[Prince Harbinger]

Need help deciding on which version to buy. I understand that the Super Takumar has an extra element, but am I really going to notice the difference in my photos? Is it really worth $50.00 more than the SMC Takumar 50mm F/1.4 with 7 elements? Does anyone have a photo comparison between the two of the same subject? I need to know what makes the 1964 Super Takumar version so special over the SMC other than an extra element.

---

Last edited by Prince Harbinger; 03-25-2019 at 07:18 PM.

[ZombieArmy]

SMC coatings are the more modern coatings. A good copy makes more of a difference than super vs SMC to be honest though.

Coatings will have some effect on flare and contrast but the thoriated elements will have far more impact in that regard. I think it's a resounding "it probably makes no difference realistically".

[conniption]

Super Taks can also suffer from yellowing thorium glass.

[ZombieArmy]

Super Taks can also suffer from yellowing thorium glass.

As far as I'm aware, the only 50 1.4 tak that doesn't suffer from yellowing is the 8 element version.

[Prince Harbinger]

Super Taks can also suffer from yellowing thorium glass.

Not worried about yellowing. It's simple to correct. Just need some concrete proof there's no difference in the photographs that they render.

[stevebrot]

I understand that the Super Takumar has an extra element, but am I really going to notice the difference in my photos?

The early Super Tak 50/1.4 has 8 elements and is more desirable from a collector and market perspective. Some people also prefer its rendering.

Later production Super Tak 50/1.4 have 7 elements, one element of which is made with radioactive thoriated glass. While the glass is not a health risk in normal use, that element may yellow over time due to radiation-induced changes in the glass structure. The yellowing does effect both image tint and optical quality, but can be removed through several different remedies.* The 8-element variant has no thorium. Optically, the 7-element is a very credible performer and one of the best 50mm f/1.4 lenses of the time.

Both the S-M-C and SMC Takumars are optically the same as the 7-element Super Takumar with the exception of the coatings; they are also sport the radioactive thorium element. Breaking with the non-SMC versions, these two versions have eight rather than six aperture blades.

Is it really worth $50.00 more than the SMC Takumar 50mm F/1.4 with 7 elements?

For people who want the exclusivity of the limited run 8-element lens, the $50+ more is worth it. The two do render differently, but comparisons I have seen have been inconclusive as to whether there is a clear advantage to either version other than flare resistance on the SMC lenses. The questions a prospective buyer might ask are:

• Do I want the improved coatings of the S-M-C/SMC versions?
• Is there a desire for eight rather than six aperture blades
• If the 8-element version is what you want, are you willing to wait until you find a good one, confirmed to be genuine?

Finally, are you sure you want an f/1.4 lens? The 55mm f/1.8 lenses are 2/3 stop slower at maximum aperture, but are sharper at most apertures and equally sharp at the others and easier to focus.


Steve

[Prince Harbinger]

The early Super Tak 50/1.4 has 8 elements and is more desirable from a collector and market perspective. Some people also prefer its rendering.

Later production Super Tak 50/1.4 have 7 elements, one element of which is made with radioactive thoriated glass. While the glass is not a health risk in normal use, that element may yellow over time due to radiation-induced changes in the glass structure. The yellowing does effect both image tint and optical quality, but can be removed through several different remedies.* The 8-element variant has no thorium. Optically, the 7-element is a very credible performer and one of the best 50mm f/1.4 lenses of the time.

Both the S-M-C and SMC Takumars are optically the same as the 7-element Super Takumar with the exception of the coatings; they are also sport the radioactive thorium element. Breaking with the non-SMC versions, these two versions have eight rather than six aperture blades.



For people who want the exclusivity of the limited run 8-element lens, the $50+ more is worth it. The two do render differently, but comparisons I have seen have been inconclusive as to whether there is a clear advantage to either version other than flare resistance on the SMC lenses. The questions a prospective buyer might ask are:

• Do I want the improved coatings of the S-M-C/SMC versions?
• Is there a desire for eight rather than six aperture blades
• If the 8-element version is what you want, are you willing to wait until you find a good one, confirmed to be genuine?

Finally, are you sure you want an f/1.4 lens? The 55mm f/1.8 lenses are 2/3 stop slower at maximum aperture, but are sharper at most apertures and equally sharp at the others and easier to focus.


Steve

Thorium explains why the 7 element is sharper. However I believe the yellowing is actually due from the glue that was used. There's other lenses doped with thorium that don't turn yellow. It's fairly simple to treat though.

