[margriet]

Just checked on ebay - $235.00 - not in my budget!!

235 for the 24 mm??? wow, I did not expect that kind of pricing.. is it SMC or super and does the difference really matter?
I suggest waiting for some better deal to come along...

[theunartist]

K10D + Super Takumar 135/3.5

All the Tak talk is making me thirsty!



K10D + Super Takumar 28/3.5 (First Model Late Version)

https://picasaweb.google.com/theunartist/May2011BaltimoreImages?authuser=0&feat=directlink

[Pepe Guitarra]

Even higher $$$$$

I have the Tamron SP Adaptall, 24mm f2.5 and I am very happy with it. I have the PKA mount and a big hood that did not come with it.

[margriet]

Even higher $$$$$

Well, it isn´t as high as the smc takumar 15mm... : check this on ebay Germany

But higher than I expected.. I got mine as a gift.. I feel even more blessed now... And I still wonder about the prices on ebay, I guess if you can find the lens anywhere else it will be a lot cheaper..

regards, Margriet

[Cary_5000]

Dear Takumar Club Members,
I have been following the activities here in the past two years and your contributions made me a Takumar lens collector (by now I have 14 different versions from 28 to 400mm). Since I have benefited from your input so much it is time now to return the favor and contribute. It will not be pictures taken with my lenses but rather an optical test I performed using 9 of my Takumars and as a reference the Canon 50mm/1.8 Mk II. You decide how valuable this test is. The experiment was to measure the real light transmittance of my lenses as a function of the wavelength of light (transmission spectrum). The spectra were collected with a Cary 5000 UV-Vis-NIR spectrophotometer, which can record from the ultraviolet to the near infrared (NIR) spectral range. For practical purposes I am showing the spectra between 340 and 800 nm only ( a little UV and a little NIR framing the visible range). All lenses but one (135/2.5 v1, with a scratch in the front element) have clean glass with minimum to no internal dust. The lenses (those that fit) were placed into the spectrophotometer as illustrated by the supplied image (for the S-M-C 200/f4). The lens was moved along three directions until the maximum transmittance was achieved at 500 nm for that particular lens. Then the spectrum was recorded. The size of the passing light beam was not larger than the glass surface of any of the tested lens. To meet this requirement the lenses with short focal lengths and small maximum openings (28/f3.5 and 35/f3.5) had to be omitted from the test. The thorium containing lenses (Super 35/f2, S-M-C 50/1.4, SMC 55/1.8, and the 8 element 50/f1.4 (yes, it is also slightly radioactive ) were treated for a week (8 element version only for 3 days) with a UV lamp with maximum emission at 365nm (sorry I have not done the test before the treatment).
By analyzing the spectra you can make your own conclusions but if you allow I summarize mine below:
1. The S-M-C/SMC coating really makes the difference (as expected). These lenses transmit 80-85% of the visible light, while the Super Takumars are lagging behind by 5-10% at least.
2. The S-M-C lenses also have a flat transmittance profile (although see below #4) throughout the visible range (thanks to the 7 different layers). The Super Takumars with fewer layers cannot cover the entire visible range and the losses are especially larger in the blue and the red regimes.
3. As also expected the lenses with larger number of elements show weaker light transmittance. The Super 35/f2 and the Super 50/f1.4 not only lack the superior coating but also have 8 elements, which is the highest of the tested lenses.
4. I suspect some potential development even in the S-M-C coatings over the years. The lenses with serial numbers below 5 million (S-M-C 135 f2.5v1, S-M-C 50/1.4 have not as flat transmittance spectra as those with higher serial numbers. If you remember in 1972 new designs came out (85/f1.8 and 135/f2.5 v2). It is possible that the S-M-C coating was also improved. In this regard it is worth mentioning that the 200/f4 and the 135/f3.5 show the highest transmittance in the UV, even better than the 3 year old (my sample) Canon lens.
5. Not all the lenses fit to my previous (4) conclusion though. For example the SMC 55/f1.8 is by default a later design (with the rubber focusing ring), yet it is also showing clipping in the blue. It could mean that the UV treatment is a mixed bag for us, who treated our lenses with UV irradiation. While the S-M-C 50/f1.4 and the SMC 55/1.8 are showing very high transmittance from green to red but we may destroy some of the coatings in the blue range. This can also be an explanation why the Super 35/f2 has the weakest transmittance.
6. I left the sweetest remark to the end. Our 40 or so old S-M-C Takumars have just as good light transmitting abilities as modern designs.

Hope you find at least part of this test useful.

