ebay store: Honest mistake, or misrepresentation?

Mike Cash · 12-16-2007, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I think you should have known it was not an SMC lens right up front. You state it was an M42 lens.

To my knowledge, SMC was not used in lenses until K mount.

Refresh my memory......you don't actually own or use Takumars, do you?

There were Super-Multi-Coated Takumars, typically abbreviated as "S-M-C" and very often misrepresented (usually innocently) as "SMC".

SMC (same as on the K mounts, and not "S-M-C") was used on some M42 lenses near the end of the M42 era. I have a couple of them.

The OP was led to believe he was getting a Super-Multi-Coated version of the lens when he actually got a "Super", which was the preceding generation. Based on the lower relative value of the "Super Takumar" to the "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar" he is justified in either returning it for a refund or keeping it and asking for a partial reimbursement.

little laker · 12-16-2007, 11:00 AM

Mike is right, 1/2 my screw mount lenses have it while 1/2 don't

roscot · 12-16-2007, 03:00 PM

Groundloop,
I owned that lens years ago. Even without the SMC coating, it is a very good lens. Do some tests and see if you like it or not. $45 is not an outrageous price, even for a Super Tak. But get a hold of the seller, and let him know what it is. If you decide to keep it, you may be able to negotiate a discount.

**Lowell Goudge** · 12-16-2007, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

Refresh my memory......you don't actually own or use Takumars, do you?

Nope. I don't have any and have not in any shops where I have seen Takumars, seen one with SMC on it, although I know some were made with K mounts.

All I have seen have no indication of SMC that is all

roscot · 12-16-2007, 03:29 PM

Lowell, the last version of M42 lenses that Pentax made before going to the K mount had the first SMC coatings.

**rogerstg** · 12-16-2007, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Nope. I don't have any and have not in any shops where I have seen Takumars, seen one with SMC on it, although I know some were made with K mounts.

All I have seen have no indication of SMC that is all

You might want to browse the lens review database. Pretty interesting info there.

Mike Cash · 12-17-2007, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Nope. I don't have any and have not in any shops where I have seen Takumars, seen one with SMC on it, although I know some were made with K mounts.

All I have seen have no indication of SMC that is all

I'll post photos of mine someday, then.

You did catch the part about there having been a generation of "Super-Multi-Coated" which preceded the "SMC", I hope. There were several generations/flavors of Takumars. For example: Auto-Takumar; Tele-Takumar; Super Takumar; Super-Multi-Coated Takumar; and SMC Takumar.

You initially chided the OP for thinking he was getting a SMC Takumar, telling him no such thing existed....when 1) he clearly said "Super-Multi-Coated", and not "SMC" and 2) though it was irrelevant to his problem, "SMC" Takumars do exist in certain models.

SMC Takumar

Super-Multi-Coated Takumar

Super-Takumar

Auto-Takumar

Tele-Takumar

SouthShoreRob · 12-17-2007, 02:07 PM

No offense to my fellow Canuck, but all this discussion/debate for $45? If you use it and are not happy with it, just re-sell it to get your money back or perhaps keep it lying around for one time when you may need to throw in a little something on a future deal. Seems easy enough...

Groundloop · 12-17-2007, 10:16 PM

Rob, the issue isn't that I'm not happy with the lens. The issue was that I didn't get what I was led to believe I was buying. If nothing else, this thread has made all of us a little more knowledgeable about the various flavours of M42 Takumars.

I've gotten a return authorization # from Henry's and the lens is going back tomorrow.

**Lowell Goudge** · 12-18-2007, 05:34 AM

I agree that this discussion has led to a better education of what pentax has made in the past, to the point where I may pay more attention to some screw mounts that I had previously ignored.

Having said that, it is perhaps unfortunate that groundloop is returning the lens, because although it is not what he thought he was getting, I still maintain that what he paid was a good price for what he actually got.

As I said earlier, I paid quite a bit more for an SMC Pentax 135 f2.5 and passed up several similar K mount Tak's which were also priced higher than what groundloop paid.

SouthShoreRob · 12-18-2007, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Groundloop

Rob, the issue isn't that I'm not happy with the lens. The issue was that I didn't get what I was led to believe I was buying. If nothing else, this thread has made all of us a little more knowledgeable about the various flavours of M42 Takumars.

I've gotten a return authorization # from Henry's and the lens is going back tomorrow.

Indeed, from that point of view, I agree with you completely. It's also nice to hear that Henry's is willing to step up and do the right thing. It's just too bad they won't price match - competitively - with their US online competitors...but that's a whole 'nother story.

