[Bladejunkie]

I have identified one more lens that seems to have the same specifications as mine and was recently sold on ebay. This suggests that there might be an entire batch of lenses that are marked 58mm/2.4 but that are not Heliar design. In addition to my own (#154623), the other lens had serial #154662.

I have found photos of a third copy of this suspected factory fake, also with a 154xxx serial number, hardening the evidence that this is either a 55/2.2 or a previously undocumented lens type (if only I cba-ed to take out the front elements of mine). 60 years later, the mighty Asahi Pentax Corporation will finally have to take responsibility for its crimes.

---

Last edited by Bladejunkie; 12-12-2017 at 09:01 PM. Reason: photos were not included

[Baard-Einar]

That serial number range is a bit late compared to what I have come across before. Interesting.

On December 2, someone payed 350$ for a Takumar 58mm f2.4 with oily blades. Maybe the buyer believed it was the f2 varaint?

[boriscleto]

That serial number range is a bit late compared to what I have come across before. Interesting.

On December 2, someone payed 350$ for a Takumar 58mm f2.4 with oily blades. Maybe the buyer believed it was the f2 varaint?

If it's a pre-set what does oil on the blades matter?

[Baard-Einar]

If it's a pre-set what does oil on the blades matter?

Not a lot, but they can get stuck and sluggish. But it was more the observation about the price.

[BigMackCam]

If it's a pre-set what does oil on the blades matter?

Actually, it can matter - even with a pre-set lens. There's a risk that excessive lubricant on the blades can transfer onto the optical elements. Plus, if the lubricant is quite fresh and shiny, it can contribute to internal flare due to reflections off the oil. In practice, the risks are very small, but they're real.

If the amount of lubricant on the blades is excessive, the chances are that it will have migrated into all sorts of places. I'd want to service it...

[stevebrot]

Actually, it can matter - even with a pre-set lens. There's a risk that excessive lubricant on the blades can transfer onto the optical elements. Plus, if the lubricant is quite fresh and shiny, it can contribute to internal flare due to reflections off the oil. In practice, the risks are very small, but they're real.

If the amount of lubricant on the blades is excessive, the chances are that it will have migrated into all sorts of places. I'd want to service it...

Yes...it is difficult to know when oil is a problem. My LZOS MC Jupiter-9 85/2 is a preset lens with a high blade count and the lens was new from the factory with a scant amount of oil on the blades. Conventional wisdom in FSU lens circles is that the oil is intentional with that lens. What I would like to know is if or when it will get sticky and require a flush.


Steve

[Bladejunkie]

That serial number range is a bit late compared to what I have come across before. Interesting.

On December 2, someone payed 350$ for a Takumar 58mm f2.4 with oily blades. Maybe the buyer believed it was the f2 varaint?

The 58/2.4 is rarer than the 58/2, I think. They commonly seem to go for the same amount of money if not more. If you look at eBay, it is a lot easier to come by the 58/2 than the 58/2.4 in M42 mount. Recently, someone bought a broken AP with a 58/2.4, which were display pieces. S/he got it for a steal for $70 or so and then put only the broken AP back up for sale for $325 or so and kept the lens.

I paid about $250 for my fake, which given that it is a 55/2.2 is way too much. I then acquired a broken model S with a true 58/2.4 for 200 Euros from a kind gentleman in Belgium who let me have it for that money even though he knew it was worth more.



On an unrelated note: please limit off-topic contributions and let's keep this focused on the variants of the preset Takumar 58mm/2.4. If you want to talk about oily aperture blades, which there is plenty of reasons for, please make a thread.

---

Last edited by Bladejunkie; 12-13-2017 at 09:52 PM. Reason: Redundancy deleted

[BigMackCam]

Yes...it is difficult to know when oil is a problem. My LZOS MC Jupiter-9 85/2 is a preset lens with a high blade count and the lens was new from the factory with a scan amount of oil on the blades. Conventional wisdom in FSU lens circles is that the oil is intentional with that lens. What I would like to know is if or when it will get sticky and require a flush.

