Differences- 28MM TAKUMAR-BAYONET +SMC M 28MM

albrechtnamatdurer · 11-17-2009, 06:13 PM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

I have two 28mm Pentax 28mm lenses, one is a TAKUMAR-BAYONET 1:2.8 28mm, the other is an SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 28MM .
Can anyone please shed any light on the differences in these lenses?
Quality, build? etc

flmz · 11-17-2009, 06:16 PM

Takumar bayonet's are supposed to be without the SMC. If you have both lenses, why don't you tell us what the differences are :P?

Marc Sabatella · 11-17-2009, 07:01 PM

In general, the few Takumar bayonet lenses are not well thought of ("a disgrace to the name Takumar", I believe someone said), but I don't know that one in particular might be in any way an exception. The M28/2.8, on the other, is a very good lens - one of my favorites. There are actually two different versions of it with different optical formulas, but they perform pretty similarly by most accounts. Of those few people that are able to tell a difference, they seem pretty equally divded on which is "better". Most seem to prefer some of the other 28's, but they tend to be harder to find and more expensive, and I think the M28/2.8's are just fine.

glasbak · 11-18-2009, 05:36 AM

The second version of the SMC-M 28/2.8, the takumar bayonet, and the takumar-A all have the same similar build quality.
The SMC-A and SMC-F versions contain more plastic.
All share the same optical design, but only the pentax SMC versions are multicoated.

Dangermouse · 11-18-2009, 10:46 AM

I think the SMC coating must make a big difference - I have the Takumar bayonet 28mm f2.8 and I wasn't especially impressed by its performance on digital. It lacked sharpness and the colours looked a bit odd to me. Pity, as it's a handy focal length and I like having a physically shorter lens for walking around with the camera - makes it less obvious as well as less bulky

I might keep an eye out for an M or K 28mm, if the SMC coating makes them as good as the M50mm f1.7?

Marc Sabatella · 11-18-2009, 05:41 PM

I wouldn't assume any difference is solely due to the SMC coating. I don't know the optical design of the Takumar or the F, but the M (version 1) and A versions definitely have different designs, and the FA different still.

I wouldn't rate the M28/2.8 I have as being *quite* as good as my A50/1.7, but it's far more useful to me, and more than good enough: an improvement over the kit lens in sharpness and maximum aperture, and smaller to boot.

Dangermouse · 11-19-2009, 05:41 AM

Just trying to work out what the first version of the M 28mm f2.8 looked like now - is this one?

PENTAX-M 28mm f2.8 K Lens-K1000/MX/ME/KM/K20D/K10D/etc on eBay (end time 02-Dec-09 23:00:06 GMT)

I'll give my Takumar one another try before spending that much I think - an M 135mm and A 50mm f1.7 are higher on the wish list and cheaper too!

glasbak · 11-19-2009, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Dangermouse

Just trying to work out what the first version of the M 28mm f2.8 looked like now - is this one?

It is so much easier to look here

Dangermouse · 11-19-2009, 07:28 AM

That ebay link is a 1st generation M 28mm f2.8 then!

I've just had a brief play with the Takumar one and I'm reconsidering my opinion. Took this at f2.8 from an upstairs window on a very cloudy and windy day:

There's a bit of blur in the trees as they're being blown around, but the landscape behind looks ok to me. The light isn't particularly helpful today but for a quick test shot this doesn't look too bad. I think I'll use this one a bit more for now.

bdery · 11-19-2009, 01:26 PM - **1 Like**

I would like to set some things straight about Takumar bayonets...

Many people have noted that they are not SMC and have decided that because of this they w0ree no good...

The lenses are not "SMC" but they are coated, for starters. They are build exactly like M lenses, with metal parts, a metal flange, and a rugged design.

I have owned the 28 mm and the 135 mm f2,8, and both these lenses were very good. (for the record, I sold them because I did not use them, not because of quality). They have lower contrast wide open than closed down, but the same can be said of any large aperture lens.

