[Lowell Goudge]

aside from anything else, you need to consider that today under iso 14001 i believe there are issues of integrating used parts into new workflow, and there is also the issue of how do you do surface treatment on some of the legacy lenses that are a) radio active, or b) contain lead or other heavy metal contaminants that are hazardous to workers.

i think even if it was economically possible, as others have highlighted above, it is not, the EHS issues would also need to be addressed. there is a reason that the pentax F 1.7x AF converter is out of production, there were EHS issues involved.

[SunnyG.]

My bad! I wanted to write about another company and I wrote sigma

[BigMackCam]

But wouldn't you like to know, how the 8 element 50mm tak would be with a modern smc coating?

How can it be different? The SMC coating is Pentax's own creation.

In your previous post (copied above), you were referring to the addition of a modern SMC coating to a lens that didn't have it. Whatever coating you add to such a lens, whether it's a Pentax coating or otherwise, would mean it's no longer original. It wouldn't different to how it left the factory.

For comparison... Imagine you have a beautiful old acoustic guitar that was originally finished in shellac, but that finish is no longer in great condition. So, you decide to have it re-finished. Maybe you choose a modern polyurethane finish... or perhaps you decide to strive for something close to original... so you have it refinished in shellac again. The fact is, whatever finish you choose, it's no longer original... no longer exactly as it came from the factory... no longer the same guitar. That's why the value to collectors drops hugely as a result. You'd have been way, way better off leaving that guitar with its original worn and/or sub-standard finish.

That's what I mean by "different"

[Digitalis]

That's the idea! If this lens can be more flare resistant. Then it would certainly be much better.

Takumars are more flare resistant than their contemporary counterparts from other manufacturers. The improvements from newer coatings would bring be questionable at best, a Takumar isn't going to suddenly perform like a Zeiss OTUS lens when you change the coatings.

[SunnyG.]

In your previous post (copied above), you were referring to the addition of a modern SMC coating to a lens that didn't have it. Whatever coating you add to such a lens, whether it's a Pentax coating or otherwise, would mean it's no longer original. It wouldn't different to how it left the factory.

For comparison... Imagine you have a beautiful old acoustic guitar that was originally finished in shellac, but that finish is no longer in great condition. So, you decide to have it re-finished. Maybe you choose a modern polyurethane finish... or perhaps you decide to strive for something close to original... so you have it refinished in shellac again. The fact is, whatever finish you choose, it's no longer original... no longer exactly as it came from the factory... no longer the same guitar. That's why the value to collectors drops hugely as a result. You'd have been way, way better off leaving that guitar with its original worn and/or sub-standard finish.

That's what I mean by "different"

Hmmm understood! I wasn't talking from a collectors perspective. I was rather talking from a photographers perspective. Suppose this lens had a SMC coating, how would it perform. That's my main goal.

[BigMackCam]

My bad! I wanted to write about another company and I wrote sigma

Out of curiosity, who is the lens company you intended to refer to? I'm not aware of any major lens manufacturer who offers a coating or re-coating service (for the reasons already mentioned by others in the thread)...

[SunnyG.]

Takumars are more flare resistant than their contemporary counterparts from other manufacturers. The improvements from newer coatings would bring be questionable at best, a Takumar isn't going to suddenly perform like a Zeiss OTUS lens when you change the coatings.

Since you're talking about flare resistance. Have you used Konica hexanon lenses? They are impressive. Their flare resistance is amazing. Try one. And compare it with the Takumar!

---------- Post added 01-14-19 at 04:31 PM ----------

Out of curiosity, who is the lens company you intended to refer to? I'm not aware of any major lens manufacturer who offers a coating or re-coating service (for the reasons already mentioned by others in the thread)...

I was referring to DULCOS. Sorry for the caps. But I have heard that they do a really good job, of polishing and Recoating lenses.

---------- Post added 01-14-19 at 04:33 PM ----------

I think there are third party companies on the internet who will polish and apply lens coats. I don't think it is cheap and probably wouldn't be worthwhile for most lenses.

150$ for polishing!

---------- Post added 01-14-19 at 04:35 PM ----------

aside from anything else, you need to consider that today under iso 14001 i believe there are issues of integrating used parts into new workflow, and there is also the issue of how do you do surface treatment on some of the legacy lenses that are a) radio active, or b) contain lead or other heavy metal contaminants that are hazardous to workers.

i think even if it was economically possible, as others have highlighted above, it is not, the EHS issues would also need to be addressed. there is a reason that the pentax F 1.7x AF converter is out of production, there were EHS issues involved.

Yes I know, I have read about it. But apparently it's still available in Japan. In new condition! Leftover stock I guess?

