See here: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/normal/M50f1.4.html You can, just, see that on the example Boz uses, it has the standard way of showing the standard information on the lens - i.e., it shows a 50MM at the end.
His site may say more about the difference in nomenclature. I might suggest two different manufacturing sites, two different production runs, etc. but it would be pure speculation. As they say on the Antiques Roadshow, don't polish it or refinish it! You may have something quite valuable to a collector. stan On Feb 2, 2011, at 6:24 PM, Walter Gilbert wrote: > Hi all, > > In my absence from the list -- which, to the extent it was noticed, must have > been greatly appreciated -- I've managed to procure a few goodies for a > not-bad price, I think, but thought I'd get the opinions of folks more > knowledgeable than myself. I actually got a whole bunch of stuff -- filters, > hoods, and one useless lens which I haven't the foggiest notion what it might > be other than an 80-200/4.5 macro with a bent bayonet. Beyond that, however, > I got the following: > > Tokina SZ-X 28-200 3.5-5.3 > Pentax SMC FA 28-80 3.5-4.7 > Sigma 24-70 3.5-5.6 UC > > . . . and last but not least: > > SMC PENTAX 1:1.4/50 > > All lenses are in fair to excellent condition, except for the M-50/1.4, which > appears to have never been attached to anything. The threads don't even > appear to have ever had a filter screwed into them. There is something odd > about the lens, that I thought I'd ask about, though nothing > performance-wise. It's just that the printing around the front element is > ever-so-slightly different from what I've seen in images of the same lens > around the web. The imprint says: > > ASAHI OPT. CO., JAPAN -- Pentax SMC M-50/1.4 -- 1093350 > > The other lenses I've seen have "mm" appended after the "50" -- except for > those labeled SMC TAKUMAR, instead of SMC PENTAX. Is this indicative of > anything significant at all? I'm in absolute love with the lens, whatever > the case. It took some effort to convince myself to take it off the K-x in > order to try out the other lenses. But, I finally did (and regretted it, as > they all pale considerably). > > Whatever the case, I think I got a pretty damned good deal on it all, > considering I'm out a grand total of $200.00 US collectively. I figure I > came out OK by way of enablement for that kind of dough. > > Best, > > Walt > > > > > > -- > 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.
