[boriscleto]

Mine is1491817 and it is yellow.

Mine is 1549846 and is not yellow. @Blue had a database of Takumar serial numbers that showed some 7-element Super Taks had lower serial numbers than the late 8-element Super Taks.

To the OP. Add the number to the Serial Number Database. It will be the lowest numbered 8-element.

Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 (Early - 8 Elements) Serial Numbers - Pentax Serial Number Database - PentaxForums.com

[Blue]

Maybe the use for a some time the older lanthanum glasses - the so called "radioactive" - is the reason.
The yellow tint I guess is the later edition of the SMC coating.

I really don't think lanthanum was used by Asahi in a 50mm/1.4 Takumar lens.

[Blue]

Mine is 1549846 and is not yellow. @Blue had a database of Takumar serial numbers that showed some 7-element Super Taks had lower serial numbers than the late 8-element Super Taks.

That is correct. I have verified serial numbers ranging from 1239692 to 1552331 for the Ver 1 (8-element) lens.

[utak]

To answer the OP's question: No!

But it's a good question, because I used to think Super Takumar 50/1.4 serial numbers started at 1000000 (ish).

However, I now know there are serial numbers below that, because last year I purchased one. Serial number 998134.

And my lens is by no means the earliest; I've seen two other lenses on the web with numbers well below mine. (If I can find the numbers I wrote down I'll post them).

Plus there is something else different about the really old versions, as can be seen below.

One of the most famous little red lines in Pentax lens history...to the right of the 4 it's the early one. But few lenses (I believe) also have the red R below the line. Your lens, for example, only has the red line. The ones with the R as well seem to be the very early ones.

[Blue]

To answer the OP's question: No!

But it's a good question, because I used to think Super Takumar 50/1.4 serial numbers started at 1000000 (ish).

However, I now know there are serial numbers below that, because last year I purchased one. Serial number 998134.

And my lens is by no means the earliest; I've seen two other lenses on the web with numbers well below mine. (If I can find the numbers I wrote down I'll post them).

Plus there is something else different about the really old versions, as can be seen below.

One of the most famous little red lines in Pentax lens history...to the right of the 4 it's the early one. But few lenses (I believe) also have the red R below the line. Your lens, for example, only has the red line. The ones with the R as well seem to be the very early ones.

The red line to the right of the 4 is a characteristic of the early 8-element (Ver 1) of the 50/1.4. That would indicate that the OP has an 8-element lens.

[aoeu]

[wombat2go]

I really don't think lanthanum was used by Asahi in a 50mm/1.4 Takumar lens.

Quoting the old Asahi Pentax catalog here:

"SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4
Newest high speed 7 element lens, utilizing latest optical glass advances...."

On the other hand:

"SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8 & Super Takumar 55mm f/2
Razor sharp, fully corrected, high speed standard lenses, using rare earth glass....."

(Rare earth is another term for the lanthanide group)

[Blue]

Quoting the old Asahi Pentax catalog here:

"SMC Takumar 50mm f/1.4
Newest high speed 7 element lens, utilizing latest optical glass advances...."

On the other hand:

"SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8 & Super Takumar 55mm f/2
Razor sharp, fully corrected, high speed standard lenses, using rare earth glass....."

(Rare earth is another term for the lanthanide group)

I will repeat, I don't think Asahi used lanthanum in any of their 50mm Taks nor the 55mm Taks. Asahi was on a mission to beat out the top fast 50s of they day when the made the 8-element lens. However, it was an expensive version to make and probably was sold close to break even. That is one of the reasons they quickly moved to the 7-element versions of the Super Tak 50/1.4. Plus, it isn't very radioactive compared to thorium used in some of the lenses which is an actinide and was a biproduct of uranium and lanthanum production. Lanthanum became the replacement for thorium due to its radioactivity and tendency to yellow.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

Seems to be the older 8-elements one. But your photo is not so informing.

I always find it kind of ironic when somebody posts really bad photos of their photographic gear on here.

[boriscleto]

Gerjan van Oosten says in The Ultimate Asahi pentax Screw Mount Guide 1952-1977

"New optical design with one lens element less than its predecessor. Improved image quality."

"This lens initially was comprised of 8 elements. It was followed by a newly designed lens that yielded a better sharpness and a higher image contrast than its predecessor. The new lens has a seven element construction instead of eight".