---------- Post added 01-14-19 at 04:37 PM ----------

The title should have a "?" instead of a "!". I was excited/surprised for a second

Haha my bad!

[Digitalis]

Have you used Konica hexanon lenses?

I use hexanon-M lenses with my Konika Hexar RF and Leica M camera bodies.

. Their flare resistance is amazing.

I consider them to be only slightly above average regarding flare resistance, they are better than some Voigtlander lenses but current Leica and Zeiss lenses beat them.


Comparing SLR lenses against RF lenses is problematic, even when comparing flare resistance. With SLRs you can see when flare is going to be an issue.

[SunnyG.]

I use hexanon-M lenses with my Konika Hexar RF and Leica M camera bodies.



I consider them to be only slightly above average regarding flare resistance, they are better than some Voigtlander lenses but current Leica and Zeiss lenses beat them.


Comparing SLR lenses against RF lenses is problematic, even when comparing flare resistance. With SLRs you can see when flare is going to be an issue.

I was talking about Konica Hexanon AR SLR lenses! I don't know about the RF lenses!

[BigMackCam]

Hmmm understood! I wasn't talking from a collectors perspective. I was rather talking from a photographers perspective. Suppose this lens had a SMC coating, how would it perform. That's my main goal.

I was referring to DULCOS. Sorry for the caps. But I have heard that they do a really good job, of polishing and Recoating lenses.

150$ for polishing!

Re DULCOS... looking at their website, one of the things they do is to re-lap and polish the lens elements. Immediately, this changes the optical performance of the lens. Now, they might do a really good job, and the end result might be pleasing, but this re-lapping and re-polishing of a lens will result in an entirely different product in terms of optical performance.

So far as new coatings are concerned... I understand your interest in them, and clearly you're entitled to do whatever you want with any lens you own. Indeed, if those lenses were mass-produced models that are commonly available at affordable prices, one might see little harm in the endeavour. But it's worth pointing out how unsympathetic non-reversible modification and servicing is gradually reducing the number of good vintage lenses out there, with prices of original examples (even those in poor condition) rising accordingly. I collect Soviet lenses, and some that I've acquired cost me significantly (in some cases, several times) more than they would have done even just ten years ago, because so many have been poorly serviced and / or modified. That's a great shame... since, in addition to being photographic tools for enjoyment, these are also historical artefacts.

Imagine someone who buys a nice, original but tired-looking 1970s Maserati and has it repainted in a colour they like, has the suspension replaced with third party components, has the interior re-trimmed and maybe some new seats in a sportier but more comfortable design, some different dials in the dashboard... The end result might be more enjoyable or practical to drive, but the car is effectively ruined in terms of originality and value to any potential future owners.

Again, I completely understand and accept that you can and should be able to do whatever you like with any lens you own or buy. But I'd implore you - if it has any vintage value whatsoever - to consider keeping it original for future owners and generations to enjoy

[wrench.doozer]

You probably want to contact someone in their customer service, explain to them what you need, and get a quote before you contemplate having any work done. Be aware there could be some issues coating cemented elements as they can outgas in the vacuum chamber used to coat lenses.

I agree cleaning would be paramount. Also most coating labs would serve the eye glasses industry, so the trays, lens holders, etc. would be set up for 'uncuts', say about 50mm or so diameter. I've thought about this, as I've been to our local lab called Optogenics on an interview once. But this is all academic.

[Digitalis]

looking at their website, one of the things they do is to re-lap and polish the lens elements. Immediately, this changes the optical performance of the lens.

What he said. Any changes to the geometry of the elements in a lens can have a positive/negative effect upon its optical performance. Personally, I wouldn't take that chance. I'd just buy a D-FA* 50mm f/1.4 and call it a day.

[Rondec]

What he said. Any changes to the geometry of the elements in a lens can have a positive/negative effect upon its optical performance. Personally, I wouldn't take that chance. I'd just buy a D-FA* 50mm f/1.4 and call it a day.

How many 50s do you have now?

[Digitalis]

How many 50s do you have now?

I'm just shy of 200*... which is too many really, I'm considering offloading a fair bit of my collection - Having such a collection is a PITA every time I move house.

I'll pick something else to collect, a studio head I know of collects glass eyes, I also know a photographer who collects amber insects and another who collects fountain pens.


* My original concept wast to collect 365 50mm lenses and shoot with a different fifty every day for a year....however a considerable number the lenses are built for mounts that no longer exist, and no adapter currently exists for them. I realize how impractical the idea is.

[BigMackCam]

I'm just shy of 200*... which is too many really

Ha ha Awesome