Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-13-2013, 11:40 AM   #1
Site Supporter
cheekygeek's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alda, Nebraska USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,254
Found a Pentax mistake in Super Tak 50mm f1.4

I'm probably not the first to notice this, but if you are looking for the early 8 element Super Takumar (or think you own one) you might want to check this out.

It started when I found this photo on Flickr: 3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

The poster here believes that the middle lens is a hybrid between the 8 element and the 7 element. He goes on to dissect it and prove that it is a 7 element design. But one thing that threw him off is actually a Pentax mistake. If you look at the Red Infrared focusing mark and compare the three lenses, you will see that the spacing of the lines is different on the true 8 element, as compared to the other two. The "hybrid" actually has the wrong line painted red. This gives the impression that it is an 8 element, but if you look closely you will see that they have actually painted the f4 line red on the "hybrid".

I don't know how many example of this there might be out there, but if you were counting on the red infrared focusing mark as the identifying feature you might want to look again. I placed a comment in that photo's thread showing the same thing.

To help narrow it down a bit, in a later post, Andreas gives the serial numbers of the two lenses:
QuoteQuote:
1585445 the 8 element
1591478 the "hybrid"
By the way, there are a few people on crack believing that they have the original 8 element Super Tak, if you look at the serial numbers they are registering in the database.


Last edited by cheekygeek; 08-13-2013 at 12:15 PM.
08-13-2013, 12:30 PM   #2
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,474
QuoteOriginally posted by cheekygeek Quote
is actually a Pentax mistake
Or an attempted forgery. It is relatively easy to make the lines any color you wish. BTW...those are some nasty-looking lenses.


Steve
08-13-2013, 12:36 PM   #3
Site Supporter
cheekygeek's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alda, Nebraska USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,254
Original Poster
Well, since I'm only working off of the OP's pictures I can't say for sure but it looks original to me.
By the way, a commenter on my Flickr page says that this was also a known problem on some FA 43mm Limiteds, so this is not a mistake without precedent.

BTW: For lenses, as it does for most of us, the decades of use can take their toll.
08-13-2013, 04:56 PM   #4
Pentaxian
Kozlok's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Albuquerque
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,793
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Or an attempted forgery. It is relatively easy to make the lines any color you wish. BTW...those are some nasty-looking lenses.


Steve
I think they are beautiful. A little patina on the edges shows that they've taken many (hopefully) great images.


Last edited by Kozlok; 08-13-2013 at 04:57 PM. Reason: added quote
08-13-2013, 06:26 PM   #5
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,872
Why did he need to disassemble it? You can tell it is a 7-element by the rear element...

The "Hybrid" could just be a very early 7-element that used leftover parts.
08-13-2013, 08:47 PM   #6
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 653
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
Why did he need to disassemble it?
+1
Obviously 7 element.
There are numerous threads here in PF discussing the same.

such as

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/114298-how-rea...element-2.html

Last edited by ultraviolet; 08-13-2013 at 08:57 PM. Reason: added link
08-13-2013, 11:56 PM   #7
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,474
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
The "Hybrid" could just be a very early 7-element that used leftover parts.
One reason why it is not a good idea to base too much on the physical appearance of vintage lenses and cameras. It is also not unheard of to find a frankenlens assembled from parts from multiple sources. I have one-such lens on my shelf, an early 1960s Industar 52/2.8 that looks to have been assembled from multiple sources of different lens series. The worst part is that it is an optical train wreck too. (FED-2, ca 1963 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!)


Steve
08-14-2013, 02:54 AM   #8
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 4,263
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Or an attempted forgery. It is relatively easy to make the lines any color you wish. BTW...those are some nasty-looking lenses.


Steve
Possibly - it appears to me that the 4 and the white line appear to be a cleaner white then the rest of the white markings on the DOF scale.

Or it is a mistake that slipped past QC. The paint is most likely applied by hand and it might have been an early run just after the 8 element lens and the painter by habit painted the "inner" mark. Or a tray had the rings upside down from what they usually were.

08-14-2013, 05:20 AM   #9
Site Supporter
cheekygeek's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alda, Nebraska USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,254
Original Poster
Sure, the protruding rear element is the easiest single attribute to tell if you are looking at an 8 element. However, if you are looking at online auctions by clueless sellers (the best kind) they probably aren't going to have a picture that shows that part clearly. Most images are taken with the lens on the camera or if the lens is by itself, they will have the rear cap on.

The "hybrid" lens is interesting because it does share parts from the 8 element (the aperture ring and the part that has the A/M switch would lead you to think you are looking at an 8 element). But it doesn't have the protruding rear, and the infrared focusing mark is painted incorrectly (making it look like an 8 element). The serial numbers would seem to indicate that it is a transitional lens where some of the old parts from the 8 element were being used up as the new 7 element design was beginning.
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!
element, k-mount, lenses, line, mark, mistake, pentax lens, photo, slr lens, tak, takumar
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax 50mm F1.2 $999 ~ A Mistake? Racer X 69 Pentax Price Watch 17 06-07-2013 07:55 AM
Just Scored Rare 8 Element Super Tak 50mm F1.4 (I think) Colorado CJ Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 10 01-10-2012 07:03 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 12-24mm f/4, 50mm M f1.4, Tak. 135mm f2.5, Tak. M42 55mm f1.8 (US) DenverDutchman Sold Items 2 11-25-2010 10:06 AM
Just playing around with a Super Tak 50mm f1.4 little laker Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 06-08-2008 12:29 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:49 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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