Originally posted by vonBaloney SMC has more coatings compared to earlier Supers, and so they have better light transmission which means better contrast, better sharpness, more resistance to flare. There is a noticeable difference if you compare them side-by-side, but not as much as the price difference would indicate. Certainly you shouldn't think you can't take great images with plain old Supers. But you do need to be aware when pricing lenses the exact variation you have to tell if it is below/above typical market price.
It is easy to get obsessed with these things when there are two versions of the same thing -- you feel compelled to get the "better" one (and the price reflects those same tendencies in everyone else). But then if you're looking at other brands of vintage lenses where maybe there simply is no "SMC-equivalent" version you probably don't give it a second thought to get a lowly single-coated lens. Just put a decent hood on it...
Great, thank you for the info!
So if you were to purchase a Super or a S-M-C, Pentax Takumar of course, would it be THAT bothersome if you got a Super instead of a S-M-C?
I'm just worried because I love my S-M-C 50mm 1.4 and I also own a Super 28mm f/3.5 and even though those two lenses are barely comparable due to the aperture of the 50mm and whatnot, it still makes me wonder if it will be THAT different of a lens if I were to buy the Super rather than the S-M-C.
I guess I'm ranting but I do appreciate any other distinct details you could tell me about!