Originally posted by v5planet Have you noticed much of a difference against the earlier Super Takumar version? I had the S-M-C version briefly before returning it due to sticky aperture blades, and eventually replaced it with the Super Takumar. Honestly felt that they were about the same, though I didn't use either extensively.
I did notice a difference with my copy, yes - seemed to have very low contrast wide-open. The S-M-C version I had just seemed punchier at f/4.
However I tend to believe what you're seeing, because I see the same thing with the 135 Taks I've owned - my Super Tak 135 f/3.5 actually looked a tiny bit better to me than my S-M-C version did (I still have the Super Tak, sold the S-M-C 135.)
There is speculation out there that Pentax actually used the same multicoatings on some of the later Super Taks before they decided to brand/market the "S-M-C" name. I'm convinced that happened with the 135s, it probably could have happened with the 200s too.