Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-13 Thread Keith Whaley
A few minutes after your [this] post, Bob Rapp posted another answer as to what it is ~ the Auto/Manual lever disabler pin. When mounted on a Spotty F or ES, it keeps the lever from being moved to Manual. Provided it's still working, that is! ;^) keith John Coyle wrote: > > Sorry Keith, I've n

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-13 Thread Bob Rapp
The small pin you are talking about is for defeating the A/M lever when mounted on a "F" or "ES" bodies. Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: "John Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 5:25 PM Subj

RE: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-13 Thread John Coyle
Sorry Keith, I've never seen one of those! And I misinterpreted it's position - now I look at your post again it's much too far from where the aperture pin is. Can't help with that one, I'm afraid. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Friday, September 13, 2002 2:23 PM, Keith Whaley [SMTP:[EM

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-12 Thread Peter Alling
If it's a SMC Takumar, (and I would expect it is), when that lens is mounted on a Spotmatic F or ES there is a groove that keeps that pin from being pressed into the lens and stops the lens from being set from Auto to Manual, which would confuse the meter readings. On any other Pentax M42 body t

RE: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-12 Thread John Coyle
Keith: Glad that helped - doing the research also clarified my own memories! The spring-loaded pin is the one that is depressed from the camera body to close the aperture down for exposure. Interestingly enough, I have two examples of the 50/1.4, one labelled "Super-Takumar" and one "SMC Takum

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-12 Thread Keith Whaley
Thanks, John. It all helps. Now I'm faced with selling a couple of my stop-down aperture lenses and replacing with full-aperture metering lenses. I bought a couple when I was 'unaware.' I really hate getting rid of my Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5 M-42 mount. It's so smooth and small, and almost br

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-12 Thread James Adams
Steve, I have a Takumar F 1:4-5.6 70-210mm, and an SMC-F 1:3.5-4.5 28-80mm zoom, and used both on my recent sortie afloat at the Tall Ships, with excellent results(SF-1 and MZ-7). When I get my slides scanned, I'll post a link. James

RE: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-12 Thread Peter Alling
You forgot to mention that most but not all Super Multicoated Takumar's allowed open aperture metering with Spotmatic F and ES cameras. While most Super Takumar's did not. (Although there were exceptions). At 02:02 PM 9/12/2002 +1000, John wrote: >Hi Keith: >Here's my understanding of the vario

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-12 Thread Keith Whaley
I figured that's what you meant. On the other hand, I allowed for the fact that it might have been just one more colloquialism I'd never heard! keith whaley John Coyle wrote: > > Uuuurgggh - my damned spell-checker put Bagdad in instead of "badged" > in my earlier reply! > Sorry, all. > John

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-12 Thread Keith Whaley
Steve Pearson wrote: > > Thanks all for the input. I think I am now more > confused than ever. Has anyone actually answered my > question? Do we now for sure that the Takumar F > 70-210 does not have SMC coatings? My guess is that Pentax would actually engrave 'SMC' on ALL lenses that had t

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-11 Thread Fred
> Except for the Medium format lenses which were branded Takumar for > a much longer time. ...and which have always stood for quality in the Pentax medium format lens lineup. Fred

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-11 Thread Keith Whaley
m: "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! > > &

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-11 Thread Rodelion
Isn't a Takumar like, uh... not so very coated, a Super Takumer a bit coated and a SMC Takumar very coated...? - Original Message - From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2002 18:01 Subject: Re: SMC F

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-11 Thread Fred
> 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 c

Re: SMC F 70-210 Vs. Takumar F 70-210

2002-09-11 Thread Keith Whaley
Hi Rob, You've brought up an interesting point. Well, to me anyhow! 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 be