Help ID my Super Tak 50mm 1.4

akfreak · 06-21-2010, 01:39 AM

Looking at the lens I see conflicting info based on the lens data base. I hope some o you guys may be able t help me identify my version. It has the A and M not an Auto and Manual. The little mark orange mark on the left of the 4 on DOF says 7 element. there is no dot next to the 2. There are numbers stamped on the A/M switch. I am confused as the &element descriptions dont offer the A/M in the lens data base.

Here are some Images

Adam · 06-21-2010, 01:51 AM

Once you identify the lens, if there's any further information that could be added to the database to clarify this for future users, please send that information to Ole and he will add it.

Good luck! I'd help, but I'm on the Blackberry for the next few days.

LensScribe · 06-21-2010, 02:57 AM

akfreak - I think the easiest way to check is to take rear cap off, focus to infinity, and look at the rear element. To the best of my knowledge, you'll know it's the eight element version if the rear element protrudes (if you look at the lens in profile you'll see the actual rear element protruding, not just the mount like you do with the seven element version).

Let me know if that's unclear and I'll post some images.

Blue · 06-21-2010, 08:58 AM

Based on the serial #, its not Ver1. It may be the Ver2. The interesting part is the part number on the A-M switch.

Edit: If you have an accurate balance, weigh it with and without the caps. The 8 element version should come out ~ 245g and the newer S.T. should be ~ 230g.

http://www.aohc.it/tak03e.htm

LensScribe · 06-21-2010, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Blue

Based on the serial #, its not Ver1.

How can you tell? (I'm just curious, I don't dispute it)

Blue · 06-21-2010, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by LensScribe

How can you tell? (I'm just curious, I don't dispute it)

The earliest serial # that I know of for the ST 50mm f1.4 is 766,000. The earliest serial # I know of for version 2 is 1,470,000. His serial # is more recent than that. I'm basing this on information gleaned from the partial data base collected by the now defunct m-fortytwo project.

Edit: For what its worth, I find the part number or lack of one on the A-M switch to be helpful but sometimes unreliable or confounding.

akfreak · 06-21-2010, 10:44 AM

I dont know it seems to protrude more so than my 55 f2 here is a pic. I dont know if it protrudes more or less than a non early lens

akfreak · 06-21-2010, 10:48 AM

Please another question. If a takumar has an A /M instead of the words Auto/Manual does it make it an Older version? Not just the 50 I have but on all Takumar lenses. I have a chance to buy a 135 3.5 with an A/M just curious if it is more sought after to have those markings instead of he Auto/Manual Thanks Guys. It seems I have some what of a Bastard of a 50 1.4 or is this normal to look like mine and be the later & element?

Blue · 06-21-2010, 11:47 AM

You can't compare the 50mm lenses with the 55 lenses. The 50mm f1.4 did protrude more. The early SV and S1a (aka H3v and H1a) bodies couldn't not be used with the 50mm lenses because the mirror would whack the rear element. They put a different mirror cage in the later SV and S1a bodies to alleviate that problem.

As far as the S.T. 135mm f3.5 lenses go, you will need the ser # and # off the A-M switch to help determine the version.

Edit: In other words, your 50 is likely version 2 maybe version 3.

LensScribe · 06-21-2010, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by akfreak

I dont know it seems to protrude more so than my 55 f2 here is a pic. I dont know if it protrudes more or less than a non early lens

Looks like a later version to me because the protrusion isn't the actual rear element. Here's what mine looks like. You can see the rear element - looks a bit like the curved meniscus on a glass of water:

I can't help with regards to A/M vs. Auto/Man on other Takumars, I'm afraid. Hope you come right. If you don't, try posting in the Takumar Club thread - plenty of Takumar gurus there

Ira · 06-21-2010, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by LensScribe

looks a bit like the curved meniscus on a glass of water:

And if any of us here were smart enough to know what "mensicus" means, that would be great advice!

LensScribe · 06-21-2010, 12:16 PM

I suppose it goes to show that high school science wasn't completely wasted on me.

As I was typing it I thought it might be a bit silly, but it's what I thought of when I looked at it, and I figure if you're successfully on the forum, you can successfully google unfamiliar terms, too

Blue · 06-21-2010, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by LensScribe

I suppose it goes to show that high school science wasn't completely wasted on me.

As I was typing it I thought it might be a bit silly, but it's what I thought of when I looked at it, and I figure if you're successfully on the forum, you can successfully google unfamiliar terms, too

I thought 'meniscus' was a very clear description.

Steinback · 06-21-2010, 12:24 PM

My 50mm f/1.4 has all of the same features as yours and a serial number that is about 230 000 higher. It has 37800 stamped on the A-M switch, as opposed to the 378 or 37801 given by AOHC. Based on the serial number I had figured it to be a 7 element 2nd generation version from somewhere around 1966 or 1967 but that's going by online sources and I have no way of confirming it.

Blue · 06-21-2010, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by Steinback

My 50mm f/1.4 has all of the same features as yours and a serial number that is about 230 000 higher. It has 37800 stamped on the A-M switch, as opposed to the 378 or 37801 given by AOHC. Based on the serial number I had figured it to be a 7 element 2nd generation version from somewhere around 1966 or 1967 but that's going by online sources and I have no way of confirming it.

I would say your guess is accurate.

