guy here and ask is there any real major differences between the 7 and 8 element version optically? IIRC the earlier version is more desirable? Or do I have it the wrong way around? I never got what the big deal was over the Takumar 50/1.4. I have a M50/1.4 and its very, very good for portraits with delicious smooth bokeh. From some sources, I heard the takumar is slightly softer. So what's the deal with this lens? On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote: That's true, J.C. but that is the part you are least likely to see when looking at photos (online auctions, etc.) The lens will either be on the camera or they will have a cap on the back. Unless the seller knows what they actually have, in which case somebody else can buy it. : ) On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 3:25 PM, J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net wrote: FWIW, The easiest way to tell a true 8 element is the rear glass element protrudes unprotected. On the later 7 element versions the rear element glass has a metal rim protecting it. jco -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml -- Mark Roberts - Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- 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.
Re: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4
So where do the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar SMC Takumar versions fit into this puzzle? Alan C -Original Message- From: Darren Addy Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 8:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Found a Pentax mistake in the Super Tak 50mm f1.4 Don't know how many will be interested in this, but it is kind of a big deal if you are looking for the original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 (or think you already own one). It started when I found this photo on Flickr: 3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/8312126654 The poster here believes that the middle lens is a hybrid between the 8 element and the 7 element. He goes on to dissect it and prove that it is a 7 element design. But I discovered taht one thing that threw him off is actually a Pentax mistake: If you look at the Red Infrared focusing mark and compare the three lenses, you will see that the spacing of the lines is different on the true 8 element, as compared to the other two. The hybrid actually has the wrong line painted red. This gives the impression that it is an 8 element, but if you look closely you will see that they have actually painted the f4 line red on the hybrid. I don't know how many example of this there might be out there, but if you were counting on the red infrared focusing mark as the identifying feature you might want to look again. I placed a comment in that photo's thread showing the same thing. So the hybrid IS a transitional lens, in that they are still using the A/M designation (like they did on the original 8 element) and not the later Auto/Man. But it is in all other respects a 7 element lens. To help narrow it down a bit, in a later post, Andreas gives the serial numbers of the two lenses: 1585445 the 8 element 1591478 the hybrid Side note: The majority of people who are registering the serial number of their original 8 element Super Takumar 50mm f1.4s are on crack (or believe they have one since they procurred it from an unscrupulous seller that listed it as such) http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-serial-number-database/?do=viewserialsid=127 -- Photography is a Bastard left by Science on the Doorstep of Art - Peter Galassi -- 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. -- 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.