[Pepe Guitarra]

Dear Takumar Club Members,
I have been following the activities here in the past two years and your contributions made me a Takumar lens collector (by now I have 14 different versions from 28 to 400mm). Since I have benefited from your input so much it is time now to return the favor and contribute. It will not be pictures taken with my lenses but rather an optical test I performed using 9 of my Takumars and as a reference the Canon 50mm/1.8 Mk II. You decide how valuable this test is. The experiment was to measure the real light transmittance of my lenses as a function of the wavelength of light (transmission spectrum). The spectra were collected with a Cary 5000 UV-Vis-NIR spectrophotometer, which can record from the ultraviolet to the near infrared (NIR) spectral range. For practical purposes I am showing the spectra between 340 and 800 nm only ( a little UV and a little NIR framing the visible range). All lenses but one (135/2.5 v1, with a scratch in the front element) have clean glass with minimum to no internal dust. The lenses (those that fit) were placed into the spectrophotometer as illustrated by the supplied image (for the S-M-C 200/f4). The lens was moved along three directions until the maximum transmittance was achieved at 500 nm for that particular lens. Then the spectrum was recorded. The size of the passing light beam was not larger than the glass surface of any of the tested lens. To meet this requirement the lenses with short focal lengths and small maximum openings (28/f3.5 and 35/f3.5) had to be omitted from the test. The thorium containing lenses (Super 35/f2, S-M-C 50/1.4, SMC 55/1.8, and the 8 element 50/f1.4 (yes, it is also slightly radioactive ) were treated for a week (8 element version only for 3 days) with a UV lamp with maximum emission at 365nm (sorry I have not done the test before the treatment).
By analyzing the spectra you can make your own conclusions but if you allow I summarize mine below:
1. The S-M-C/SMC coating really makes the difference (as expected). These lenses transmit 80-85% of the visible light, while the Super Takumars are lagging behind by 5-10% at least.
2. The S-M-C lenses also have a flat transmittance profile (although see below #4) throughout the visible range (thanks to the 7 different layers). The Super Takumars with fewer layers cannot cover the entire visible range and the losses are especially larger in the blue and the red regimes.
3. As also expected the lenses with larger number of elements show weaker light transmittance. The Super 35/f2 and the Super 50/f1.4 not only lack the superior coating but also have 8 elements, which is the highest of the tested lenses.
4. I suspect some potential development even in the S-M-C coatings over the years. The lenses with serial numbers below 5 million (S-M-C 135 f2.5v1, S-M-C 50/1.4 have not as flat transmittance spectra as those with higher serial numbers. If you remember in 1972 new designs came out (85/f1.8 and 135/f2.5 v2). It is possible that the S-M-C coating was also improved. In this regard it is worth mentioning that the 200/f4 and the 135/f3.5 show the highest transmittance in the UV, even better than the 3 year old (my sample) Canon lens.
5. Not all the lenses fit to my previous (4) conclusion though. For example the SMC 55/f1.8 is by default a later design (with the rubber focusing ring), yet it is also showing clipping in the blue. It could mean that the UV treatment is a mixed bag for us, who treated our lenses with UV irradiation. While the S-M-C 50/f1.4 and the SMC 55/1.8 are showing very high transmittance from green to red but we may destroy some of the coatings in the blue range. This can also be an explanation why the Super 35/f2 has the weakest transmittance.
6. I left the sweetest remark to the end. Our 40 or so old S-M-C Takumars have just as good light transmitting abilities as modern designs.

Hope you find at least part of this test useful.

Thank you.

[Pepe Guitarra]

