Greyscale
Veteran
Mine is all black.
raid
Dad Photographer
I am getting interested in getting a 50/4 macro pre-set!
CMur12
Veteran
kuuan
loves old lenses
Mine is all black.
oh, interesting and..beautiful
I believe my preset Takumar f3.5/200mm came with an all black cap that looks like yours. ( My Auto Takumar f1.8/85, the lens you show, unfortunately came without front cap. )
There are also all silver Takumar caps as e.g. that of the Auto Takumar f2.3/35mm, but they don't say Takumar but AOCo ( for Asahi Optical Company )
Takumar lens caps with black body and silver writing that says "Takumar", as seen on my earlier photo, also came with some early Takumars only and therefore now are rather rare. Later Takumar lens caps look similar, also black body with silver writing and fully metal but their lettering say "Asahi Pentax". These are the most common Takumar front lens caps.
........
Oh, Raid and Murray, now this thread really instigated you, maybe even others, to buy Takumars
Should have happened earlier, some years ago, when I did take orders of rarer Takumars that I hunted down in Japan I am a Takumar fan but I believe it is bull**** to say lenses of this or that maker, generally, are superior of those of another maker. I specially like Takumars for their smooth operation and strong build. Some early lenses of other makes may be more clunky, less smooth, also bigger.
I do dare say that early lenses, made in the 50s until late 60s, made by Pentax actually really may have an advantage, even generally speaking, that of superior coating. My experience with various kind of old lenses would indicate that. My theory is the the coating of Takumars had been superior already before they started to name them Super Multi Coated and started to market them for having good coating. That had other makers to pull even. E.g I very much like Olympus OM lenses for mostly beings smaller and lighter than comparable Takumars, also for having their aperture ring towards the front of the lens ( as do preset Takumars, but not later Takumars ) But for OM lenses I'd watch out to get the later series that say "MC" for multi coated. Earlier OM lenses, as compared to Takumars of the same vintage, imho seem to suffer from weak coatings. Of course one also may like that and play with that..
CMur12
Veteran
Andreas, I remember old Pentax ads from the early 1970s that showed cutaways of their lenses, to reveal the mechanical superiority of the product. They explained that focusing helicoids of aluminum on brass were naturally lubricated and required no other lubricant. I believe Minolta Rokkor lenses until the late 1970s had such construction, as well. (Then they started making lighter, more compact electronic cameras and smaller, lighter lenses to go with them.)
Interestingly (to me, at least), until multi-coating, Minolta had what they called "achromatic coating," which was dual-coating. This gave Minolta an advantage over others until Pentax came out with Super Multi-Coating (7 layers) and Fuji came out with their EBC (Electron Beam Coating: 11 layers!).
Thanks for keeping this thread going, Andreas!
- Murray
Interestingly (to me, at least), until multi-coating, Minolta had what they called "achromatic coating," which was dual-coating. This gave Minolta an advantage over others until Pentax came out with Super Multi-Coating (7 layers) and Fuji came out with their EBC (Electron Beam Coating: 11 layers!).
Thanks for keeping this thread going, Andreas!
- Murray
My understanding is that in the 50's & 60's Pentax was "chasing" Zeiss in optical quality and coatings with a view to becoming superior... And perhaps they did!
As to different metals in helicoids... It is true that adjacent surfaces of the identical metal have a kind of sticktion, an attraction for the mating surface. This is due to the identical molecules across the gap interacting and exchanging their electrons. Different metals don't attract each other like that and slide more smoothly; true even for different alloys of the same metal, the more different the better! Also as I recall this effect is different with different metals, aluminum being more prone to this than others...
As to different metals in helicoids... It is true that adjacent surfaces of the identical metal have a kind of sticktion, an attraction for the mating surface. This is due to the identical molecules across the gap interacting and exchanging their electrons. Different metals don't attract each other like that and slide more smoothly; true even for different alloys of the same metal, the more different the better! Also as I recall this effect is different with different metals, aluminum being more prone to this than others...
kuuan
loves old lenses
thank you Murray for your more detailed knowledge!!
