Originally posted by AsTeTiX Currently I've got the SMC Pentax M 50mm F1.7 and I've been offered a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm F1.8 for $35. Would there be any major differences other than focal length? Is it worth it to buy this lens also?
Edit: Forgot to mention that I adapt to the Sony a6000
Both are pretty similar but can be very different!
Why?
There can be more difference between one M50 1,7 to another M50 1,7 just due to age, use/misuse.
Same for the Takumar.
This is the problem reading (some) reviews. Some write reviews based on a bad sample and possibly downgrade a good lens out of sheer frustration.
You have to verify it and get a good sample.
Both are great lenses.
I prefer the Super Takumar version.
With a Pentax K body I prefer the Tv option which the Taks offer. Makes life that little bit easier.
The K55 / Tak 55 is also one of the best video lenses. Superior here to the M50 because of the longer (and smoother) focus throw.
---------- Post added 04-21-17 at 03:40 PM ----------
Originally posted by paulh He did say "possibly" better. The SMC coatings have evolved/improved over time, thus the "possibility" of improved coatings over the Tak.
Yes, the SMC coatings have improved, Asahi said, that there was a difference between super multi coated and smc, if true, who knows.
About Super-Multi Coating (SMC)