I'm not looking for the sharpest lens. I'm looking for a lens that will give me the "Dreamy look". I'm not concerned with flaring either. I can always use a hood, or shoot in a indoor controlled environment. I have been looking for it, but so far all I see are banged up copies that were likely brought for $5.00 at thrift stores. They go for $200 on Ebay from sellers with negative feedback.😕

[reh321]

I have been looking for it, but so far all I see are banged up copies that were likely brought for $5.00 at thrift stores. They go for $200 on Ebay from sellers with negative feedback.😕

There is good-looking one in the MarketPlace here for $140 from a member with 100% feedback.
Super Takumar 50/1.4 (8 elements) - PentaxForums.com

[Prince Harbinger]

There is good-looking one in the MarketPlace here for $140 from a member with 100% feedback.
Super Takumar 50/1.4 (8 elements) - PentaxForums.com

Thanks, I had a look at it. Just says "excellent". There's not much information on it. Also, don't like the fact that they aren't showing the optics.😞

[stevebrot]

Thorium explains why the 7 element is sharper.

Sharper? Doping the glass with thorium allowed for a particular design with fewer elements.

However I believe the yellowing is actually due from the glue that was used.

Not true. Of the offending (3) elements in the ST 50/1.4 only one is part of a cemented doublet. The glass is truly colored a brownish yellow due to radiation-induced creation of Farbe centers in the glass. Treatment using light or heat can reverse most of the yellowing, but it will come back over time.

There's other lenses doped with thorium that don't turn yellow.

While possible, I believe you may be confusing thorium doping with use of lanthanum in lenses such as the Soviet-made Industar-61 L/Z 50/2.8. While lanthanum is mildly radioactive, the radiation has insufficient energy to create Farbe centers.

I'm looking for a lens that will give me the "Dreamy look".

For that, there is no need to spend big money and you probably don't even need f/1.4 or an Asahi/Pentax lens. I have several lenses in Pentax-compatible mount capable of "dreamy look" at wide apertures, none of them particularly expensive...

• Auto Rikenon 55/1.4 (M42, also with thoriated glass likely to be found yellowed)
• Auto Rikenon 50/1.7 (M42, no thorium)
• KMZ Helios 44M 58/2 (M42, no thorium)
• KMZ Helios 44K-4 58/2 (K-mount)

Good luck!


Steve

(...currently owns several thoriated lenses, all successfully cleared using IKEA JANSJÖ...)

[Prince Harbinger]

No I'm not talking about lanthanum. Lanthanum is actually harder to treat. Thorium was used for improving contrast, sharpness and minimizing chromatic aberration. Even though the first is not thoriated, all three models can still appear yellow in photographs due to the reflection of the old method of coating before SMC. Radiation doesn't always cause yellowing. The yellow part is not the glass, but optical glue and not each optical glue is prone to coloration. Some lenses build by Tomioka are radioactive too, but they don't turn yellow or only slightly (e.g. some DS-M Yashinons). Thanks for the recommendations. I'm still sold on the Takumar. I just got done looking at some wonderful examples on Flickr. I'll be using it for other purposes other than portraits.

[simple1]

Thanks, I had a look at it. Just says "excellent". There's not much information on it. Also, don't like the fact that they aren't showing the optics.😞

Easily resolved with a PM to the seller.

[Prince Harbinger]

Easily resolved with a PM to the seller.

He's waiting for two other people that are ahead of me. My chances seem slim. I guess I'll try searching the flea markets this weekend. There's this old man that sells all kinds of lenses. Hopefully he'll be there this saturday.

[simple1]

He's waiting for two other people that are ahead of me. My chances seem slim. I guess I'll try searching the flea markets this weekend. There's this old man that sells all kinds of lenses. Hopefully he'll be there this saturday.

Good luck!
Flea markets, pawn shops, and thrift stores can turn up some great deals.

[stevebrot]

No I'm not talking about lanthanum. Lanthanum is actually harder to treat. Thorium was used for improving contrast, sharpness and minimizing chromatic aberration. Even though the first is not thoriated, all three models can still appear yellow in photographs due to the reflection of the old method of coating before SMC. Radiation doesn't always cause yellowing. The yellow part is not the glass, but optical glue and not each optical glue is prone to coloration. Some lenses build by Tomioka are radioactive too, but they don't turn yellow or only slightly (e.g. some DS-M Yashinons). Thanks for the recommendations. I'm still sold on the Takumar. I just got done looking at some wonderful examples on Flickr. I'll be using it for other purposes other than portraits.

Given that I actually own or have owned the lenses in question and can provide supporting links, I respectfully disagree. Good luck on your lens explorations. Google is your friend.


Steve