Dear Takumar Club Members,
I have been following the activities here in the past two years and your contributions made me a Takumar lens collector (by now I have 14 different versions from 28 to 400mm). Since I have benefited from your input so much it is time now to return the favor and contribute. It will not be pictures taken with my lenses but rather an optical test I performed using 9 of my Takumars and as a reference the Canon 50mm/1.8 Mk II. You decide how valuable this test is. The experiment was to measure the real light transmittance of my lenses as a function of the wavelength of light (transmission spectrum). The spectra were collected with a Cary 5000 UV-Vis-NIR spectrophotometer, which can record from the ultraviolet to the near infrared (NIR) spectral range. For practical purposes I am showing the spectra between 340 and 800 nm only ( a little UV and a little NIR framing the visible range). All lenses but one (135/2.5 v1, with a scratch in the front element) have clean glass with minimum to no internal dust. The lenses (those that fit) were placed into the spectrophotometer as illustrated by the supplied image (for the S-M-C 200/f4). The lens was moved along three directions until the maximum transmittance was achieved at 500 nm for that particular lens. Then the spectrum was recorded. The size of the passing light beam was not larger than the glass surface of any of the tested lens. To meet this requirement the lenses with short focal lengths and small maximum openings (28/f3.5 and 35/f3.5) had to be omitted from the test. The thorium containing lenses (Super 35/f2, S-M-C 50/1.4, SMC 55/1.8, and the 8 element 50/f1.4 (yes, it is also slightly radioactive ) were treated for a week (8 element version only for 3 days) with a UV lamp with maximum emission at 365nm (sorry I have not done the test before the treatment).
By analyzing the spectra you can make your own conclusions but if you allow I summarize mine below:
1. The S-M-C/SMC coating really makes the difference (as expected). These lenses transmit 80-85% of the visible light, while the Super Takumars are lagging behind by 5-10% at least.
2. The S-M-C lenses also have a flat transmittance profile (although see below #4) throughout the visible range (thanks to the 7 different layers). The Super Takumars with fewer layers cannot cover the entire visible range and the losses are especially larger in the blue and the red regimes.
3. As also expected the lenses with larger number of elements show weaker light transmittance. The Super 35/f2 and the Super 50/f1.4 not only lack the superior coating but also have 8 elements, which is the highest of the tested lenses.
4. I suspect some potential development even in the S-M-C coatings over the years. The lenses with serial numbers below 5 million (S-M-C 135 f2.5v1, S-M-C 50/1.4 have not as flat transmittance spectra as those with higher serial numbers. If you remember in 1972 new designs came out (85/f1.8 and 135/f2.5 v2). It is possible that the S-M-C coating was also improved. In this regard it is worth mentioning that the 200/f4 and the 135/f3.5 show the highest transmittance in the UV, even better than the 3 year old (my sample) Canon lens.
5. Not all the lenses fit to my previous (4) conclusion though. For example the SMC 55/f1.8 is by default a later design (with the rubber focusing ring), yet it is also showing clipping in the blue. It could mean that the UV treatment is a mixed bag for us, who treated our lenses with UV irradiation. While the S-M-C 50/f1.4 and the SMC 55/1.8 are showing very high transmittance from green to red but we may destroy some of the coatings in the blue range. This can also be an explanation why the Super 35/f2 has the weakest transmittance.
6. I left the sweetest remark to the end. Our 40 or so old S-M-C Takumars have just as good light transmitting abilities as modern designs.

Hope you find at least part of this test useful.

Cary: This is the type of useful information that we really thank. However, this is just one technical test. As customary by people in the Academy, any scientific study or test must have a peer review to determine the validity of the scientific test. So, the test is useful, but the result must be taken at its face value. Let me give you an example: every time Mike Cash shows a great picture (almost always) we get excited and want to buy that lens, forgetting that he is a real great photographer. Once he mentioned that the wanted the Super Takumar 24/3.5, I noticed the price of the lens going up on Ebay. I hope Cary's results do not end up in a loss of reputation of a great lens like let's say the 35/2, whis is really one of my favorite lenses, especially for landscapes at dawn and sunset. Please keep in mind that this is just one test done by a real Tak lover, however, it is just one. More tests are needed using different parameters to verify the findings. Usually recommended that several copies be used for any testing. I really thank Cary for this test, and for sure there have been more and there will be even more test on this subject and others. So, keep ALL your Taks, and remember Cary's last recommendation. Those are superb lenses.

[arsn.r3d]

Well, here's that S-M-C 50 1.4 in action...no UV treatment and all.

[Argenticien]

@Cary: Let me just say WOW -- your test above is a great contribution to the knowledge base of all Tak users. It's not every day we encounter someone with a large Tak collection and a spectrophotometer, and I think you've designed your experiment as well as you could have done. This kind of hard data is priceless, given that normally we're all reduced to making qualitative statements like "my lens seems dark" etc.

@Pepe: You're right about those ideal aspects of experimental design. But I don't think we can try to replicate the experiment unless another of us has a spectrophotometer! And as to testing multiple copies of each lens, that is theoretically a good idea. With them 40 years old, we have to contend with not only sample variation from manufacture, but also variation in how each copy has been cared for over those years. Obviously if we expect Cary to test multiple ones, the right way would be to lend and mail our lenses (as I've seen done long ago on Rangefinderforum.com for general lens shooting tests) rather than expect him to buy more lenses. But even then, this presumes he would want to do this again and his employer would tolerate it again. (Cary, I'm guessing this is not your personal spectrophotometer at home. ) Then he has to mail our lenses back, etc. Given all that complexity, hassle, and postal risk, I'd say it's quite impractical, so let the results stand as they are. Fabulous test!

--Dave

p.s. I hope these findings do result in loss of reputation for these great lenses, and then the prices can go down on eBay. (Not likely!!)