I believe, just a theory but it often is said that at least late Super Takumars already had several layers of coating, that Takumars already had several layers of coating before they started to call them Super Multi Coated. Add / or that their early, even if it were single coated lenses, had comparatively good coating.
CMur12
Veteran
Andreas, you may well be right about the coating on Super Takumars. I have no knowledge about that.
Multi-Coating is nice, but I have a lot of older lenses that don't have it and it has never really been a problem. I always use lens hoods though.
- Murray
kuuan
loves old lenses
I have or have had a few lenses that seem to show effects of weak coating. Already I had mentioned Olympus Zuikos:
The OM F.Zuiko Auto-T f2 85mm had been recommended for me over the later MC version for being specially pleasing for portraits. Sure low contrast but I never got warm with it, but must give it another try!
And a OM H-Zuiko Auto-W 24mm f2.8. I soon replaced it with a later OM Zuiko Auto-W 24mm f2.8 MC ( Multi coated ) which I found quite superior. A difference that I had not noticed between Super Takumars and S-M-C Takumars. Now, on Sony A7, it is my most used 24mm ( I have a number of "famous", very good vintage f2.8/24mm lenses: MC W-Rokkor, Nikkor-N.C, Pentax K, all outstanding lenses, also a Tamron Adaptall f2.5 and Vivitar f2. ) Prefer the OM for it's smaller size ( I am mostly living out of a suitcase )
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
According to this article from Asahi Optical Historical Club's website, Asahi Optical Co. Asahi didn’t invent the multicoating, since it bought the patents from Optical Coatings Laboratories Inc. (OCLI), based in California. Other Japanese manufacturers had to pay royalties to Asahi Opt. Co. in order to use the multicoating process. Zeiss did maybe benefit from the cooperation it had with Asahi Opt. Co. at that time and was indeed one of the first manufacturers to offer lenses using its T* multicoating process, which was very similar to AOCo's Super-Multi-Coating.
The article also supports Kuuan's above theory by stating that "late production Super-Takumars were already multi-coated. It was probably just an experimental coating, maybe less than 7-layers, or maybe it was not on all air-to-glass surfaces, so that it didn’t perform as well as the definitive Super-Multi-Coating".
Cheers!
Abbazz
Greyscale
Veteran
oh, interesting and..beautiful
I believe my preset Takumar f3.5/200mm came with an all black cap that looks like yours. ( My Auto Takumar f1.8/85, the lens you show, unfortunately came without front cap. )
There are also all silver Takumar caps as e.g. that of the Auto Takumar f2.3/35mm, but they don't say Takumar but AOCo ( for Asahi Optical Company )
Takumar lens caps with black body and silver writing that says "Takumar", as seen on my earlier photo, also came with some early Takumars only and therefore now are rather rare. Later Takumar lens caps look similar, also black body with silver writing and fully metal but their lettering say "Asahi Pentax". These are the most common Takumar front lens caps.
I have an AOC cap for my Auto-Takumar 135/3.5, and another orphan larger-diameter one that I suppose would be for the 35/2.3. Also several "Honeywell Pentax" caps, and a couple "Heiland Pentax" caps. I suppose that one could build quite a collection of Takumar lens caps.
CMur12
Veteran
kuuan
loves old lenses
thank you so much Abbazz for this article!! You are much needed here!
in a nutshell: "Asahi Opticals was the first company to understand the importance of anti-reflective coating and developed it's production. That marked a turning point in the evolution of photographic optics, other manufacturer had to follow suit."
All information makes very much sense and indeed coincides with my own findings and view! Had I even had read the same article, many years ago, also linked by you in another forum? Sure had picked up bits of it here and there, this article is bookmarked now! thank you again Abbazz, cheers, andreas
Honeywell, the importer of Pentax photography gear to the USA until the late 70s! Greyscale of course! They had put their own name on cameras and ..caps, also that of Heiland, a manufacturer they had bought.
All my Takumars I had bought either in Europe or Japan, no Honeywell or Heiland there. Made me not think of it, sorry. Thank you for adding that!
