Takumar-F/SMC Pentax-F 28-80 f3.5-4.5 Macro

[X Man]

Hello all. I'm into older bargain lenses and that often leads me down some strange paths...

Recently, after looking at some MTF data at photodo on the SMC Pentax-F 28-80 f3.5-4.5 Macro, I decided it was a decent "sleeper" beating the snot out of almost all of the other Pentax offerings in similar focal lengths and speeds.

However, I've found the SMC Pentax-F version isn't found very often and the prices when found aren't particularly compelling.

These factors led me to the Takumar-F version of the same focal length and speed. The lenses appear virtually identical. Of course the Takumar-F version supposedly does not have SMC.

Now, I've always found dubious the idea that Pentax, while manufacturing the 2 different versions of these lenses side by side I presume, actually farmed out or produced non-SMC elements in a separate production run to use in the Takumar-F versions. That never made sense to me from a production/manufacturing standpoint.

So, I do a little research on the Takumar-F version and find a lot of suspect or flat out inaccurate data. For instance, I believe the dimitrov data on the Takumar-F is actually data on the Takumar-A variant and incorrectly attributed to the F version. Why would I say that? Well, for one thing the number of aperture blades is said to be 6. Well, I'm looking at one right now, and I assure you all there are in fact 8 aperture blades.

Confused yet? Now, the SMC Pentax-F version is said to have 5 aperture blades. Please, is there anyone here who owns the SMC Pentax-F 28-80 f3.5-4.5 and can look and tell me the number of aperture blades? Please, check and don't just parrot 5 because that's what the internets say.

Regards,
Mike

[Just1MoreDave]

Originally Posted by X Man

...These factors led me to the Takumar-F version of the same focal length and speed. The lenses appear virtually identical. Of course the Takumar-F version supposedly does not have SMC.

Now, I've always found dubious the idea that Pentax, while manufacturing the 2 different versions of these lenses side by side I presume, actually farmed out or produced non-SMC elements in a separate production run to use in the Takumar-F versions. That never made sense to me from a production/manufacturing standpoint...

Most of the Takumar Bayonet/A/F line doesn't make sense. But the lens coating is readily recognizeable as either SMC or not. Although SMC varies a bit over time and appears to be somewhat different on the M or A 50/2, it always looks substantially different than the Takumar Bayonet/A/F coating.

The other parts of the lens often have features of the higher-end SMC lines, like 9 blade apertures or later optical versions, so I think you are right there. The Takumar Bayonet/A 28mm f2.8 has the later optical design used in the SMC Pentax A and F, not the older design of the Pentax-M.

Sorry I don't have any lenses that might give you a more complete answer.

[X Man]

Originally Posted by Just1MoreDave

Most of the Takumar Bayonet/A/F line doesn't make sense.

True 'Dat!

Originally Posted by Just1MoreDave

But the lens coating is readily recognizeable as either SMC or not. Although SMC varies a bit over time and appears to be somewhat different on the M or A 50/2, it always looks substantially different than the Takumar Bayonet/A/F coating.

I'm still not certain I'd agree with all of that. Lens coatings in general are, I think poorly understood by us "normal" people. I know that these subtitles in SMC and non-SMC Pentax lenses cause confusion for me. Why that is, is because there are many great Pentax lenses like the M42 Takumars that while not SMC are optically excellent. On the other hand there are more modern SMC Pentax lenses that are quite frankly poor performers. There are other things that only add to the confusion. I think most of us who've had numerous M42 Takumars may have noticed that several Super Takumar lenses just before the Super-Multi-Coated versions came out certainly appear to be SMC.

Now, back to my Takumar-F 28-80. I'd agree that it appears when compared to an SMC Pentax-M 50mm f1.7 I have here, that the Tak-F coating is different. More blues and Purple, less oranges/yellows. Like you say though the SMC has evolved and changed over time. So, perhaps the Tak-F isn't SMC but I do belive it to be Multi Coated. There's really only one lens I've ever owned that seemed to have nearly ZERO coatings and that was an M42 Auto Vivitar 35mm f2.8.

I'd certainly like to know the exact differences in the SMC and non-SMC F series. I doubt that that hard data is available outside of Pentax Headquarters though.