I'm not 100% certain, but I believe some Soviet manual and pre-set lenses had lubricant applied to the internal diaphragm ring (not sure if that's the correct term - I mean the carousel that holds and moves the blades?) as a damping measure when manufactured. Certainly, a number of new / old-stock and unused / serviced lenses I've bought have been received in that condition. It gives a much nicer action when setting the aperture, but is pretty much guaranteed to result in lubricant on the blades later on...

[stevebrot]

On an unrelated note: please limit off-topic contributions and let's keep this focused on the variants of the preset Takumar 58mm/2.4. If you want to talk about oily aperture blades, which there is plenty of reasons for, please make a thread.

Sorry to contaminate your thread. I have read through your contributions several times and this is my uptake (finally!) plus what I found from additional research:

• The physical appearance of your Tak 58/2.4 is more similar to that of the 55/2.2
• You found apparent Tak 55/2.2 innards in your Tak 58/2.4
• Your Tak 58/2.4 seems to have a mix of parts including a curious aperture ring(s) variant.
• You have found a photo of an additional lens with similar features
• You could have made this much easier if you had provided comparison photos of your "true" Tak 58/2.4 in a line-up with the other two lenses.

The link provided by @Ned_Bunnell was very helpful in sorting this out since photos of the two lenses side-by-side were provided.

My belief is that you have discovered a new Tak 58/2.4 factory variant. This sort of discovery happens every so often with lens trim and body details*, but it is unusual to have other than the expected innards.


Steve
(Happily compliant, though my knuckles are still sore)

* I own an early Super Tak 55/1.8 that has a mix of features that were unknown before a survey on this site earlier this year.

[Baard-Einar]

The 58/2.4 is rarer than the 58/2, I think. They commonly seem to go for the same amount of money if not more. If you look at eBay, it is a lot easier to come by the 58/2 than the 58/2.4 in M42 mount. Recently, someone bought a broken AP with a 58/2.4, which were display pieces. S/he got it for a steal for $70 or so and then put only the broken AP back up for sale for $325 or so and kept the lens.

.

Prices are hard to understand... On December 11 a Tower 26 was sold with the 58/2.4. There is also another Tower 26 on eBay right now, shown with the 58/2.4. My own copy of the 58/2.4 also came on a Tower 26. It was the first standard lens for the AP, if I am not mistaken.

I don't have any facts to support which is the rarest lens of the two: 58/2 or 58/2.4. It ha been said that the 58/2 is really rare, but I have also observed a seller from Japan trying to move 5-7 copies of that lens via eBay for sometime.

[monochrome]

I have a AOC 1:2 Takumar 1=55mm with silver lens cap, Ser. Nbr. 150520 attached to my AP. I have it on good authority it is original to the camera but that’s just a story.

How can I help?

[Bladejunkie]

Sorry to contaminate your thread. I have read through your contributions several times and this is my uptake (finally!) plus what I found from additional research:

• The physical appearance of your Tak 58/2.4 is more similar to that of the 55/2.2
• You found apparent Tak 55/2.2 innards in your Tak 58/2.4
• Your Tak 58/2.4 seems to have a mix of parts including a curious aperture ring(s) variant.
• You have found a photo of an additional lens with similar features
• You could have made this much easier if you had provided comparison photos of your "true" Tak 58/2.4 in a line-up with the other two lenses.

The link provided by @Ned_Bunnell was very helpful in sorting this out since photos of the two lenses side-by-side were provided.

My belief is that you have discovered a new Tak 58/2.4 factory variant. This sort of discovery happens every so often with lens trim and body details*, but it is unusual to have other than the expected innards.


Steve
(Happily compliant, though my knuckles are still sore)

* I own an early Super Tak 55/1.8 that has a mix of features that were unknown before a survey on this site earlier this year.

This is on topic. Hence, no contamination at all. Reason I did not post photos of my own (supposedly real) 58/2.4 is that I only acquired it recently and that it went to my European address. I am in the U.S., so for the time being I won't have access to it.

I, too, believe that this is a factory variant. Either it is a "mistake" like a stamp error or it is outright fraud if it was purposely sold as a 58/2.4 but made like a 55/2.2. The aperture ring suggests to me that it is a mistake rather than intentional (if you'd fake it, you would try to fake it right; although the Rudy Kurniawan counterfeiters screw-up is a possibility). I do have a 55/2.2 to counter-check and could dismantle both including the front groups, but the similarities in construction that I have identified so far and importantly the identity of the rendering of the two lenses are sufficient evidence for me to claim that they are identical. Reason I try to avoid opening lenses is because it is easy to damage them cosmetically [not a pro].