[Cary_5000]

Dear Members,
I have expected that my test will stir up the water at some extent. If it was not clear I wish to re-emphasize that this was only a technical test (as correctly labeled by Pepe Guitarra). Most of the pictures posted in Takumar Club taken with various models are the intellectual products of the photographers using a complex device involving an optical lens. Most lenses in good hands (and as I have seen in this site there are many) under right conditions can produce stunning images that are pleasing to human eye. We, enthusiasts, can select our best images and can delete the ones, which were not good enough for our taste. Professional photographers, however, should work in any light conditions. This is where a superior lens can separate success from failure. My test did not give you new information, which you had not known already, it just provided quantitative visualization to it. Pentax itself realized that the transmission of its lenses should be improved and introduced its 7 layer, super multi coated lenses in 1971. It is rightfully expected that they should perform better in this regard than the Super Taks. What perhaps my test showed is that those are still up to current standards even after 40 years. I had no intention to dethrone either the 8 element Super-Tak 50 or the 35/f2 Super Tak, they just happened to be the only Super Taks in my collection that I could perform the objective test with. The 8 element 50 has not only a historical significance in the competition with Zeiss but also it represents a very unique design with a special triple element. It is regarded as producing one of the smoothest transition between the subjects in and out of focus. However, even here in Pentax Forums (Lens Reviews) people mention that it flares under certain conditions. All you have to do is use a long hood and select the orientation of your subject with respect to the light source and you will enjoy using it with spectacular results. I could praise equally the Super Tak 35/f2. I love both of them and will keep them for sure. Also, do not forget that the loss of contrast due to internal reflections can be restored with a few mm move of a slider in post processing. This tool was not available during the film era our lenses are coming from. As far as the worry regarding sample variation is concerned in the test one can look at the spectra of the S-M-C lenses and conclude that irrespective of their focal lengths, optical designs (number of elements, absence or presence of optical glues etc), and the treatment and care they received over the past 40 years or so they can pretty much be include to one group. The variation of the transmittance at any given wavelength is not larger than 5% among these different designs with S-M-C coating. This seems to be convincing to me. I am a Takumar fan just like most of you and I am doing things with my lenses for fun only, so forgive me if I am not up to extensive tests with samples given or sent to me. Although I have this spectrophotometer in my research group, it is intended to be used for “real research” and work. What I can promise, however, is that if I ever encounter a really yellowed thoriated Takumar, I will perform the same test before and after the UV treatment. This could give us, Takumar lovers, a valuable lesson whether we should or should not irradiate our lenses with UV light to remove the yellow cast. This concern in my original posting was probably the most important take home message I intended to provide.
Finally, some personal note on Ebay prices. I only bought 2 (S-M-C 400/f5.6 and Tele-Tak 300/f6.3) of my 14 Taks on Ebay and following Asahiflex’ s advice I am trying to stay away from it. Just like him I bought most of them at local sales, antique stores, and camera shows etc. for the fraction of the price they go on Ebay. The value of a lens (at least to me) does not correlate with its purchase price. I also try to stay away from dealers because I equally enjoy learning the unique histories of the lenses and their respective owners. For example, I have lenses purchased originally by their first owner during the Vietnam War while he was stationed there and one, which was given as gift for a 40th wedding anniversary. Unless you need a particular lens right now or you hunting for a scarce one just be patient and some great deal will turn up in your neighborhood.
Please keep sharing your images and any relevant information.
Thanks and best wishes.

[Glenn72]

235 for the 24 mm??? wow, I did not expect that kind of pricing.. is it SMC or super and does the difference really matter?
I suggest waiting for some better deal to come along...

I think the bargain days of these lenses are over, especially with the rise of popularity of being able to use this lens on m4/3, Sony Nex and Canon EOS cameras.
However if the lens is in excellent to mint condition the price really isn´t that bad considering it is getting near the original new price $259 (circa 1967) and not adjusted for inflation still makes it a good deal.
(source Pentax Super-Takumar 24mm f/3.5 SM)

Also when compared to Canon´s new 24mm f/2.8 lens that is not even an L lens for $850, the Takumar looks like a solid investment.

[Pepe Guitarra]

After reading and rereading my post commenting on Cary's test, I cannot avoid to feel bad about being so worked-up by such a good thing that Cary intended to do. I thank Argenticien for his role as a diffuser of my too strong stand. I had no intention other than recognize Cary's work and ended maybe on the other side. I showed my post to my wife and she just said: "That is exactly what I have been saying all the time, you treat those lenses better than your kids." In conclusion, this thing is really a cult . Well, let's keep the cult alive. Sorry everyone, I had to post this apology to all those I did not treat nicely, Cary and all those who read the posting.

[Mike Cash]

My Takumars have done more nice things for me than my kids ever have. When the time comes, I wish my Takumars could decide what nursing home I'm going into instead of my kids.

Pentax K20D
S-M-C Takumar 35/2

[Pepe Guitarra]

No comment, another 15-year old great photo.

[Cary_5000]

Pepe: No apology is needed. Your reaction was absolutely normal. Perhaps I should have revealed that I am a scientist with 20+ years experience in optical spectroscopy to establish some degree of credibility.
Mike:These lenses are nothing more than tools to assist humans in expressing their creativity. We should not credit these tools any more than they deserve. I strongly hope that your remark was only a joke.