S-M-C Takumar 1000mm f/8

**gofour3** · 09-03-2009, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

The rear end also can be changed to accept a Pentax 67 mount. A small quantity of the 500/4.5 was available directly with the 67 mount and even rarer is the single 67 mount part, which was horrendously expensive, when bought separately...

Ben

Thanks for the info Ben. It would be interesting to have a Takumar and K series 1000mm or 500mm lens together and see if you could swap mounts! You should be able to put the K series mount on a Takumar then mount the Takumar to a K series camera, without having a screwmount adapter.

Of course the questions of the day for myself and “deadwolfbones” is what happened to the mounts on the two lenses we bought? You have to wonder how they lost them, my seller was surprised when I sent him pictures of what the mount should look like. I believe he had no clue the lens was missing a part.

Phil.

Ben_Edict · 09-03-2009, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

Thanks for the info Ben. It would be interesting to have a Takumar and K series 1000mm or 500mm lens together and see if you could swap mounts! You should be able to put the K series mount on a Takumar then mount the Takumar to a K series camera, without having a screwmount adapter.

Of course the questions of the day for myself and “deadwolfbones” is what happened to the mounts on the two lenses we bought? You have to wonder how they lost them, my seller was surprised when I sent him pictures of what the mount should look like. I believe he had no clue the lens was missing a part.

Phil.

Hi Phil

I bet the rear end is attached to any of these lenses, independent of vintage, via the same (stupid, I have to say) bayonett - so the rears should be interchangeable. Just to get one for interchangeing is the challenge, as I only saw exactly 1 of these sold separately via ebay in the last three years.

I would not expect the humble seller, to spot the problem, if he does not really know the lens. So I would trust, that it was a genuine mistake on his side and not an effort to deceive somebody...

Ben

Blue · 09-03-2009, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by deadwolfbones

Well, mine's the SMC Tak, so it should be a M42 mount.

But thanks for the thought.

That piece is the only difference between the smc tak and k mount version. In fact, the last part of the m42 and K mount version sales over lapped in the late 1970s. I never knew about the 67 mount piece though. I'd like to get my hands on one of those.

**gofour3** · 09-03-2009, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Blue

That piece is the only difference between the smc tak and k mount version. In fact, the last part of the m42 and K mount version sales over lapped in the late 1970s. I never knew about the 67 mount piece though. I'd like to get my hands on one of those.

I feel bad for the eBay seller of my ex K500/4.5 lens. He most likely bought the lens from someone at what he thought was a good price and got ripped off, as the mount was missing and he was not aware. As Ben mentioned it’s not likely he’s going to find one on eBay, so he’s stuck with an unusable lens, which is otherwise perfect.

Phil

deadwolfbones · 09-03-2009, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

When I get home I'll post a photo of the mount end of mine (but a K-mount is a K-mount--right?)

In light of the recent comments, I'd love to have this photo. Thanks!

séamuis · 09-03-2009, 04:16 PM

damn, that was a steal. im sorry I missed that.

jogiba · 09-03-2009, 04:40 PM

The lens looks like it has a Pentax 6x7 mount like the one on this 400mm F4 Pentax 6x7 lens.

**dadipentak** · 09-03-2009, 05:39 PM

Ok, here's the photo of the k-mount on my 1000mm--not suitable for the Pentax Gallery but it pretty much tells the story. I hope you don't mind my not having taken the mount off the lens for a better view: my experience with the Tak 500mm led me to distrust that connection so I don't like messing with it. It's this connection, btw, which allows the use of a filter--I have a clear glass filter installed just to prevent the intrusion of dust.

jogiba · 09-03-2009, 05:52 PM

Photo of the 500mm F4.5 lens on ebay

**monochrome** · 09-03-2009, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

I feel bad for the eBay seller of my ex K500/4.5 lens. He most likely bought the lens from someone at what he thought was a good price and got ripped off, as the mount was missing and he was not aware. As Ben mentioned it’s not likely he’s going to find one on eBay, so he’s stuck with an unusable lens, which is otherwise perfect.

Phil

Phil: I looked very hard at that lens.

I'm glad the seller was a stand-up guy about the mount piece. After studying the ONE mount-end photo it dawned on me something was missing.

I sent him a question about the mount - he replied that the offer was what was pictured - nothing more, not really friendly - just a terse reply. My assumption was he knew he was offering a partial lens - the text seemed vague as well - and would use the, "You saw the pictures" defense if questioned.

Paul

**gofour3** · 09-03-2009, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Phil: I looked very hard at that lens.

I'm glad the seller was a stand-up guy about the mount piece. After studying the ONE mount-end photo it dawned on me something was missing.

I sent him a question about the mount - he replied that the offer was what was pictured - nothing more, not really friendly - just a terse reply. My assumption was he knew he was offering a partial lens - the text seemed vague as well - and would use the, "You saw the pictures" defense if questioned.