So hunters of a M42-mount 58/2.4 should be aware and look for the ones with the correct specs: flat embeddedness of the front element, 2 feet MFD (not 1.8), very short distance between the 2.8 and 2.4 aperture markings, and (I suppose) no 154xxx serial.

---------- Post added 12-16-17 at 11:26 AM ----------

Prices are hard to understand... On December 11 a Tower 26 was sold with the 58/2.4. There is also another Tower 26 on eBay right now, shown with the 58/2.4. My own copy of the 58/2.4 also came on a Tower 26. It was the first standard lens for the AP, if I am not mistaken.

I don't have any facts to support which is the rarest lens of the two: 58/2 or 58/2.4. It ha been said that the 58/2 is really rare, but I have also observed a seller from Japan trying to move 5-7 copies of that lens via eBay for sometime.

I believe the Tower currently on sale is the same as the one that was just sold. If we are talking about the same auction, the person is selling only the broken AP body without the lens. S/he didn't even care to change the photos and take the lens off for an accurate depiction.

---------- Post added 12-16-17 at 11:29 AM ----------

I have a AOC 1:2 Takumar 1=55mm with silver lens cap, Ser. Nbr. 150520 attached to my AP. I have it on good authority it is original to the camera but that’s just a story.

How can I help?

O.O If you have a preset (not an auto-) Takumar 55mm (!) f=2.0, I want photos or it didn't happen/doesn't exist. Because that would be the second "new" lens we identify in this thread.

[monochrome]

This is on topic. Hence, no contamination at all. Reason I did not post photos of my own (supposedly real) 58/2.4 is that I only acquired it recently and that it went to my European address. I am in the U.S., so for the time being I won't have access to it.

I, too, believe that this is a factory variant. Either it is a "mistake" like a stamp error or it is outright fraud if it was purposely sold as a 58/2.4 but made like a 55/2.2. The aperture ring suggests to me that it is a mistake rather than intentional (if you'd fake it, you would try to fake it right; although the Rudy Kurniawan counterfeiters screw-up is a possibility). I do have a 55/2.2 to counter-check and could dismantle both including the front groups, but the similarities in construction that I have identified so far and importantly the identity of the rendering of the two lenses are sufficient evidence for me to claim that they are identical. Reason I try to avoid opening lenses is because it is easy to damage them cosmetically [not a pro].

So hunters of a M42-mount 58/2.4 should be aware and look for the ones with the correct specs: flat embeddedness of the front element, 2 feet MFD (not 1.8), very short distance between the 2.8 and 2.4 aperture markings, and (I suppose) no 154xxx serial.

---------- Post added 12-16-17 at 11:26 AM ----------



I believe the Tower currently on sale is the same as the one that was just sold. If we are talking about the same auction, the person is selling only the broken AP body without the lens. S/he didn't even care to change the photos and take the lens off for an accurate depiction.

---------- Post added 12-16-17 at 11:29 AM ----------



O.O If you have a preset (not an auto-) Takumar 55mm (!) f=2.0, I want photos or it didn't happen/doesn't exist. Because that would be the second "new" lens we identify in this thread.

My bad. Before I posted I was stumped because I couldn’t find the lens referenced anywhere. Consulted my van Oosten, Mechelhoff and PF and could not find the lens, but I assumed I was not properly searching the resources - that’s how certain I was I had read the ring correctly. Your reply prompted me to look more closely.

It is the preset 58/2.

Not a particularly common lens, nonetheless.

[Baard-Einar]

I believe the Tower currently on sale is the same as the one that was just sold. If we are talking about the same auction, the person is selling only the broken AP body without the lens. S/he didn't even care to change the photos and take the lens off for an accurate depiction.[COLOR="Silver"]

The Tower 26 sold on Dec 11, has s/n 143366, and the one that now is active on eBay has s/n 153053.
Trying to sell a broken Tower 26, with no lens, for almost 295USD, stating it would cost 250$ to fix.. Hefty.