SMC 50mm 1.4 with 8 elements. Worth it?

[Chrismat]

Has anyone compared the 7 element vs the 8 element 50mm Takumar 1.4 lenses? I wonder if the 8 element is that much better than the 7 element that it would be worth purchasing.

Chris

 

[loccdor]

I have the 7 element and it never disappointed me. I love its rendering and it's razor sharp f/2.8 and up.

It's hard to find a bad fast normal lens from a first-party manufacturer from the 60s or later... it's mostly splitting hairs.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

There is a long-running internet controversy among "experts" about the 7 versus 8 element versions. The 8 has become a cult item and costs more. But I have never seen any proof that one is "better" than the other. How do you define better? Regardless, go for it.

 

[kl122002]

There is a long-running internet controversy among "experts" about the 7 versus 8 element versions. The 8 has become a cult item and costs more. But I have never seen any proof that one is "better" than the other. How do you define better? Regardless, go for it.

Perhaps it was started from myths and rumours, like Pentax had spend a lot in making one and loose one at each sale ( cost ineffective) , better than Plannar (also Pancolor which I have heard long ago) . But at the end there is nothing special particularly.

 

[dynachrome]

Miranda also made an 8 element 50/1.4. I think I have two of them. In that time frame, while more elements could provide better correction, there were more internal reflections to deal with because coatings were not as advanced. As an example, the 6 element 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon was replaced in 1973 by the 7 element 50/1.4. For about one year, in 1972, Konica made the 57 with improved coating. There is very little difference in performance between that lens and the later 50. Nikon applied better coating to its 50/1.4 in about 1974 and called it the SC. It's cosmetics changed when the 'K' version came out but optically it was the same. In late '76 the second 'K' version came out. It was redesigned and would become the AI version in 1977. It was slightly sharper at or near wide open than the previous design but maybe not as sharp at f/8 or f/11. Canon upgraded the second version of the 6 element 50/1.4 FL in 1968 with a 7 element version. That version was the basis for the later FD and FD SSC versions. The older 6 element FL lenses are so very good but not as well coated.

 

[kl122002]

Miranda also made an 8 element 50/1.4. I think I have two of them. In that time frame, while more elements could provide better correction, there were more internal reflections to deal with because coatings were not as advanced. As an example, the 6 element 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon was replaced in 1973 by the 7 element 50/1.4. For about one year, in 1972, Konica made the 57 with improved coating. There is very little difference in performance between that lens and the later 50. Nikon applied better coating to its 50/1.4 in about 1974 and called it the SC. It's cosmetics changed when the 'K' version came out but optically it was the same. In late '76 the second 'K' version came out. It was redesigned and would become the AI version in 1977. It was slightly sharper at or near wide open than the previous design but maybe not as sharp at f/8 or f/11. Canon upgraded the second version of the 6 element 50/1.4 FL in 1968 with a 7 element version. That version was the basis for the later FD and FD SSC versions. The older 6 element FL lenses are so very good but not as well coated.

This explanation sounds logical . Older lenses coating is not performing that well as much as modern coatings.

IIRC, the rumor about "Pentax made one and lost one" 8 -elements was about how much they spend on buying the glass source and high efforts in polishing the curves of the lens. This rumor somehow make sense since the high refractive glasses are not cheap, but still I can't find any proof to co-relate this area.

 

[dynachrome]

One more note on the 8 element AOC 50/1.4. It was a Super-Takumar, not a Super-Multi-Coated-
Takumar. The SMCT lenses did not appear until 1971 when the Spotmatic II was I introduced. My 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon was purchased in 1971 and did not have the improved coating of the 1972 version. It was still a very good lens but more tricky to use in difficult lighting situations.

 

[Paul Howell]

Like dynachrome I have the 7 element Pentax 50mm 1.4, the Miranda 8 element and both of the Konica 1.4s, wide open not much difference between them. The Pentax has better coating and has a thorium element, color is better, well in my view, but all perform better stopped down to F8 or 11.

 

[titrisol]

The 50/1.4 is a wonderful lens for the time. Not clinically sharp as todays examples but produces a lovely rendition of the image.
If you search there were several people that compared each version, going to amazing lengths.

I 've had several examples of both and in my limited experience the 7 is sharper than the 8 element ; the 7 uses thorium glass and allowed asahi to lose 1 element in the recalculation. The 7 tends to yellow overtime due to the thorium glass which can be "cured" with bright light or UV.
Asahi kept improving the coating of their lenses, and newer Super Tak (7) have better coatings that older and by the time the S-M-C line came they had it mastered

The 8 gathers a lot more money due to scarcity and it has become a cult lens lately.
I sold my 8s, and kept the 7s and my favorite is an old super-takumar (lowest SN)

See Gerjan van Oosten book pp 120-121

 

[titrisol]

Google is your friend

8-element "Killer" vs 7-element 50mm f1.4 Super Takumar on A7II

I took out these two vintage lenses out for an old fashion showdown

www.talkemount.com

etc

 

[gorbas]

Thanks to Simon Utak (video above) I was in same dilemma as you Chrismat and I bought 8 element Super Takumar, even I already had 7 element SMC Takumar. Well, there is some lovely character at f1.4 and f2, at near distances and after that it become just another lens. If you can buy it for reasonable money, sure, but don't spend fortune on it. My 2￠

 

[dynachrome]

I should have said that my first 57/1.4 Konica Hexanon was from 1971. By now I have many copies of each version.

 

[AZD]

Sorry, another no-I-haven’t-tried-both answer… For a brief moment I felt the fear of missing out upon discovering there was a version with one more element. Then I considered what I might be missing and couldn’t come up with anything.

I have had a common radioactive Super-Multi-Coated version for a long time. It’s one of those lenses I can absolutely depend on to do anything. Excellent colors, sharp as I’ll ever need, never a problem with flaring. Not necessarily a character lens, yet has a certain pleasing look. It does so many things so well it is difficult to imagine what might make its 8 element ancestor “better” while still retaining what makes me like the Super-Multi-Coated so much. In the end I can happily pass on another element and buy more slide film instead. It looks particularly good with this lens.

 

[xkaes]

If quality is your concern, get an f1.7 or f1.8. Better yet, an f2.0. If speed is your concern, get an f1.2. I have an f2.0 and an f1.2. No need for any f1.4.