Rob

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Now Be Honest, who here has....	Christopher M.W.T	General Talk	27	08-14-2010 11:21 AM
Info about ebay store (123easyship)?	causey	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	02-24-2010 01:55 PM
honest opinion please	axl	Photo Critique	16	04-18-2009 04:26 AM
A Fine Example of an Ebay Store	code4code5	Photographic Technique	3	06-14-2008 04:27 PM
Ebay mistake?	madisonphotogrl	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	21	04-20-2008 06:45 PM

12-16-2007, 08:44 AM	#16
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I think you should have known it was not an SMC lens right up front. You state it was an M42 lens. To my knowledge, SMC was not used in lenses until K mount. Refresh my memory......you don't actually own or use Takumars, do you? There were Super-Multi-Coated Takumars, typically abbreviated as "S-M-C" and very often misrepresented (usually innocently) as "SMC". SMC (same as on the K mounts, and not "S-M-C") was used on some M42 lenses near the end of the M42 era. I have a couple of them. The OP was led to believe he was getting a Super-Multi-Coated version of the lens when he actually got a "Super", which was the preceding generation. Based on the lower relative value of the "Super Takumar" to the "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar" he is justified in either returning it for a refund or keeping it and asking for a partial reimbursement.

12-16-2007, 11:00 AM	#17
little laker Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,697	Mike is right, 1/2 my screw mount lenses have it while 1/2 don't

12-16-2007, 03:00 PM	#18
roscot Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Virginia Beach VA USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,363	Groundloop, I owned that lens years ago. Even without the SMC coating, it is a very good lens. Do some tests and see if you like it or not. $45 is not an outrageous price, even for a Super Tak. But get a hold of the seller, and let him know what it is. If you decide to keep it, you may be able to negotiate a discount.

12-16-2007, 03:20 PM	#19
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by Mike Cash Refresh my memory......you don't actually own or use Takumars, do you? Nope. I don't have any and have not in any shops where I have seen Takumars, seen one with SMC on it, although I know some were made with K mounts. All I have seen have no indication of SMC that is all

12-16-2007, 03:29 PM	#20
roscot Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Virginia Beach VA USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,363	Lowell, the last version of M42 lenses that Pentax made before going to the K mount had the first SMC coatings.

12-16-2007, 03:39 PM	#21
rogerstg Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 1,168	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Nope. I don't have any and have not in any shops where I have seen Takumars, seen one with SMC on it, although I know some were made with K mounts. All I have seen have no indication of SMC that is all You might want to browse the lens review database. Pretty interesting info there.

12-17-2007, 08:24 AM	#22
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Nope. I don't have any and have not in any shops where I have seen Takumars, seen one with SMC on it, although I know some were made with K mounts. All I have seen have no indication of SMC that is all I'll post photos of mine someday, then. You did catch the part about there having been a generation of "Super-Multi-Coated" which preceded the "SMC", I hope. There were several generations/flavors of Takumars. For example: Auto-Takumar; Tele-Takumar; Super Takumar; Super-Multi-Coated Takumar; and SMC Takumar. You initially chided the OP for thinking he was getting a SMC Takumar, telling him no such thing existed....when 1) he clearly said "Super-Multi-Coated", and not "SMC" and 2) though it was irrelevant to his problem, "SMC" Takumars do exist in certain models. SMC Takumar Super-Multi-Coated Takumar Super-Takumar Auto-Takumar Tele-Takumar

12-17-2007, 02:07 PM	#23
SouthShoreRob Guest	No offense to my fellow Canuck, but all this discussion/debate for $45? If you use it and are not happy with it, just re-sell it to get your money back or perhaps keep it lying around for one time when you may need to throw in a little something on a future deal. Seems easy enough...

12-17-2007, 10:16 PM	#24
Groundloop Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 236 Original Poster	Rob, the issue isn't that I'm not happy with the lens. The issue was that I didn't get what I was led to believe I was buying. If nothing else, this thread has made all of us a little more knowledgeable about the various flavours of M42 Takumars. I've gotten a return authorization # from Henry's and the lens is going back tomorrow.

12-18-2007, 05:34 AM	#25
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	I agree that this discussion has led to a better education of what pentax has made in the past, to the point where I may pay more attention to some screw mounts that I had previously ignored. Having said that, it is perhaps unfortunate that groundloop is returning the lens, because although it is not what he thought he was getting, I still maintain that what he paid was a good price for what he actually got. As I said earlier, I paid quite a bit more for an SMC Pentax 135 f2.5 and passed up several similar K mount Tak's which were also priced higher than what groundloop paid.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-18-2007, 02:17 PM	#26
SouthShoreRob Guest	Originally posted by Groundloop Rob, the issue isn't that I'm not happy with the lens. The issue was that I didn't get what I was led to believe I was buying. If nothing else, this thread has made all of us a little more knowledgeable about the various flavours of M42 Takumars. I've gotten a return authorization # from Henry's and the lens is going back tomorrow. Indeed, from that point of view, I agree with you completely. It's also nice to hear that Henry's is willing to step up and do the right thing. It's just too bad they won't price match - competitively - with their US online competitors...but that's a whole 'nother story. Rob