Paul

It took a few emails and some stock K500/4.5 photos to convince him part of the lens was missing. I’m a persuasive guy and he realized that I knew what I was talking about. Unfortunately I didn’t notice until after I paid for the lens, but at least it was before he shipped it.

I think the seller is a good guy, he was probably just shocked that the lens was missing a part and he would not be able to sell it and it just took some effort to convince him.

Phil.

Ben_Edict · 09-03-2009, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by dadipentak

Ok, here's the photo of the k-mount on my 1000mm--not suitable for the Pentax Gallery but it pretty much tells the story. I hope you don't mind my not having taken the mount off the lens for a better view: my experience with the Tak 500mm led me to distrust that connection so I don't like messing with it. It's this connection, btw, which allows the use of a filter--I have a clear glass filter installed just to prevent the intrusion of dust.

The connection is a bad joke. The first time I took it off, I needed two hours to get it back, properly alligned and really tight. It is really like a plumbing joint, not what I would expect from precise mechanics... I always wanted to device an alignment pin or screw, which would make assembling the lens much easier... one day...

Ben

Ben_Edict · 09-03-2009, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

It took a few emails and some stock K500/4.5 photos to convince him part of the lens was missing. I’m a persuasive guy and he realized that I knew what I was talking about. Unfortunately I didn’t notice until after I paid for the lens, but at least it was before he shipped it.

I think the seller is a good guy, he was probably just shocked that the lens was missing a part and he would not be able to sell it and it just took some effort to convince him.

Phil.

He could sell it to me for considerable less - I have a lathe and could probably make my own rear part.

Ben

Blue · 09-04-2009, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Ben_Edict

He could sell it to me for considerable less - I have a lathe and could probably make my own rear part.

Ben

I was thinking the same thing about D.W.B's.

deadwolfbones · 09-04-2009, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Blue

I was thinking the same thing about D.W.B's.

There's still the issue of the broken/loose internal pieces. Anyone ever taken one of these monsters apart?

09-03-2009, 05:39 PM	#53
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Ok, here's the photo of the k-mount on my 1000mm--not suitable for the Pentax Gallery but it pretty much tells the story. I hope you don't mind my not having taken the mount off the lens for a better view: my experience with the Tak 500mm led me to distrust that connection so I don't like messing with it. It's this connection, btw, which allows the use of a filter--I have a clear glass filter installed just to prevent the intrusion of dust. Attached Images Last edited by dadipentak; 09-03-2009 at 05:44 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1000mm Takumar?	JHD	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	10-04-2010 11:51 AM
For Sale - Sold: SMC Takumar 1000mm f/8	deadwolfbones	Sold Items	17	11-30-2009 11:42 AM
For Sale - Sold: K20D, D-BG2 grip, Sigma 17-70, Sigma 10-20, SMC Takumar 1000mm	deadwolfbones	Sold Items	23	10-21-2009 02:57 PM
1000mm f8 Takumar. Pics.	jocko_nc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	05-22-2009 08:45 AM
Tele-Takumar 1000mm ???	jocko_nc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	11	05-02-2009 06:06 PM

09-03-2009, 12:00 PM	#46
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by Ben_Edict The rear end also can be changed to accept a Pentax 67 mount. A small quantity of the 500/4.5 was available directly with the 67 mount and even rarer is the single 67 mount part, which was horrendously expensive, when bought separately... Ben Thanks for the info Ben. It would be interesting to have a Takumar and K series 1000mm or 500mm lens together and see if you could swap mounts! You should be able to put the K series mount on a Takumar then mount the Takumar to a K series camera, without having a screwmount adapter. Of course the questions of the day for myself and “deadwolfbones” is what happened to the mounts on the two lenses we bought? You have to wonder how they lost them, my seller was surprised when I sent him pictures of what the mount should look like. I believe he had no clue the lens was missing a part. Phil.

09-03-2009, 12:22 PM	#47
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by gofour3 Thanks for the info Ben. It would be interesting to have a Takumar and K series 1000mm or 500mm lens together and see if you could swap mounts! You should be able to put the K series mount on a Takumar then mount the Takumar to a K series camera, without having a screwmount adapter. Of course the questions of the day for myself and “deadwolfbones” is what happened to the mounts on the two lenses we bought? You have to wonder how they lost them, my seller was surprised when I sent him pictures of what the mount should look like. I believe he had no clue the lens was missing a part. Phil. Hi Phil I bet the rear end is attached to any of these lenses, independent of vintage, via the same (stupid, I have to say) bayonett - so the rears should be interchangeable. Just to get one for interchangeing is the challenge, as I only saw exactly 1 of these sold separately via ebay in the last three years. I would not expect the humble seller, to spot the problem, if he does not really know the lens. So I would trust, that it was a genuine mistake on his side and not an effort to deceive somebody... Ben

09-03-2009, 02:12 PM	#48
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by deadwolfbones Well, mine's the SMC Tak, so it should be a M42 mount. But thanks for the thought. That piece is the only difference between the smc tak and k mount version. In fact, the last part of the m42 and K mount version sales over lapped in the late 1970s. I never knew about the 67 mount piece though. I'd like to get my hands on one of those.

