Rodelion wrote:
>
> Isn't a Takumar like, uh... not so very coated, a Super Takumer a bit coated
> and a SMC Takumar very coated...?
Dunno! That's why I asked. Someone here will know, no doubt in my mind...
keith whaley
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 18:01
> Subject: Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210
>
> > 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!
= etc., snipped =
