Takumar-A 28mm F2.8

ronyzmbow · 08-14-2013, 12:06 PM

How good is the Takumar-A 28mm F2.8 and how does it compare to the SMC version?
How both of them compare to the modern SMC DA 35mm 2.4 in terms of colors and sharpness?

**RKKS08** · 08-14-2013, 04:02 PM

There are lenses where the Takumars use a simpler optical design than the Pentax versions. This is not true for the 28mm, where both lenses share the same optical design, and both are multi-coated.
The Pentax version (or at least the glass) was produced in a Pentax factory, the Takumar version was produced in the Pentax subsidiary Cosmicar in Taiwan. Cosmicar is best known for lenses of professional video systems.

The only difference should be the missing superior SMC coating, and a slightly different styling.

I own the SMC Pentax-A 2.8/28, and I am satisfied - but don't expect the IQ of any of the Pentax 1.4/50s or 1.7/50s.
I don't own any 35mm (Pentax) primes, so I can't compare.

Generally, designing and manufacturing a 28/2.8 FF lens with the same optical quality as a 35/2.8 APS-C should be at least twice as expensive (it would need more elements and more sophisticated corrective elements). So I guess it would be easy to make a 35mm APS-C with superior IQ, and also cheaper.

**Just1MoreDave** · 08-15-2013, 09:28 AM

The optical formula is pretty good, also used in the version 2 Pentax-M 28/2.8, the Pentax-A and Pentax-F. It's sharp and excellent in the corners, probably better than most of the third-party lenses. Physically, the lens is a handy size, small enough to leave a hood on all the time.

It's hard to say how much the coatings will degrade that. I find the F version to be very flare resistant and have great colors and contrast. I wouldn't want to give that up. I have a Takumar-A zoom that works OK until it flares.

The DA 35/2.4 is related to the FA 35/2 and uses an aspherical element. With the latest coatings. I would not be surprised that it would be a lot better than the Takumar-A 28/2.8. But it's hard to compare different focal lengths like that.

I would say the Takumar-A 28/2.8 should sell for a bit more than the Pentax-M 28/2.8 version 1, and less than the Pentax-A. It would leave me with the feeling that I still wanted a better 28.

glasbak · 08-15-2013, 02:14 PM

A picture of all the manual focus versions of this optical design (takumar versions maybe also sold under different names like cosmicar , profile, cpc etc).

Notice the difference in the reflection between the pentax and takumar versions.

08-14-2013, 12:06 PM	#1
ronyzmbow Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Denmark Posts: 50	Takumar-A 28mm F2.8 How good is the Takumar-A 28mm F2.8 and how does it compare to the SMC version? How both of them compare to the modern SMC DA 35mm 2.4 in terms of colors and sharpness?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Cosmicar 28mm f2.8 (aka: Takumar-A)	bradsarno	Sold Items	2	07-30-2013 08:41 PM
For Sale - Sold: SMC A 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 50mm f1/7	leadfoot	Sold Items	3	01-19-2012 06:15 PM
Super Takumar 28mm f3.5 vs Pentax-F 28mm f2.8?	cheekygeek	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	10-16-2009 04:53 PM
Takumar 28mm F2.8 Bayonet	furby	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	08-12-2009 05:12 AM

08-14-2013, 04:02 PM	#2
RKKS08 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241	There are lenses where the Takumars use a simpler optical design than the Pentax versions. This is not true for the 28mm, where both lenses share the same optical design, and both are multi-coated. The Pentax version (or at least the glass) was produced in a Pentax factory, the Takumar version was produced in the Pentax subsidiary Cosmicar in Taiwan. Cosmicar is best known for lenses of professional video systems. The only difference should be the missing superior SMC coating, and a slightly different styling. I own the SMC Pentax-A 2.8/28, and I am satisfied - but don't expect the IQ of any of the Pentax 1.4/50s or 1.7/50s. I don't own any 35mm (Pentax) primes, so I can't compare. Generally, designing and manufacturing a 28/2.8 FF lens with the same optical quality as a 35/2.8 APS-C should be at least twice as expensive (it would need more elements and more sophisticated corrective elements). So I guess it would be easy to make a 35mm APS-C with superior IQ, and also cheaper.

08-15-2013, 09:28 AM	#3
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	The optical formula is pretty good, also used in the version 2 Pentax-M 28/2.8, the Pentax-A and Pentax-F. It's sharp and excellent in the corners, probably better than most of the third-party lenses. Physically, the lens is a handy size, small enough to leave a hood on all the time. It's hard to say how much the coatings will degrade that. I find the F version to be very flare resistant and have great colors and contrast. I wouldn't want to give that up. I have a Takumar-A zoom that works OK until it flares. The DA 35/2.4 is related to the FA 35/2 and uses an aspherical element. With the latest coatings. I would not be surprised that it would be a lot better than the Takumar-A 28/2.8. But it's hard to compare different focal lengths like that. I would say the Takumar-A 28/2.8 should sell for a bit more than the Pentax-M 28/2.8 version 1, and less than the Pentax-A. It would leave me with the feeling that I still wanted a better 28.

08-15-2013, 02:14 PM	#4
glasbak Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Netherlands Posts: 369	A picture of all the manual focus versions of this optical design (takumar versions maybe also sold under different names like cosmicar , profile, cpc etc). Notice the difference in the reflection between the pentax and takumar versions.