Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-02-2018, 09:45 AM   #16
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 204
Who are these re-coaters you found on google? Please share you findings so we can help you evaluate. Guessing that only the best lenses for film, video, and stills would be worthwhile, but who knows?

12-02-2018, 10:18 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Rockaway Beach NYC
Posts: 5,604
The Takumar bayonet series lenses were budget models.

SMC Pentax lenses multicoating is excellent even by today's standards.

Why not simply trade up? It would probably be less costly.

Chris
12-02-2018, 10:23 AM   #18
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,268
QuoteOriginally posted by ZombieArmy Quote
The bayonet lenses are multicoated, they are just not SMC. They already potentially outperform their equivalent lenses, and it largely depends on copy variation.
Is there evidence they outperform the SMC lenses, or are you just saying "the Taks are fine, why bother with trying to get better"?
12-02-2018, 10:31 AM   #19
Pentaxian
ZombieArmy's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,392
QuoteOriginally posted by leekil Quote
Is there evidence they outperform the SMC lenses, or are you just saying "the Taks are fine, why bother with trying to get better"?
GUB did a test and shows it outperforms the M/K/Takumar lenses. It could probably only match the A series since it's the same design.

12-02-2018, 10:32 AM   #20
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,650
Some people prefer the rendering style of the bayonet Takumars over the SMC equivalents. I certainly do. Back when I still owned my M series 28mm/2.8 I compared it against a friend's bayonet Takumar 28mm/2.8, and we were both astonished to find that we preferred the Tak's rendering by far. It was what convinced me to get rid of the last of the M and K series lenses that I owned.
12-02-2018, 10:33 AM - 1 Like   #21
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,436
QuoteOriginally posted by SunnyG. Quote
I wasn't talking about the value. I was talking about seeing this from the perspective of an experiment.
If you have the money to burn, then go for it. The cost will be several hundred dollars. Remember too, that the difference between the Takumar Bayonet and their SMC cousins is more than just the coatings (single vs. smc). Edit: I badly mispoke in that at least the optical formula for the M/A 28/2.8 and A 135/2.8 are the same as for the Takumar Bayonet equivalents. It is known that the Takumar Bayonet lenses were made by Pentax's CPC subsidiary, but not known whether all of the lenses in question (SMC and CPC) were made on the same assembly lines.

QuoteOriginally posted by SunnyG. Quote
And besides, samyang uses cheap plastic for most of it's budget lenses.
Truly? The ones I have used and handled are mostly metal.


Steve

Last edited by stevebrot; 12-02-2018 at 11:03 AM.
12-02-2018, 10:36 AM   #22
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,436
QuoteOriginally posted by SunnyG. Quote
Yes it's readily available! Just search on Google!
It is customary when reporting on an online resource to provide a link. Just saying...


Steve
12-02-2018, 10:44 AM   #23
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,436
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
Back when I still owned my M series 28mm/2.8 I compared it against a friend's bayonet Takumar 28mm/2.8, and we were both astonished to find that we preferred the Tak's rendering by far.
That is an interesting comparison. The M 28/2.8 was price-competitive new against lenses from Vivitar (similar value now as well)* and I have often wondered if there was much difference between it and the Takumar Bayonet (aka Cosmicar and CPC Phase 2) 28/2.8. The K-Mount Page uses the same optical diagram for all four variants.


Steve

* The M 28/3.5 was the higher performance version. FWIW, most name-brand 28mm lenses of the time were quite competent with the biggest difference between offerings being distortion and flatness of field. In 1982, I paid extra (~$50 more IIRC) for a Tamron 28/2.5 over the Pentax-M 28/2.8 based on published test results at the time.


Last edited by stevebrot; 12-02-2018 at 11:07 AM.
12-02-2018, 11:16 AM   #24
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,650
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
That is an interesting comparison. The M 28/2.8 was price-competitive new against lenses from Vivitar (similar value now as well)* and I have often wondered if there was much difference between it and the Takumar Bayonet (aka Cosmicar and CPC Phase 2) 28/2.8. The K-Mount Page uses the same optical diagram for all four variants.


Steve

* The M 28/3.5 was the higher performance version. FWIW, most name-brand 28mm lenses of the time were quite competent with the biggest difference between offerings being distortion and flatness of field. In 1982, I paid extra (~$50 more IIRC) for a Tamron 28/2.5 over the Pentax-M 28/2.8 based on published test results at the time.

