SMC vs non-SMC versions of Lenses

dosdan · 08-15-2009, 02:02 PM

Does anyone know of a review that compares a SMC lens against a non-SMC version of of lens, whether branded "Pentax" or 3rd-party?

It is anecdotal that a difference in colour & contract is visible, (beside external flare control - I presume better internal flare/reflection control might affect contrast), but has anyone tested this under a controlled lighting situation with the same exposure & calibrated WB?

Dan.

Last edited by dosdan; 08-15-2009 at 03:11 PM.

**pentaxman** · 08-16-2009, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by dosdan

Does anyone know of a review that compares a SMC lens against a non-SMC version of of lens, whether branded "Pentax" or 3rd-party?

It is anecdotal that a difference in colour & contract is visible, (beside external flare control - I presume better internal flare/reflection control might affect contrast), but has anyone tested this under a controlled lighting situation with the same exposure & calibrated WB?

Dan.

It cannot be a third party lens and be "SMC". SMC is proprietary to Pentax only.

If you are talking multicoated vs non-multicoated - virtually all modern lenses use multicoating. It is pretty much universally accepted that it provides better contrast and flare reduction by reducing internal reflections between the lens surfaces.

Many years ago, Pentax produced a few Takumar lenses which were not multicoated (The Takumar 105 F2.5 is an example) and they are generally regarded to be mediocre lenses.

dosdan · 08-16-2009, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by pentaxman

It cannot be a third party lens and be "SMC". SMC is proprietary to Pentax only.

If you are talking multicoated vs non-multicoated - virtually all modern lenses use multicoating. It is pretty much universally accepted that it provides better contrast and flare reduction by reducing internal reflections between the lens surfaces.

Many years ago, Pentax produced a few Takumar lenses which were not multicoated (The Takumar 105 F2.5 is an example) and they are generally regarded to be mediocre lenses.

In the case of the SMC Pentax-DA/Tokina 12-24/F4, you have exactly the same lens. The Pentax version has the SMC coating - the Tokina version has its own coating. The SMC version is supposed to be better, but I don't think it has been confirmed under controlled conditions.

08-15-2009, 02:02 PM	#1
dosdan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,741	SMC vs non-SMC versions of Lenses Does anyone know of a review that compares a SMC lens against a non-SMC version of of lens, whether branded "Pentax" or 3rd-party? It is anecdotal that a difference in colour & contract is visible, (beside external flare control - I presume better internal flare/reflection control might affect contrast), but has anyone tested this under a controlled lighting situation with the same exposure & calibrated WB? Dan. Last edited by dosdan; 08-15-2009 at 03:11 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: SMC 85mm f/2.2 Soft, SMC-M 50mm f/4 Macro, SMC-M 135 3.5, SMC-M 85mm 2, SMC-M	jgmankos	Sold Items	3	06-14-2010 06:48 PM
smc f and smc fa lenses on k100d	wombat62	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	04-04-2009 11:11 AM
For Sale - Sold: 3 Lenses: SMC M50/2 - SMC M28/2.8 - Vivitar M42 400/5.6 IF	Buddha Jones	Sold Items	8	05-27-2008 05:40 AM
For Sale - Sold: M42 Lenses - SMC 50mm F1.4 \| SMC 135mm \| 135mm	barbosas	Sold Items	8	02-17-2008 11:49 AM

08-16-2009, 04:41 AM	#2
pentaxman Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington Photos: Gallery Posts: 250	Originally posted by dosdan Does anyone know of a review that compares a SMC lens against a non-SMC version of of lens, whether branded "Pentax" or 3rd-party? It is anecdotal that a difference in colour & contract is visible, (beside external flare control - I presume better internal flare/reflection control might affect contrast), but has anyone tested this under a controlled lighting situation with the same exposure & calibrated WB? Dan. It cannot be a third party lens and be "SMC". SMC is proprietary to Pentax only. If you are talking multicoated vs non-multicoated - virtually all modern lenses use multicoating. It is pretty much universally accepted that it provides better contrast and flare reduction by reducing internal reflections between the lens surfaces. Many years ago, Pentax produced a few Takumar lenses which were not multicoated (The Takumar 105 F2.5 is an example) and they are generally regarded to be mediocre lenses.

08-16-2009, 05:02 AM	#3
dosdan Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Brisbane, Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,741 Original Poster	Originally posted by pentaxman It cannot be a third party lens and be "SMC". SMC is proprietary to Pentax only. If you are talking multicoated vs non-multicoated - virtually all modern lenses use multicoating. It is pretty much universally accepted that it provides better contrast and flare reduction by reducing internal reflections between the lens surfaces. Many years ago, Pentax produced a few Takumar lenses which were not multicoated (The Takumar 105 F2.5 is an example) and they are generally regarded to be mediocre lenses. In the case of the SMC Pentax-DA/Tokina 12-24/F4, you have exactly the same lens. The Pentax version has the SMC coating - the Tokina version has its own coating. The SMC version is supposed to be better, but I don't think it has been confirmed under controlled conditions.