[Chuckie]

I'm hoping someone can shed a little light on a lens I have. I am in the process of selling it and the prospective buyer has naturally asked a few questions based on the photos I posted.

It is a Pentax 28mm f/2.8, but it is not a K-series as that only had a f/3.5. Bojidar Demitrov describes a second version of this lens as a cross-over between the M- and A-series lenses when some A-series parts were being fitted, and it had a new optical formula and aperture mechanism. The lens I have only says "Takumar Bayonet 1:2.8 28mm" on the front and it has "Asahi Opt Co" stamped on the side.

Any assistance would be greatly accepted.

[Swift1]

This is what you probably have,
Takumar 28/2.8 Bayonet

It is neither a M or A lens.

[elliott]

It is also known as a Cosmicar.

[lesmore49]

I have a Takumar 28mm F 2.8 with the bayonet lens. I've always been happy with it. I bought it...new... I think in the 80's . My understanding at the time I bought it, was that it was an Asahi Optical made lens, using the older screw mount Takumar (which is what Pentax lenses were called before bayonet),,,with a bayonet mount.

It was not as costly as the equivalent Pentax bayonet of the time and if memory serves me correct, it may have been the Pentax response to the economical Nikon EM system that was introduced around this time...which used cheaper E series lens which were labelled Nikon lenses...rather than the higher cost Nikkor.

Anyways that's what my memory bank tells me...I could be wrong.

[glasbak]

The ones I know (except the F version)

[Chuckie]

Thanks Swift! That is the lens!

[Chuckie]

The ones I know (except the F version)

Thanks Glasbak, it's the one at the back.

[lesmore49]

The ones I know (except the F version)

In that picture of yours....I note that the Takumar have white reflections on the lens...while the Pentax have purplish reflections on the lens. If I recall the Takumar bayonet either didn't have any anti reflection coating....or an older formula than the Pentax lenses. That was another difference. Also the Taks had a rather cheapish rubber lens cover while the Pentax had either a plastic...with movable grips or a metal lens cover.

[stevebrot]

This is what you probably have,
Takumar 28/2.8 Bayonet

It is neither a M or A lens.

Yep, that would be a Takumar Bayonet. Asahi marketed these in the mid-1980s as a lower cost line without the SMC coatings. There was a mild outcry at the time about attaching the legendary Takumar name to a bargain product. The name is the only connection to the earlier M42 screw-mount lenses*. Value is about the same as the above mentioned Cosmicar.


Steve

* There was no M42 Super-Takumar, S-M-C Takumar, or SMC Takumar 28/2.8

[glasbak]

In that picture of yours....I note that the Takumar have white reflections on the lens...while the Pentax have purplish reflections on the lens.

The coating of the non SMC lenses is less effective, thats what you see.
These lenses are from flea markets etc. and I have no idea about the original caps.

[lesmore49]

Yep, that would be a Takumar Bayonet. Asahi marketed these in the mid-1980s as a lower cost line without the SMC coatings. There was a mild outcry at the time about attaching the legendary Takumar name to a bargain product. The name is the only connection to the earlier M42 screw-mount lenses*. Value is about the same as the above mentioned Cosmicar.


Steve

* There was no M42 Super-Takumar, S-M-C Takumar, or SMC Takumar 28/2.8

I had a 28 wide angle and a 50 Macro...both bayonet Takumar's from the 1980'2 and they were both great little lenses.

[stevebrot]

I had a 28 wide angle and a 50 Macro...both bayonet Takumar's from the 1980'2 and they were both great little lenses.

I won't disagree, though they should not command a premium price based on the Takumar name.



Steve