Greyscale
Veteran
I believe that Honeywell was a originally a subsidiary of Heiland Research. The Heiland-branded cameras are earlier than the Honeywell versions, I think only the H1 and (maybe) the H2 were the only ones marked with the Heiland brand. Most of my Pentax screw-mount cameras are Honeywell Pentax. I don't know if any of the K-mount cameras carried the Honeywell branding.
kuuan
loves old lenses
Right! From what I take from the camera-wiki article you are exactly right:
Heiland had started to import Asahi Optical cameras and had put their own name, later it was bought by Honeywell and the name on the gear changed accordingly: http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Honeywell
There it also says that Pentax had started to import to the US by itself, under it's own name, in 1977. And at wikipedia I read that the production of K mount cameras started in 1975. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_cameras#K_Series and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentax_K-mount ) Therefore one could conclude that first K mount Pentax cameras imported to the US still carried the Honeywell name, but I wouldn't know. Abbazz?
Abbazz
6x9 and be there!
You're welcome, Murray!
Thanks, Andreas, I really appreciate your kind words. And please keep on posting your wonderful Takumar pictures!
Cheers!
Abbazz
peterm1
Veteran
Yesterday I dug out an old auto Takumar 55mm f2.2 of the Honeywell / Heiland era and made a casual shot with it on an M4/3 camera using an adapter.
I had forgotten just how beautifully it renders. The shot was of a Japanese sake flask on a coffee table with light from the TV in the background. The shot was sharp with nice color but the soft, gentle flare from the background lighting was lovely and unexpected. I then made another shot of a dining room chair with the room in the background at full aperture. I can confirm that the lens has lovely bokeh too.
There truly is something very special about these lenses.
I had forgotten just how beautifully it renders. The shot was of a Japanese sake flask on a coffee table with light from the TV in the background. The shot was sharp with nice color but the soft, gentle flare from the background lighting was lovely and unexpected. I then made another shot of a dining room chair with the room in the background at full aperture. I can confirm that the lens has lovely bokeh too.
There truly is something very special about these lenses.
kuuan
loves old lenses
peterm1, where are these samples, taken with the Auto Takumar f2.2/55mm?
haha, thank you dear Abbazz. There only is a small problem. I don't have all that many good photos from years ago when I had been mostly using Takumars. I'd hope I have improved a bit since then
to complete the 1.4/50 Takumars, the SMC, the last and only line of Takumars that didn't have a full metal body but a rubberized focus ring:
SMC Takumar f1.4/50mm by andreas, on Flickr, taken with Super Takumar f1.9/85mm on Pentax K-x
hardly have taken any photos with it though, the 4 photos below had been taken with it on a Pentax K-x ( APS-C sensor )
lanterns by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
but it gives me the chance, I hope nobody minds the off topic, to show the camera that for me has been the best handling camera that I ever have had the pleasure to use,
Konica Minolta Dimage A2:
Konica Minolta A2 by andreas, on Flickr
Konica Minolta A2 by andreas, on Flickr
Deep grip, good thumb rest, front and rear wheels on it's right side, and then please check out this other wheel, the "function dial", on the left side of the body: In the middle the button to unlock it, then to choose the one of most important settings. The one selected will be superimposed in big letters in the middle of the EVF, but see-through and only for a short moment. While changing the value of that setting, using the rear wheel on the right top side, the superimposed values of course would stay on as long as one was changing that value: On this camera I could set pretty much anything I wanted or needed to very fast, "on the fly", using both index fingers and thumbs while keeping my eye glued to the VF!! I felt like playing the piano
The Konica Minolta A2 had integrated flash, hotshoe, articulating LCD and articulating EVF! ( until today some are saying that this "was not possible"..)