The 28 mm in particular gave deep and rich colours, with low distorsions and aberrations. It's not the perfect lens for low light indoor work, but it's excellent for landscapes and cityscapes.

I lot of bad press about these lenses is based on hearsay. My own experience tells me they are a lot better whan their reputations. I would never have sold them because of their optical quality.

Marc Sabatella · 11-19-2009, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Dangermouse

I'll give my Takumar one another try before spending that much I think - an M 135mm and A 50mm f1.7 are higher on the wish list and cheaper too!

Cheaper than that copy, maybe, but in general, M28/2.8's go for much less than that. I've got two (one for me and one for my wife) that cost $25 between the two. OK, I got lucky, but still, the M28/2.8 is usually comparable to the M135/3.5, cheaper than the A50/1.7

Dangermouse · 11-20-2009, 04:33 AM

I think the problem with ebay lenses is that one seller sets rather inflated prices and the others follow suit, as they think that's the going rate. I'll have a look in the nearest real world camera shop, as I remember they had a few unidentified K mount lenses in the used equipment section. I just wish they'd put tags on that are visible from the front!

Marc Sabatella · 11-20-2009, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Dangermouse

I think the problem with ebay lenses is that one seller sets rather inflated prices and the others follow suit, as they think that's the going rate. I'll have a look in the nearest real world camera shop, as I remember they had a few unidentified K mount lenses in the used equipment section.

Worth a shot. But M28/2.8's are plentiful enough that even if a few buyers are putting up a high BIN price or starting bid, there are usually enough open auctions to more than satisfy demand, and chances are, you'll win an auction with a pretty low ball bid if you play your cards right. I see half a dozen or so right now that are currently under $50, and I'll bet at least one ends up selling for no more than that, either.

11-17-2009, 06:13 PM	#1
albrechtnamatdurer Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: AUSTRALIA Photos: Gallery Posts: 69	Differences- 28MM TAKUMAR-BAYONET +SMC M 28MM Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. I have two 28mm Pentax 28mm lenses, one is a TAKUMAR-BAYONET 1:2.8 28mm, the other is an SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 28MM . Can anyone please shed any light on the differences in these lenses? Quality, build? etc

11-19-2009, 01:26 PM - 1 Like	#10
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	I would like to set some things straight about Takumar bayonets... Many people have noted that they are not SMC and have decided that because of this they w0ree no good... The lenses are not "SMC" but they are coated, for starters. They are build exactly like M lenses, with metal parts, a metal flange, and a rugged design. I have owned the 28 mm and the 135 mm f2,8, and both these lenses were very good. (for the record, I sold them because I did not use them, not because of quality). They have lower contrast wide open than closed down, but the same can be said of any large aperture lens. The 28 mm in particular gave deep and rich colours, with low distorsions and aberrations. It's not the perfect lens for low light indoor work, but it's excellent for landscapes and cityscapes. I lot of bad press about these lenses is based on hearsay. My own experience tells me they are a lot better whan their reputations. I would never have sold them because of their optical quality. Last edited by bdery; 11-19-2009 at 05:43 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Faulty Pentax Takumar Bayonet 28mm f2.8?	NiftyFifty	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	07-21-2010 08:26 PM
Takumar 28mm F2.8 Bayonet	furby	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	08-12-2009 05:12 AM
Takumar Bayonet 28mm f2.8 reverse mount	wilkin	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	01-26-2009 02:17 AM

11-17-2009, 06:16 PM	#2
flmz New Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 16	Takumar bayonet's are supposed to be without the SMC. If you have both lenses, why don't you tell us what the differences are :P?

11-17-2009, 07:01 PM	#3
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	In general, the few Takumar bayonet lenses are not well thought of ("a disgrace to the name Takumar", I believe someone said), but I don't know that one in particular might be in any way an exception. The M28/2.8, on the other, is a very good lens - one of my favorites. There are actually two different versions of it with different optical formulas, but they perform pretty similarly by most accounts. Of those few people that are able to tell a difference, they seem pretty equally divded on which is "better". Most seem to prefer some of the other 28's, but they tend to be harder to find and more expensive, and I think the M28/2.8's are just fine.

