[Pentaxor]

my question, what is the other difference between the S-M-C and the SMC Tak aside from the rubber ring?

how about their coatings and which generation is earlier? is the SMC Tak better than the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar? what does SMC stands for? if SMC stands the same as the S-M-C, what the heck was Pentax thinking naming a lens that might cause some confusion?

[Blue]

my question, what is the other difference between the S-M-C and the SMC Tak aside from the rubber ring?

how about their coatings and which generation is earlier? is the SMC Tak better than the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar? what does SMC stands for? if SMC stands the same as the S-M-C, what the heck was Pentax thinking naming a lens that might cause some confusion?

Basically, the cosmetics are different. However, there are some examples of even S-M-C lenses having different optical formulae. One example is the S-M-C 135mm f2.5. One with 5 elements in 4 groups (43802) and one with 6 elements in 6 groups (43812).

Generally speaking, the coatings on S-M-C and SMC lenses is the Super Multi Coatings in 7 layers. That said, they may have "improved" the formula over the years.

From AOHC:

1971 - Super-Multi-Coating
World's first multi-layer anti-reflective coating on consumer lenses. This patented technology made possible high-quality wide-range zoom lenses.
All competitors owe Asahi Opt. Co. this technological breakthrough.

[Nesster]

From the AHOC website:

When Asahi Opt. Co. introduced their Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses in 1971, there were many different reactions to this announcement. According to an article authored by Fabio Amodeo and published in September of 1972 by Photo 13 magazine, Nikon stated that they already employed multi-layer coatings (up to three or four) on some lens surfaces and Asahi was fooling photographers, since no more than 5 layers were technically possible. Also Canon and Leitz said they were developing a similar process, but 7 layers was far from being credible.

http://digilander.libero.it/aohc/selart07e.htm

Having used uncoated and single coated lenses, as well as being familiar with a couple of AUTO Takumars, I would be very surprised if Super Taks are only 'single coated'.

The breakthrough was in the number of coatings possible, and their combined effectiveness.

I would find it credible that later production incorporated the benefits of experience, thus the later lenses may have better coatings.

[Blue]

This part of the article I find interesting from the AOHC article linked to by Nesster.

It is believed that nearly all major lens makers (including Canon, Nikon and Zeiss) paid royalties to Asahi to make use of some part of the industrial process for laying thin anti-reflective compounds on glass elements at acceptable costs. Leica obviously distinguished itself by stating that multicoating was of little help and reducing the number of elements was better for flare control. Of course, when Asahi patents on multicoating expired many years later, they suddenly changed their minds and started using multicoating like all other manufacturers.

This is very interesting as well.

As already reported in Spotmatic magazine No.4 (page 5), a comparative test about lens flare - authored by Maurizio Micci and published in 1974 by Fotografare magazine - among Super-Takumar, SMC Takumar and EBC Fujinon lenses was quite amazing. In fact the SMC Takumars scored only a bit better than the Super-Takumars, while the EBC Fujinons were outperformed by both lines of Asahi lenses. The wrong conclusion of the editor was that multi-coating was useless, since the then supposed most advanced coating (since Fuji’s EBC had 11 layers) arrived last, while the obsolete Super-Takumars ranked second and very close to the winners (SMC Takumars). This is not to blame Mr. Micci, since we now have more information and can draw quite a different conclusion. In fact what was my suspicion when I wrote the above mentioned article had already been officially confirmed by Asahi Opt. Co (but I wasn’t aware of that at the time): late production Super-Takumars were already multi-coated. It was probably just an experimental coating, maybe less than 7-layers, or maybe it was not on all air-to-glass surfaces, so that it didn’t perform as well as the definitive Super-Multi-Coating. What about the poor flare performance of the EBC Fujinon lenses? I suppose that at that time Fuji had to hurry in making use of multi-coating technology, and their own process was still not tuned up. In fact a few years later Fuji developed their improved Super EBC, which is now considered an excellent (some would say the best) lens coating for photographic lenses.

Point being that the lens coatings during the Super Tak years probably evolved in both the formula, number of coatings and application techniques as well as to which surfaces got what. In other words, the very early Super Taks were probably coated very similar to Auto-Taks where as the last Super Taks were close to S-M-C taks.

[Danny Delcambre]

Does 50mm f1.4 Super Takumar/Super Multi Coated Takumar in 35mm Pentax SM Lenses - Used Cameras from Camera Repair dot Com fit on Pentax K-7???

[Blue]

Does 50mm f1.4 Super Takumar/Super Multi Coated Takumar in 35mm Pentax SM Lenses - Used Cameras from Camera Repair dot Com fit on Pentax K-7???

Yes. However, you will need a m42 to K mount adapter. I recommend a genuine Pentax adapter.