The Takumar Lenses

I love my Takumar lenses. I don't have the full range of them, but enough to give me something for a range of shooting conditions. And enough to give a sense of the special qualities of each. Here are a couple of shots with two quite different ones: the butterfly with the needle-sharp Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 28mm f/3.5 and the dove with the buttery bokeh of the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm f/2.5.

Bench sitter by Noel Parsons, on Flickr

Dove by Noel Parsons, on Flickr
 
Pentax SV, 50mm f/1.4 SMC Takumar
U77I1372573766.SEQ.0.jpg
 
narsuitus said:
Decades ago when my first SLR broke (a Miranda Sensorex), I was loaned a Pentax Spotmatic with a 50mm f/1.4 lens. I eventually replaced my Sensorex with a Nikon but for years delayed buying a 50mm Nikon lens because I could not find one that had image quality as good as the Pentax. I discovered that the lens I had been using was the 8-element version of the m42 Asahi 50mm f/1.4 Super Takumar and had a reputation for being one of the best 50mm f/1.4 lenses ever made.

The 7-element Takumar is also a very good lens but is not as good as the 8-element version. One major problem with the 7-element lens is that it has a radioactive lens element that gradually turns yellow.

Other than the image quality, the two ways to tell the two lenses apart are:

a) The 8-element version has the infrared focus mark located to the right of the f/4 mark.

b) The diaphragm switch on the 8-element version is marked with “A” and “M.”

The 7-element version has:

a) The infrared focus mark located to the left of the f/4 mark.

b) The diaphragm switch on the 7-element version marked with “AUTO” and “Manual.”




m42 Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr
Click to expand...


right! generally speaking

however I have a version that got the two signs of an 8 element you mention, I called it "Hybrid,

3 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm ?! by andreas, on Flickr

and verified that it actually is a 7 element version.


The infrared mark is to the left of the f4 mark and there is no A/M on the diaphragm switch, the 2 signs you say make it an 8 element. The shape of the "daimond" and the distance of the infrared focus mark to the f4, though on the other side, concur with those of a 7 element. Actually the red mark is where the mark for the f4 in white should be, looks a bit screwed up ;) Paints look original though.


I assume that this "hybrid" is a transitional piece.
The telling part, if it is a7 or an 8 element, from the outside, is the protruding rear lens of the 8 element:


Hybrid f1.4/50mm Super Takumar? by andreas, on Flickr

and in the inside, of course, it was the 4th lens group which in the case of the 7 element consists of 2 lenses cemented together, in the case of the 8 element it's 3 lenses cemented together which makes it "thicker".
Note also the often mentioned "yellowing" of the 7 element lenses that has not happened with the 8 element version


4th group of 3 Super Takumar f1.4/50mm by andreas, on Flickr

had presented the above earlier here, there are interesting comments: http://forum.mflenses.com/hybrid-3rd-version-of-super-takumar-f1-4-50mm-t55617.html
 
Pentax 645NII, adapted 135mm f/4 SMC Macro Takumar-6x7, Portra 800
U77I1375596861.SEQ.2.jpg

Ruff checks the spring scents through the screen on the open window.
 
It's said that the M line of lenses gave up a little optical quality in exchange for more compact size appropriate for the smaller M bodies.
 
Regarding the 50mm f/1.4 Takumars, there seems to be opinion that the 8-element version produces better image quality than the 7-element. I'm wondering if anyone here has done comparison testing which bears this out? I'd be curious to see any results.
 
Barry Kirsten said:
Regarding the 50mm f/1.4 Takumars, there seems to be opinion that the 8-element version produces better image quality than the 7-element. I'm wondering if anyone here has done comparison testing which bears this out? I'd be curious to see any results.
Click to expand...

I have the 7-element model, and I think the radioactive one. Are there two models of non-SMC 7-element 50mm f 1.4 lenses: one radioactive and one not? The Pentax site gives the 8 element a slight edge. But if you read the comments for both (or posssibly 3) of these lenses they are a million miles from scientific testing.
 
As far as I know, John, there is only one model of the 7-element, available in either Super-Multi-Coated and SMC versions. I think both have the radioactive rear element. The only other m42 50mm f/1.4 lens in the Pentax range is the 8-element, which is not radioactive. I haven't found the radioactive element a disadvantage. In my experience it takes a couple of years for slight increase in yellowing to occur, and a couple of days sun exposure to get rid of it (being careful of course to wrap the lens body in foil to minimise heat build-up).
 
Barry Kirsten said:
As far as I know, John, there is only one model of the 7-element, available in either Super-Multi-Coated and SMC versions. I think both have the radioactive rear element. The only other m42 50mm f/1.4 lens in the Pentax range is the 8-element, which is not radioactive. I haven't found the radioactive element a disadvantage. In my experience it takes a couple of years for slight increase in yellowing to occur, and a couple of days sun exposure to get rid of it (being careful of course to wrap the lens body in foil to minimise heat build-up).
Click to expand...

Same here, I have two RA lenses and the yellow is easy to get rid of. But to your question about resolving power. Maybe old issues for POP or MODERN mags would have tests. I doubt that they are significantly different.

My Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4 version 2 is sure a wonderful lens. I know the thorium element (rear) was to do some correction that was previously required by two elements. The 8 element was designed to be a Zeiss beater.
 
typing on my handphone, which i dislike, therefore short: 1.4/50mm lenses made by Pentax:
1. Super Takumar 8 element
( 1.a rare transitional as shown above)
2. Super Takumar 7 element ( and all following are 7 elements)
3.Super-Multi-Coated Takumar ( improved coating, though some Super Taks, that don't say so, already have the new, improved coating later marketed as Super Multi Coating)
4. SMC Takumar (optically same, but rubberized focus ring instead of fully metal)
this marks the end of Takumars, next comes first in Pentax K mount:
5. Pentax SMC, also called Pentax K f1. 4/50
6. Pentax M (somewhat smaller and 30 gr. lighter body. i believe optics have not been changed though!)
7. Pentax A ( has electrical contacts, aperture can be set on camera. if used manually aperture ring much less smooth than all earlier version. optically, of course arguably, best of all because of superior coating? though also for me very early Takumars have something special. these colors of Auto Takumars!
8. Pentax-F 1st autofocus lens
9. Pentax-FA
10. HD Pentax-D FA
 
For me it's not about resolving power. I have to laugh at myself when I think back to the time when MTF and other optical stats seemed everything and I had to test all my lenses on a lens test chart before I could have confidence in them. In search of lens quality I switched to Contax bodies and had a collection of Zeiss lenses for them. The Zeiss lenses for 35mm were amazing; how much better would Zeiss be in 120 format? So I had to have a Hasselblad, but couldn't afford one, which made me miserable. So I put up with my Kowa lenses, and learned to appreciate them. In more recent years I became aware of work done with old uncoated Elmars and Canon and Nikon glass for RF, and then came upon the Takumars. I realised there's more to image quality than optical performance specs and now I no longer anguish about them or even give them a thought. As kuuan has just mentioned, the Auto Takumars are also special and I look forward to discovering what can be achieved with these old gems, especially as they're so cheap to buy. So getting back to the question of whether the 8-element 50/1.4 produces better images than the 7-element, I wonder if anyone can offer any subjective evidence on the subject?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom