Steve Roberts
Member
Hi All,
In my occasional perusing of eBay and, in particular, Pentax items I find myself taking an interest in the prices of the f1.4 Super-Takumar and f1.4 SMC Takumar lenses. My impression is that usually the Super-Takumar version (i.e. non-multi-coated) seems to be presented as more desirable than the SMC version and this seems to be borne out by the prices asked. Though there is no criticism that I would level at the SMC lens, I have always considered the advantages of multi-coating to be somewhat over-rated - even the contemporary Asahi Pentax advertising showing a supposedly identical picture of a young lady taken against the sun with each type of lens isn't all it seems - in the SMC shot she has moved to obscure the sun slightly more than in the first shot.
So my questions are firstly am I correct in my impression that the non-SMC lenses generally command higher prices than SMC and secondly, why should this be?
Best wishes,
Steve
In my occasional perusing of eBay and, in particular, Pentax items I find myself taking an interest in the prices of the f1.4 Super-Takumar and f1.4 SMC Takumar lenses. My impression is that usually the Super-Takumar version (i.e. non-multi-coated) seems to be presented as more desirable than the SMC version and this seems to be borne out by the prices asked. Though there is no criticism that I would level at the SMC lens, I have always considered the advantages of multi-coating to be somewhat over-rated - even the contemporary Asahi Pentax advertising showing a supposedly identical picture of a young lady taken against the sun with each type of lens isn't all it seems - in the SMC shot she has moved to obscure the sun slightly more than in the first shot.
So my questions are firstly am I correct in my impression that the non-SMC lenses generally command higher prices than SMC and secondly, why should this be?
Best wishes,
Steve