Articulating EVF, a personal, purely subjective observation and opinion: When first mirrorless cameras had come out producers seem to have appreciated the possibility of leaving behind the limitation of an OVF of having to be fixed, knew the many advantages of an articulating VF. Negative consumer reactions saying that it doesn't "look nice" because it sticks out, and that it is "fragile", which of course, for lack of experience of actual durability then had been a nothing more than a prejudice, at least an assumption, had producers, imo against better knowledge, again turn away from articulating EVFs, sigh.. They learned that for a camera to sell well it better looked like cameras used to look like, produced fixed EVFs in mock prism housings and embraced retro design.
haha, thank you dear Abbazz. There only is a small problem. I don't have all that many good photos from years ago when I had been mostly using Takumars. I'd hope I have improved a bit since then
to complete the 1.4/50 Takumars, the SMC, the last and only line of Takumars that didn't have a full metal body but a rubberized focus ring:
SMC Takumar f1.4/50mm by andreas, on Flickr, taken with Super Takumar f1.9/85mm on Pentax K-x
hardly have taken any photos with it though, the 4 photos below had been taken with it on a Pentax K-x ( APS-C sensor )
lanterns by andreas, on Flickr
Untitled by andreas, on Flickr
but it gives me the chance, I hope nobody minds the off topic, to show the camera that for me has been the best handling camera that I ever have had the pleasure to use,
Konica Minolta Dimage A2:
Konica Minolta A2 by andreas, on Flickr
Konica Minolta A2 by andreas, on Flickr
Deep grip, good thumb rest, front and rear wheels on it's right side, and then please check out this other wheel, the "function dial", on the left side of the body: In the middle the button to unlock it, then to choose the one of most important settings. The one selected will be superimposed in big letters in the middle of the EVF, but see-through and only for a short moment. While changing the value of that setting, using the rear wheel on the right top side, the superimposed values of course would stay on as long as one was changing that value: On this camera I could set pretty much anything I wanted or needed to very fast, "on the fly", using both index fingers and thumbs while keeping my eye glued to the VF!! I felt like playing the piano
The Konica Minolta A2 had integrated flash, hotshoe, articulating LCD and articulating EVF! ( until today some are saying that this "was not possible"..)
Articulating EVF, a personal, purely subjective observation and opinion: When first mirrorless cameras had come out producers seem to have appreciated the possibility of leaving behind the limitation of an OVF of having to be fixed, knew the many advantages of an articulating VF. Negative consumer reactions saying that it doesn't "look nice" because it sticks out, and that it is "fragile", which of course, for lack of experience of actual durability then had been a nothing more than a prejudice, at least an assumption, had producers, imo against better knowledge, again turn away from articulating EVFs, sigh.. They learned that for a camera to sell well it better looked like cameras used to look like, produced fixed EVFs in mock prism housings and embraced retro design.
kuuan
loves old lenses
almost now Takumars I have left to show, there are a few, but embarrassingly I hardly have taken photos with them
the S-M-C Takumar f1.8/85mm
S-M-C Takumar f1.8/85mm by andreas, on Flickr
so far only have used it to take "portraits" of a few other lenses
RE-Auto Topcor f1.8/58mm
RE-Auto Topcor f1.8/58mm by andreas, on Flickr, taken with Pentax K-x
MC-Rokkor f2.8/24mm
MC W-Rokkor f2.8/24mm by andreas, on Flickr, taken with Pentax K-x
used lens wide open but did "focus stacking" to get the whole lens sharp but max. blur of the background
the great Olympus "Pen-f" Zuiko F1.4/40mm
G.Zuiko Auto-S f1.4 40mm by andreas, on Flickr, taken with Sony NEX5n
the S-M-C Takumar f1.8/85mm
S-M-C Takumar f1.8/85mm by andreas, on Flickr
so far only have used it to take "portraits" of a few other lenses
RE-Auto Topcor f1.8/58mm
RE-Auto Topcor f1.8/58mm by andreas, on Flickr, taken with Pentax K-x
MC-Rokkor f2.8/24mm
MC W-Rokkor f2.8/24mm by andreas, on Flickr, taken with Pentax K-x
used lens wide open but did "focus stacking" to get the whole lens sharp but max. blur of the background
the great Olympus "Pen-f" Zuiko F1.4/40mm
G.Zuiko Auto-S f1.4 40mm by andreas, on Flickr, taken with Sony NEX5n
CMur12
Veteran
Andreas, how does the 85mm 1.8 Super Multi-Coated Takumar compare with the 85mm 1.9 Super Takumar?
Thanks.
- Murray