06-21-2010, 01:39 AM	#1
akfreak Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 96	Help ID my Super Tak 50mm 1.4 Looking at the lens I see conflicting info based on the lens data base. I hope some o you guys may be able t help me identify my version. It has the A and M not an Auto and Manual. The little mark orange mark on the left of the 4 on DOF says 7 element. there is no dot next to the 2. There are numbers stamped on the A/M switch. I am confused as the &element descriptions dont offer the A/M in the lens data base. Here are some Images

06-21-2010, 09:14 AM	#6
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by LensScribe How can you tell? (I'm just curious, I don't dispute it) The earliest serial # that I know of for the ST 50mm f1.4 is 766,000. The earliest serial # I know of for version 2 is 1,470,000. His serial # is more recent than that. I'm basing this on information gleaned from the partial data base collected by the now defunct m-fortytwo project. Edit: For what its worth, I find the part number or lack of one on the A-M switch to be helpful but sometimes unreliable or confounding. Last edited by Blue; 06-21-2010 at 09:29 AM.

06-21-2010, 11:47 AM	#9
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	You can't compare the 50mm lenses with the 55 lenses. The 50mm f1.4 did protrude more. The early SV and S1a (aka H3v and H1a) bodies couldn't not be used with the 50mm lenses because the mirror would whack the rear element. They put a different mirror cage in the later SV and S1a bodies to alleviate that problem. As far as the S.T. 135mm f3.5 lenses go, you will need the ser # and # off the A-M switch to help determine the version. Edit: In other words, your 50 is likely version 2 *maybe* version 3. Last edited by Blue; 06-21-2010 at 11:59 AM.

06-21-2010, 11:54 AM	#10
LensScribe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 316	Originally posted by akfreak I dont know it seems to protrude more so than my 55 f2 here is a pic. I dont know if it protrudes more or less than a non early lens Looks like a later version to me because the protrusion isn't the actual rear element. Here's what mine looks like. You can see the rear element - looks a bit like the curved meniscus on a glass of water: I can't help with regards to A/M vs. Auto/Man on other Takumars, I'm afraid. Hope you come right. If you don't, try posting in the Takumar Club thread - plenty of Takumar gurus there Last edited by LensScribe; 06-21-2010 at 12:29 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
$145 for a Super Tak 50mm 1.4!!!!!!??????????	Ira	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	45	04-17-2010 01:26 PM
For Sale - Sold: Super-Tak 50mm 1.4	TimB	Sold Items	4	12-18-2008 12:57 AM
How to disassemble/assemble a Super Tak 50mm?	gardin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	10-14-2008 08:22 PM
Just playing around with a Super Tak 50mm f1.4	little laker	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-08-2008 12:29 AM

06-21-2010, 01:51 AM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,597	Once you identify the lens, if there's any further information that could be added to the database to clarify this for future users, please send that information to Ole and he will add it. Good luck! I'd help, but I'm on the Blackberry for the next few days.

06-21-2010, 02:57 AM	#3
LensScribe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 316	akfreak - I think the easiest way to check is to take rear cap off, focus to infinity, and look at the rear element. To the best of my knowledge, you'll know it's the eight element version if the rear element protrudes (if you look at the lens in profile you'll see the actual rear element protruding, not just the mount like you do with the seven element version). Let me know if that's unclear and I'll post some images.

06-21-2010, 08:58 AM	#4
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Based on the serial #, its not Ver1. It may be the Ver2. The interesting part is the part number on the A-M switch. Edit: If you have an accurate balance, weigh it with and without the caps. The 8 element version should come out ~ 245g and the newer S.T. should be ~ 230g. http://www.aohc.it/tak03e.htm

06-21-2010, 09:01 AM	#5
LensScribe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 316	Originally posted by Blue Based on the serial #, its not Ver1. How can you tell? (I'm just curious, I don't dispute it)

06-21-2010, 10:44 AM	#7
akfreak Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 96 Original Poster	I dont know it seems to protrude more so than my 55 f2 here is a pic. I dont know if it protrudes more or less than a non early lens

06-21-2010, 10:48 AM	#8
akfreak Inactive Account Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 96 Original Poster	Please another question. If a takumar has an A /M instead of the words Auto/Manual does it make it an Older version? Not just the 50 I have but on all Takumar lenses. I have a chance to buy a 135 3.5 with an A/M just curious if it is more sought after to have those markings instead of he Auto/Manual Thanks Guys. It seems I have some what of a Bastard of a 50 1.4 or is this normal to look like mine and be the later & element?

06-21-2010, 12:12 PM	#11
Ira Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Coral Springs, FL Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,216	Originally posted by LensScribe looks a bit like the curved meniscus on a glass of water: And if any of us here were smart enough to know what "mensicus" means, that would be great advice!

06-21-2010, 12:16 PM	#12
LensScribe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 316	I suppose it goes to show that high school science wasn't completely wasted on me. As I was typing it I thought it might be a bit silly, but it's what I thought of when I looked at it, and I figure if you're successfully on the forum, you can successfully google unfamiliar terms, too

06-21-2010, 12:24 PM	#13
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by LensScribe I suppose it goes to show that high school science wasn't completely wasted on me. As I was typing it I thought it might be a bit silly, but it's what I thought of when I looked at it, and I figure if you're successfully on the forum, you can successfully google unfamiliar terms, too I thought 'meniscus' was a very clear description.

06-21-2010, 12:24 PM	#14
Steinback Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: GTA, ON, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,673	My 50mm f/1.4 has all of the same features as yours and a serial number that is about 230 000 higher. It has 37800 stamped on the A-M switch, as opposed to the 378 or 37801 given by AOHC. Based on the serial number I had figured it to be a 7 element 2nd generation version from somewhere around 1966 or 1967 but that's going by online sources and I have no way of confirming it.

06-21-2010, 12:28 PM	#15
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Steinback My 50mm f/1.4 has all of the same features as yours and a serial number that is about 230 000 higher. It has 37800 stamped on the A-M switch, as opposed to the 378 or 37801 given by AOHC. Based on the serial number I had figured it to be a 7 element 2nd generation version from somewhere around 1966 or 1967 but that's going by online sources and I have no way of confirming it. I would say your guess is accurate.