Thanks Steve. That's helpful info, and it tallies with the fact that my friend and I couldn't see any difference in sharpness at any aperture on his Spyder calibrated iMac. It came down to us both preferring the more naturalistic colours and contrast from the bayonet Takumar. And I agree about the 28mm/3.5 being in a different league altogether. I'm pretty sure it's optically the same as the M42 Takumar 28mm/3.5 that I still own and love.
12-02-2018, 12:42 PM   #25
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,090
QuoteOriginally posted by ZombieArmy Quote
GUB did a test and shows it outperforms the M/K/Takumar lenses. It could probably only match the A series since it's the same design.
More to the point my copy outperforms the examples of the other 135s I have. I think sample variation might explain other peoples experience with the Tak Bayonet.
The poor old much maligned Takumar Bayonet group. - PentaxForums.com
But having said that when i got my first Tak bayonet 28 2.8 it immediately replaced my M28 3.5 due to IQ.
But about coatings - they were originally about increasing the T stop of a lens in the days that Iso 200 was a fast emulsion. They incidentally boosted contrast and their introduction finally made zooms less than horrible. I note the tone of this thread automatically presumes no or less coating is bad - coating = good. As far as old primes are concerned I find the level of coating almost irrelevant and actually tend to prefer those less coated ones.
12-02-2018, 01:21 PM   #26
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,436
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
But about coatings - they were originally about increasing the T stop of a lens in the days that Iso 200 was a fast emulsion.
Interesting! That makes sense, though I suspect that flare reduction for periscopes, binoculars, and bomb-sights was the rational behind the Germans classifying the 1935 Zeiss coating technology as a closely guarded military secret; such was a bargaining point at Yalta when the Zeiss works were granted to the Soviets as war reparations. My memory at the time that multi-coating first debuted was that flare reduction (widely declared as "flare free") was the marketing point for Pentax SMC lenses.


Steve

(...interesting discussion in the Wikipedia article...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating...)

Last edited by stevebrot; 12-02-2018 at 01:32 PM.
12-02-2018, 02:41 PM   #27
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,090
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Interesting! That makes sense, though I suspect that flare reduction for periscopes, binoculars, and bomb-sights was the rational behind the Germans classifying the 1935 Zeiss coating technology as a closely guarded military secret; such was a bargaining point at Yalta when the Zeiss works were granted to the Soviets as war reparations. My memory at the time that multi-coating first debuted was that flare reduction (widely declared as "flare free") was the marketing point for Pentax SMC lenses.


Steve

(...interesting discussion in the Wikipedia article...Anti-reflective coating - Wikipedia...)
Ummmm errrr I am only parroting what I read on here somewhere and it made sense to me too. But I can't source my statement and your bigger world view makes sense also. It was the flare reduction that made zooms viable (barely) for sure. I am starting another thread showing Pentax 28mm shots comparing coatings on the older glass.
12-02-2018, 03:03 PM - 1 Like   #28
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 31,436
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
Ummmm errrr I am only parroting what I read on here somewhere and it made sense to me too.
The section of the Wikipedia article on index-matched coatings mentions that increased transmittance was how the phenomenon was originally detected, so all is not lost.

Anti-reflective coating | Index-Matching - Wikipedia


Steve
12-02-2018, 04:44 PM   #29
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
UncleVanya's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2014
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 14,706
I can't find it but there was an extensive review of Pentax 135s that ranked the takumar bayonet 135 f2.8 was number 1 or 2 and was above the K 135 2.5.
12-02-2018, 06:11 PM   #30
Veteran Member
SunnyG.'s Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 317
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by IgorZ Quote
Interesting idea... Wondering though, can a small company make decent coatings?
Well some, if not all are good! Some of them are successful.

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 06:12 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by pepperberry farm Quote
easy: buy one and send it in for the coating process, get it back, shoot, and report back...
Well if I lived in the US, I would've done. But the cost of shipping would burn a hole in my pocket

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 06:14 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
They are coated, what made you think they weren't?
I was referring to SMC. They don't have SMC coating.

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 06:16 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Wasp Quote
I have a Tamron 300mm f/5.6 in M42 mount that has lost bits of its coating on the front element. It was only $10 and the cost of restoring it would probably exceed its value. Interesting to know it can be done, though.
Of course it can be done. Just search on Google. Maybe with modern it might exceed the value you bought it for.

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 06:20 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by UncleVanya Quote
I would be seriously surprised if that is the cost. Each element has to be polished to remove the existing coatings and then recoated.

Some of the services I found only work on film lenses. This to me indicates $$$$
Well you could opt for Recoating without polishing. In theory. I don't know for sure. I think if someone emailed and asked. That would be helpful.

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 06:25 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by mtgmansf Quote
Who are these re-coaters you found on google? Please share you findings so we can help you evaluate. Guessing that only the best lenses for film, video, and stills would be worthwhile, but who knows?
Dulcos is the only one I remember. Well you're right about that one. it's not for cheap budget lenses. But one could do this as an experiment.

---------- Post added 12-02-18 at 06:28 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisPlatt Quote
The Takumar bayonet series lenses were budget models.

SMC Pentax lenses multicoating is excellent even by today's standards.

Why not simply trade up? It would probably be less costly.

Chris
I was thinking, more on the lines of an experiment. Similarly, how some people give old cars modern touch, when they hot rod them. Think of this as a form of "lens hot rodding". Not for everyone.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bayonet, budget, coatings, cost, element, experiment, film, google, k-mount, lenses, money, multi, pentax lens, pm, post, slr lens, smc, takumar, value, variation, worthwhile
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New to Vintage Lenses—Fungus in 135mm Takumar Bayonet lens? AAlfano Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 08-30-2018 11:40 AM
Super Takumar 35mm f2 (49mm) yellow coating Digiman69 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 04-15-2012 05:44 PM
Super Takumar - info about coating (elements and layer) gemini Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 04-28-2010 01:39 PM
Compare the lens coating of Takumar-F 70-210mm and smc Pentax-F 70-210mm jcdog2006 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 13 02-19-2010 08:16 AM
When is a Pentax bayonet not a Pentax bayonet albrechtnamatdurer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 06-28-2009 09:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:25 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top