Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-14-2010, 07:47 AM   #16
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
No, this is not what I meant. I thought the super multi coated were all F1.8's and the super tak's were F1.9's
There's definitely a S-M-C 85mm f1.9 with a 4/5 arrangement and a S-M-C 85mm f1.8 with a 6/6 arrangement.

Edit: There are actually at least 2 versions of the Super Tak 85mm f1.9. Both are 4/5 as well but the earlier one has a diaphragm that goes from 1.9-22 and the later one goes to 16.

06-14-2010, 07:56 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,753
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
No, this is not what I meant. I thought the super multi coated were all F1.8's and the super tak's were F1.9's
Not in the transition period; there are were a few Super-Multi-Coated f/1.9's made until Asahi came with the last 6/6 design and f/1.8.
06-14-2010, 01:53 PM   #18
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
For anyone interested in the history of Pentax and the 85mm "fast tele," here is a good source from the 83mm Tak through the A* 85mm.

Early Pentax Takumar Lenses
06-14-2010, 02:05 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,314
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
There's definitely a S-M-C 85mm f1.9 with a 4/5 arrangement and a S-M-C 85mm f1.8 with a 6/6 arrangement.

Edit: There are actually at least 2 versions of the Super Tak 85mm f1.9. Both are 4/5 as well but the earlier one has a diaphragm that goes from 1.9-22 and the later one goes to 16.
interesting, thanks

I have the later version i guess

06-14-2010, 03:10 PM   #20
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,218
My 1.9 # is 252xxxx and that's not listed on that site.

But only goes to 16.
06-14-2010, 03:28 PM   #21
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
My 1.9 # is 252xxxx and that's not listed on that site.

But only goes to 16.
I'm not sure what you mean by "its not listed on that site." If yours goes to f1.9 to 16, its version 2 of the Super Tak. Based on the serial number, I'd guess that yours was made in late 1967. The f1.9 to 22 version was made from about 1962-64 and version 2 from about 1965-71. and the S-M-C f1.9 was made in 1971 & 1972. On that particular page he doesn't mention that there were 2 versions of the S.T. On one of his main pages he also mentions he stops his collection concentrates on Auto Tak and earlier.

Note: The serial numbers are based on the defunct but uncompleted m-forty two project. I have a copy of the lenses and serial numbers and are intended as a guide. They were based on data submitted manly by private collectors.

Edit: Go here for a listing. AOHC isn't perfect for example actual m42 production probably stopped across the board in 1976. However, stocks kept them in the catalog through 1979.

http://www.aohc.it/tak04e.htm

Last edited by Blue; 06-14-2010 at 03:37 PM.
06-14-2010, 03:49 PM   #22
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,218
I'm on the iPhone now and it's hard to post, but I didn't see my number listed in any range there.
06-14-2010, 04:32 PM   #23
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
I'm on the iPhone now and it's hard to post, but I didn't see my number listed in any range there.
Scroll down to the bottom of this page:

Early Pentax Takumar Lenses


You will see this in the table.

1967 2.200000

This is based on the m-fortytwo project that wasn't completed but there were about 50 Super Tak serial numbers entered into it.

Also, your A-M switch should either have no number on it or 870.

06-14-2010, 07:57 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,814
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Scroll down to the bottom of this page:

Early Pentax Takumar Lenses


You will see this in the table.

1967 2.200000

This is based on the m-fortytwo project that wasn't completed but there were about 50 Super Tak serial numbers entered into it.

Also, your A-M switch should either have no number on it or 870.
Interesting. My Super-Takumar 85/1.9 serial is 890344, pretty much as old as I thought just based on the lettering. I recall entering lenses into that project but I never knew if they went anywhere.
06-14-2010, 08:05 PM   #25
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
Interesting. My Super-Takumar 85/1.9 serial is 890344, pretty much as old as I thought just based on the lettering. I recall entering lenses into that project but I never knew if they went anywhere.
Does your aperture ring go to 22?

Edit: Nigel moved on to other things. I missed the chance to get a copy of Oosten's book from him a couple of years ago for about $37. Now it is over $400 when it can be found. I do have a copy of the spread sheet and your lens is in there.

Last edited by Blue; 06-14-2010 at 08:11 PM.
06-14-2010, 09:03 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Just1MoreDave's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Aurora, CO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,814
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Does your aperture ring go to 22?

Edit: Nigel moved on to other things. I missed the chance to get a copy of Oosten's book from him a couple of years ago for about $37. Now it is over $400 when it can be found. I do have a copy of the spread sheet and your lens is in there.
No, just 16. No part number on the M/A switch. Don't tell Ira I paid $76 for it.
06-14-2010, 09:08 PM   #27
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
No, just 16. No part number on the M/A switch. Don't tell Ira I paid $76 for it.
I wish you hadn't told me!
06-15-2010, 08:04 AM   #28
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,218
QuoteOriginally posted by Just1MoreDave Quote
No, just 16. No part number on the M/A switch. Don't tell Ira I paid $76 for it.
I have my share of bargains too.

But any of those gains were wiped out by my $270 purchase for the 85.

And you gotta see what KEH is selling these for right this moment:

$180 for a beat-up BARGAIN condition.

And the 85 1.9 in UGLY condition?????

$389!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
06-15-2010, 08:12 AM   #29
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Ira Quote
I have my share of bargains too.

But any of those gains were wiped out by my $270 purchase for the 85.

And you gotta see what KEH is selling these for right this moment:

$180 for a beat-up BARGAIN condition.

And the 85 1.9 in UGLY condition?????

$389!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sometimes their Bargain condition items are o.k. That would be the time to stop in and look at it or be willing to inspect and send it back. Ugly and below means its a paper weight or parts donor.
06-15-2010, 08:45 AM   #30
Ira
Inactive Account




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,218
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Sometimes their Bargain condition items are o.k. That would be the time to stop in and look at it or be willing to inspect and send it back. Ugly and below means its a paper weight or parts donor.
That's the thing--I thought I way overpaid for mine, but they're selling a bargain for $189 while mine is excellent for $270.

The prices have really jumped in the last month.

But I just got an S-M-C 200 4 for just $69 in mint, so the bargains help pay for the ones you pay too much for.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens, smc takumar 85mm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: SMC 85mm f/2.2 Soft, SMC-M 50mm f/4 Macro, SMC-M 135 3.5, SMC-M 85mm 2, SMC-M jgmankos Sold Items 3 06-14-2010 06:48 PM
have you ever compared the Takumar 85mm 1,9 with the SMC Takumar 1,8??? 1,8 & 1,4? beegee Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 5 02-14-2009 07:31 PM
SMC Takumar 85mm f/1.8 vs. f/1.9? Brian Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 0 08-03-2007 07:45 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:16 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top