But I like the sharpness and contrast of the 8-element...

[rayallen]

Yellowing is caused by the radioactive decay of Thorium dioxide. Pentax switched to Lanthanum in 1975 with the K series, it is not appreciably radioactive (1/10,000th as radioactive as Thorium).

Thank you for that information. That is VERY interesting. I don't recall seeing that explanation previously.

[Wild Mark]

Thank you for that information. That is VERY interesting. I don't recall seeing that explanation previously.

and unless I am mistaken the thorium was only used in two lenses these being the 35/2 and 50/1.4 (two of the fastest wider angle lenses). Clearly the rare earth elements make a difference.

---------- Post added 01-28-15 at 08:48 AM ----------

I have it on good authority from deep inside Pentax that this story is completely apocryphal. The extra element added literally cents to total cost of the lens, and the 7 element was adopted due to better perceived optical characteristics and lower weight.

'better perceived optical characteristics' ....... on film. Has digital heralded a new way to look at these lenses? The sharpness differences are slight at best (if not better wide open in the 7 element design), but the eight element certainly gives better contrast on digital.

---------- Post added 01-28-15 at 08:50 AM ----------

@Mark- those spanner holes in the name ring make me sad. Please tell me they aren't your doing!

Not I I can dissasemble without butchering. I use a rubber stop cut perfectly for the job. The butchering was done before my involvement.

---------- Post added 01-28-15 at 08:55 AM ----------

To answer the OP's question: No!

But it's a good question, because I used to think Super Takumar 50/1.4 serial numbers started at 1000000 (ish).

However, I now know there are serial numbers below that, because last year I purchased one. Serial number 998134.

And my lens is by no means the earliest; I've seen two other lenses on the web with numbers well below mine. (If I can find the numbers I wrote down I'll post them).

Plus there is something else different about the really old versions, as can be seen below.

One of the most famous little red lines in Pentax lens history...to the right of the 4 it's the early one. But few lenses (I believe) also have the red R below the line. Your lens, for example, only has the red line. The ones with the R as well seem to be the very early ones.

@utak - thanks for that, my knowledge on the topic is expanding with every new post. Are you saying that the eight element has sub 108XXXXX/ 1000000 S/Ns or 7 element copies? Also can you post an image of the red 'R' copy? That would be cool.

---------- Post added 01-28-15 at 08:58 AM ----------

I always find it kind of ironic when somebody posts really bad photos of their photographic gear on here.

@Edgar - yes my bad. Perhaps this is all a function of the lack of wireless connectivity between camera and computer (iPhone does a much faster job at posting images for information purposes only).

[dms]

While the 7 element may be as good or better, the 8 element has a cemented triplet versus a cemented doublet in the 7 element design--so I would expect the cost to make the 8 element was actually a lot more.

[stevebrot]

What I am keen to know is if this particular copy is the earliest known (by inference through serial numbers).

Given the condition of the front bezel plate, I would question whether it is original to the lens.


Steve

[utak]

@utak - thanks for that, my knowledge on the topic is expanding with every new post. Are you saying that the eight element has sub 108XXXXX/ 1000000 S/Ns or 7 element copies? Also can you post an image of the red 'R' copy? That would be cool.

Ha (@Edgar)....I hesitate to post this photo of my lens because it was just a private snap some time ago, and not taken to show off gear...but here it is anyway. It's an 8 element version, with 1:1.4/50 on the plate, protruding rear element etc. You can just see the red R below the red line to the right of the 4....as shown in my other photo above.

I was fortunate to find this for very little money. The serial number is way below published serial numbers and that red R is most unusual. Perhaps for that reason it slipped under the radar. At first I was dubious myself, as the seller only posted one hazy photo of the front of the lens. But the lettering font is consistent with some early Takumars around that time, so I got it, without asking for more photos in case it alerted others, and its the wonderful real deal.

FWIW, I have the 7 elements Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 50/1.4 too, and personally find my 8 elements lens is sharper than the 7 elements at the centre wide open, while the 7 elements S-M-C has more contrast when stopped down with exceptional colour re-production. My very early 8 elements has the more "glowy" rendering of the early lesser coated pre-sets.

If anyone's interested here are my flickr albums...I've still got a lot of shooting to do with these two great lenses...

8 elements https://www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/sets/72157645709939944/

7 elements S-M-C https://www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/sets/72157634567330446/