11-18-2009, 05:36 AM	#4
glasbak Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Netherlands Posts: 369	The second version of the SMC-M 28/2.8, the takumar bayonet, and the takumar-A all have the same similar build quality. The SMC-A and SMC-F versions contain more plastic. All share the same optical design, but only the pentax SMC versions are multicoated.

11-18-2009, 10:46 AM	#5
Dangermouse Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 283	I think the SMC coating must make a big difference - I have the Takumar bayonet 28mm f2.8 and I wasn't especially impressed by its performance on digital. It lacked sharpness and the colours looked a bit odd to me. Pity, as it's a handy focal length and I like having a physically shorter lens for walking around with the camera - makes it less obvious as well as less bulky I might keep an eye out for an M or K 28mm, if the SMC coating makes them as good as the M50mm f1.7?

11-18-2009, 05:41 PM	#6
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	I wouldn't assume any difference is solely due to the SMC coating. I don't know the optical design of the Takumar or the F, but the M (version 1) and A versions definitely have different designs, and the FA different still. I wouldn't rate the M28/2.8 I have as being quite as good as my A50/1.7, but it's far more useful to me, and more than good enough: an improvement over the kit lens in sharpness and maximum aperture, and smaller to boot.

11-19-2009, 05:41 AM	#7
Dangermouse Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 283	Just trying to work out what the first version of the M 28mm f2.8 looked like now - is this one? PENTAX-M 28mm f2.8 K Lens-K1000/MX/ME/KM/K20D/K10D/etc on eBay (end time 02-Dec-09 23:00:06 GMT) I'll give my Takumar one another try before spending that much I think - an M 135mm and A 50mm f1.7 are higher on the wish list and cheaper too!

11-19-2009, 07:03 AM	#8
glasbak Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Netherlands Posts: 369	Originally posted by Dangermouse Just trying to work out what the first version of the M 28mm f2.8 looked like now - is this one? It is so much easier to look here

11-19-2009, 07:28 AM	#9
Dangermouse Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 283	That ebay link is a 1st generation M 28mm f2.8 then! I've just had a brief play with the Takumar one and I'm reconsidering my opinion. Took this at f2.8 from an upstairs window on a very cloudy and windy day: There's a bit of blur in the trees as they're being blown around, but the landscape behind looks ok to me. The light isn't particularly helpful today but for a quick test shot this doesn't look too bad. I think I'll use this one a bit more for now.

11-19-2009, 04:54 PM	#11
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Dangermouse I'll give my Takumar one another try before spending that much I think - an M 135mm and A 50mm f1.7 are higher on the wish list and cheaper too! Cheaper than that copy, maybe, but in general, M28/2.8's go for much less than that. I've got two (one for me and one for my wife) that cost $25 between the two. OK, I got lucky, but still, the M28/2.8 is usually comparable to the M135/3.5, cheaper than the A50/1.7

11-20-2009, 04:33 AM	#12
Dangermouse Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 283	I think the problem with ebay lenses is that one seller sets rather inflated prices and the others follow suit, as they think that's the going rate. I'll have a look in the nearest real world camera shop, as I remember they had a few unidentified K mount lenses in the used equipment section. I just wish they'd put tags on that are visible from the front!

11-20-2009, 03:13 PM	#13
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by Dangermouse I think the problem with ebay lenses is that one seller sets rather inflated prices and the others follow suit, as they think that's the going rate. I'll have a look in the nearest real world camera shop, as I remember they had a few unidentified K mount lenses in the used equipment section. Worth a shot. But M28/2.8's are plentiful enough that even if a few buyers are putting up a high BIN price or starting bid, there are usually enough open auctions to more than satisfy demand, and chances are, you'll win an auction with a pretty low ball bid if you play your cards right. I see half a dozen or so right now that are currently under $50, and I'll bet at least one ends up selling for no more than that, either.