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