09-03-2009, 03:55 PM	#49
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by Blue That piece is the only difference between the smc tak and k mount version. In fact, the last part of the m42 and K mount version sales over lapped in the late 1970s. I never knew about the 67 mount piece though. I'd like to get my hands on one of those. I feel bad for the eBay seller of my ex K500/4.5 lens. He most likely bought the lens from someone at what he thought was a good price and got ripped off, as the mount was missing and he was not aware. As Ben mentioned it’s not likely he’s going to find one on eBay, so he’s stuck with an unusable lens, which is otherwise perfect. Phil

09-03-2009, 04:05 PM	#50
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450 Original Poster	Originally posted by dadipentak When I get home I'll post a photo of the mount end of mine (but a K-mount is a K-mount--right?) In light of the recent comments, I'd love to have this photo. Thanks!

09-03-2009, 04:16 PM	#51
séamuis Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H. Posts: 5,979	damn, that was a steal. im sorry I missed that.

09-03-2009, 04:40 PM	#52
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	The lens looks like it has a Pentax 6x7 mount like the one on this 400mm F4 Pentax 6x7 lens.

09-03-2009, 05:52 PM	#54
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Photo of the 500mm F4.5 lens on ebay

09-03-2009, 06:07 PM	#55
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by gofour3 I feel bad for the eBay seller of my ex K500/4.5 lens. He most likely bought the lens from someone at what he thought was a good price and got ripped off, as the mount was missing and he was not aware. As Ben mentioned it’s not likely he’s going to find one on eBay, so he’s stuck with an unusable lens, which is otherwise perfect. Phil Phil: I looked very hard at that lens. I'm glad the seller was a stand-up guy about the mount piece. After studying the ONE mount-end photo it dawned on me something was missing. I sent him a question about the mount - he replied that the offer was what was pictured - nothing more, not really friendly - just a terse reply. My assumption was he knew he was offering a partial lens - the text seemed vague as well - and would use the, "You saw the pictures" defense if questioned. Paul

09-03-2009, 07:38 PM	#56
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Originally posted by monochrome Phil: I looked very hard at that lens. I'm glad the seller was a stand-up guy about the mount piece. After studying the ONE mount-end photo it dawned on me something was missing. I sent him a question about the mount - he replied that the offer was what was pictured - nothing more, not really friendly - just a terse reply. My assumption was he knew he was offering a partial lens - the text seemed vague as well - and would use the, "You saw the pictures" defense if questioned. Paul It took a few emails and some stock K500/4.5 photos to convince him part of the lens was missing. I’m a persuasive guy and he realized that I knew what I was talking about. Unfortunately I didn’t notice until after I paid for the lens, but at least it was before he shipped it. I think the seller is a good guy, he was probably just shocked that the lens was missing a part and he would not be able to sell it and it just took some effort to convince him. Phil.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-03-2009, 11:35 PM	#57
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by dadipentak Ok, here's the photo of the k-mount on my 1000mm--not suitable for the Pentax Gallery but it pretty much tells the story. I hope you don't mind my not having taken the mount off the lens for a better view: my experience with the Tak 500mm led me to distrust that connection so I don't like messing with it. It's this connection, btw, which allows the use of a filter--I have a clear glass filter installed just to prevent the intrusion of dust. The connection is a bad joke. The first time I took it off, I needed two hours to get it back, properly alligned and really tight. It is really like a plumbing joint, not what I would expect from precise mechanics... I always wanted to device an alignment pin or screw, which would make assembling the lens much easier... one day... Ben

09-03-2009, 11:36 PM	#58
Ben_Edict Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: SouthWest "Regio" Photos: Albums Posts: 3,309	Originally posted by gofour3 It took a few emails and some stock K500/4.5 photos to convince him part of the lens was missing. I’m a persuasive guy and he realized that I knew what I was talking about. Unfortunately I didn’t notice until after I paid for the lens, but at least it was before he shipped it. I think the seller is a good guy, he was probably just shocked that the lens was missing a part and he would not be able to sell it and it just took some effort to convince him. Phil. He could sell it to me for considerable less - I have a lathe and could probably make my own rear part. Ben

09-04-2009, 06:32 AM	#59
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Ben_Edict He could sell it to me for considerable less - I have a lathe and could probably make my own rear part. Ben I was thinking the same thing about D.W.B's.

09-04-2009, 06:45 AM	#60
deadwolfbones Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: La Crescenta, CA Posts: 7,450 Original Poster	Originally posted by Blue I was thinking the same thing about D.W.B's. There's still the issue of the broken/loose internal pieces. Anyone ever taken one of these monsters apart?