40 years since they made these lenses. The 2.0 and 1.8 are optically equivalent (elements, etc.) Any competent repairman could have salvaged 1 good lens from 2 poor ones. Regards, Bob S.
On 3/26/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you're close with option #1. However, the aperture ring is from a > Super-Takumar, as is the front ring with the nomenclature on it (somebody > school me on the terminology here). The focusing ring is from either a > Super-Multi-Coated Takumar or an SMC Takumar. It looks to my like that > particular lens was built with parts from at least three different lenses. > > -- > Scott Loveless > www.twosixteen.com/ > > > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: "Bong Manayon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I think it's #3...buy the lens...could be a collector's item! > > > > I had one of them (the 1.8) once in my youth (I had an SP) and the > > photo got me intrigued so I pulled out the little red book and saw the > > entry for both the 55/2 & 55/1.8 were one and the same. The > > specifications for both are an exact match with the exception of the > > aperture. > > > > http://www.bong.uni.cc/takumar_mix_up.htm > > > > It appears that the 55/2 is the standard lens for the SP1000 while the > > 55/1.8 is the alternative lens for the ESII and the SP F (vs. 50/1.4). > > That data comes from the white pamplet which is newer. My guess that > > the 55/2 should have been the low cost version... > > > > Bong > > > > On 3/26/07, Igor Roshchin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hello! > > > > > > I came across this image: > > > http://www.isphera.boom.ru/download/cameras/DSC_2369.JPG > > > Note two things: the front surface of the lens says: > > > Super-Takumar 1:2/55 > > > The aperture ring has 1.8 position. > > > > > > I am puzzled. I don't have interest in the lens, it is just > > > my curiousity. My guesses: > > > 1. a lens that was put together from an SMCT 55/1.8 and 55/2.0 by > > > some craftsman; > > > 2. result of a good work in Photoshop; > > > 3. some weird case of a factory mixup. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Igor > > > > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > -- > > Bong Manayon > > http://www.bong.uni.cc > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
