[Wild Mark]

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


Steve

Is bezel plate synonymous with the term nose ring? Sorry, lens terminology is not my strong suit. I am guessing you are referring to the ring that surrounds the front element (not the vanity ring).

If these two terms are one in the same I can say that the part is unique to the eight element lens. The screw holes are positioned in a way different to hte 'transition' version of the super takumar and latter versions, so, any attempt to use the seven element version for spares on an eight element copy is not going to work.

---------- Post added 01-28-15 at 10:38 AM ----------

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/

Cool - awesome shot. You should add that serial to the lens database (I have just uploaded mine).

It would be fair to say that a proper scientific test is required to determine, once and for all, the differences between the lenses. I would need to be guided by all concerned if I was to do this as I have not got the foggiest idea on how to properly set up a lens test for comparison.

[Blue]

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.

Given that that group was a cemented triplet, I would say your source is full of equine excrement and would have to be older than dirt. Do you know the other lens that had such a triplet prior to this one?


Edit: Some early m42 Pentax bodies will whack the rear of the 8 element lenses. The early version of the SV is one. The diaphragm mechanism was modified in the later versions of the SV to accommodate the 8-element lens.

[Wild Mark]

Given that that group was a cemented triplet, I would say your source is full of equine excrement and would have to be older than dirt. Do you know the other lens that had such a triplet prior to this one?


Edit: Some early m42 Pentax bodies will whack the rear of the 8 element lenses. The early version of the SV is one. The diaphragm mechanism was modified in the later versions of the SV to accommodate the 8-element lens.

Blue, do you have the lens diagram for the eight element at hand. I have never seen it and would love to know where the difference(s) actually lie. I have pulled apart both versions and still do not know where the difference actually is. One thing I do know is the front element on the eight element has a smaller diameter than the seven element. I tried an element swap with no success. Then I tried to swap the front half assembly, again, with no success (different threads). The rear element, while protruding on the eight element, only appears different as it has not got the metal guard protecting it. Unless mistaken, I have concluded that this difference is cosmetic and introduced to better protect the rear element.

Regards

---------- Post added 01-28-15 at 02:13 PM ----------

Found it myself

eight element



seven element



So the difference lies in the middle.

[Blue]

Steinheil was producing cemented aplanatic/achromatic triplets in the 1800's, so I'll say "lots of them." Making a cemented triplet was not exactly a technically challenging exercise by the middle of the 20th century.

And pray tell what sources do you have that the 8 element really was significantly more expensive to produce other than "guys on the internet?"

Asahi Optical only made one other lens with cemented triplet but apparently you weren't aware of that. Where did I say "significantly" more expensive to produce? What I said was is it was an expensive version to produce and that is one of the reasons they moved to the 7 element versions. One was the rear clearance issues but probably to a lesser degrees since newer body designs would likely have cleared. The Spotmatic debuted in 1964 with the Super Tak 55/1.8 standard and the 8-element Super Tak 50/1.4 as an option. As for as production costs, I haven't seen any and Asahi Optical was close to the vest with that sort of info even for guys like Gerjan and Danilo Cechi. I have seen some price lists from the period. The one that I just looked at didn't have any standard lenses on, just wide angles and tele lens. That lens would have been over $100 in 1964 and maybe as high as $135. Then again, I am just an internet guy.

[Blue]

In Dec 1965, the Spotmatic and ST 50/1.4 (8-element version) listed for $289.50 in this magazine ad. It appears that regardless of which ST 50/1.4 version, the list price remained constant.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/4998410142/


In similar ads it was still listed for $289.50 with the ST 50/1.4 and $149 with the ST 55/1.8 in 1967 and 1969.

1967:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/5954001274/in/set-72157621817441739

1969:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/7493601936/in/set-72157621817441739

Compliments of Nesster.

[osv]

thx for posting those literature links!

[Blue]

The other normal lens with a triplet cemented group I hinted about was the Takumar 58/2 sonnar type lens from 1957.

It was reportedly expensive to make compared to the Tak 55/2.2 and subsequent faster 55mm Taks. There was one other lens with a cemented triplet, the Tak 83mm.

According to this article, the ST 50/1.4 8-element version was difficult to make in part to the 2 curved surfaces that had to be cemented. it also claims that Asahi lost money on every 8-element version it sold. Asahi Optical's goal with this lens was to beat the Zeiss lens and it was dubbed by the press as 'the Zeiss Killer."

TEST Takumar 58/2 v Super Tak 50/1.4 v M50/1.4 v FA43/1.9


Here is the m37 and m42 versions of the Tak 83mm/1.9 that is the 1st lens Asahi Optical made with a cemented triplet group.

Early Pentax Takumar Lenses

[Blue]

thx for posting those literature links!

Nesster deserves the credit for taking time to make those available. He has posted a plethora of old ads and magazine articles for Pentax and other brands. He has a bunch of threads here where he posted these things.

[Wild Mark]

A frankenlens has been born ........ more news to follow

[Wild Mark]

Yes, I can confirm, I have successfully swapped the triplet out from the 8 element into a latter 7 element super multi coated takumar with eight aperture blades. Lens focuses correctly - extensive testing not done yet but indications are the 'hybrid' is exactly what you would expect it to be .......... to be continued

Perhaps the frankenlens could be named the 'V8' ....... (version 8)

[rosettaquarrier]

Stumbled on this old thread - lowest s/n I’ve seen is 978160 - it’s in front of me right now, a jewel in my collection.