Originally Posted by Just1MoreDave

The other parts of the lens often have features of the higher-end SMC lines, like 9 blade apertures or later optical versions, so I think you are right there. The Takumar Bayonet/A 28mm f2.8 has the later optical design used in the SMC Pentax A and F, not the older design of the Pentax-M.

Sorry I don't have any lenses that might give you a more complete answer.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I appreciate it.

Still, the confusion endures. Right down to respected data sites being incorrect about the number of aperture blades on my Tak-F 28-80.

Regards,
mike

[memira]

I checked my SMC-F 28-80 and i has indeed 5 Blades. The differences between the Takumar F and the SMC F Version have already been discussed in various other forums and the main difference is not the coating but the whole construction with the SMC-F being composed of quite a few more elements (12 elemts in 9 groups vs 8 elemts in 8 groups). I think the Data of the Bojidar Dimitrov Site are right in this respect.

The Takumar F was at its time considered a budget lens which was sold in the kit, while the SMC-F was rather at the higher end pricing and performancewise.

I agree with you that the SMC-F 28-80 is a quite underrated lens. I love the one I have and am always again impressed by the solid construction and especially the colour rendering.

[jslifoaw]

I had a copy of the Takumar-A 28-80 and sold it for 8 bucks. M42 Takumars are excellent; K-mount ones not so much, except for maybe the 28mm.

There was a pretty obvious difference in sharpness, and also in colour if I compared to other lenses, even the kit lens. In fact, the kit lens is probably a far better lens to be using unless you really need 55-80.

[Stratman]

I have a copy of the Takumar F 28-80. Not a bad lens, not GREAT either I would guess. Here are a few, all shot with this lens on my K110D. Please ignore the few hairs on the sensor

[X Man]

Originally Posted by memira

I checked my SMC-F 28-80 and i has indeed 5 Blades.

Awesome, thanks for checking.

Originally Posted by memira

The differences between the Takumar F and the SMC F Version have already been discussed in various other forums and the main difference is not the coating but the whole construction with the SMC-F being composed of quite a few more elements (12 elemts in 9 groups vs 8 elemts in 8 groups). I think the Data of the Bojidar Dimitrov Site are right in this respect.

I believe you, honest I do, but my googling turned up useless crap with no discussion of #s of elements or aperture blades. Dimitrov's site is amazing and I hope nobody thinks I'm disparaging the massive amount of work that went into it. Still, the data for the number of aperture blades on my Tak-F 28-80 was wrong. Because of that, I began to doubt his data for the # of elements vs. the SMC Pen-F version. Still not 100% over that. I'm not willing to tear it down to find out for myself though.

Originally Posted by memira

The Takumar F was at its time considered a budget lens which was sold in the kit, while the SMC-F was rather at the higher end pricing and performancewise.

I agree with you that the SMC-F 28-80 is a quite underrated lens. I love the one I have and am always again impressed by the solid construction and especially the colour rendering.

What I did find googling were opinions on the Takumar-F lens that were on such opposite ends of the spectrum that it's really mind boggling, for me anyway. From high accolades to complete disgust.

I suppose the truth lies smack dab in the middle with the Tak-F version being a middle of the road, decent but not great lens. For what I just paid for it I'm pretty happy.

Thanks for your information!

Regards,
Mike

[memira]

I guess much of the controversities over these Lenses come from the fact that many mix them up. As a matter of fact the non SMC Version was also sold under two different designations (Takumar F in the USA and Pentax F in Europe).

The Takumar F / Pentax F version was sold as Kit lens for the SF7 (and maybe as well SFX but not sure about this).

With budget lens I didn't mean bad lens! I was just refering to the price as Pentax seems to have a long tradition for even the cheap lenses being pretty decent performers (as is still the case with the 18-55 kit - exception being the FAJ line which I would avoid from what I heared about them).

On a German forum somebody said that the SMC-F version had a price tag of over DM 700 which was at that time (late 80ies) pretty much money and would putt it into a completely different league than the Takumar F / Pentax F.

I cant comment on the performance of the Takumar F / Pentax F version other than quoting others experience as I never owned one myself. But as i said I can absolutely recommend the SMC-F version and think its worth the few more bucks it costs.