Speaking of Pentax lenses...

lxdude · Sep 11, 2012

PentaxBronica said:
Thing is though, with prices not that different to far better lenses they're only worth bothering with for collectors.

Yes, I've seen the highly regarded 70-210/4 SMC-A zoom for well under $100, even as low as $50. And I bought my 80-200/4.5 SMC-M in excellent shape for $50.

The 28-80mm Pentax-A/Takumar-A has to be the low point of their production for that era, my copy is the only two touch zoom I've ever found which extends on its own if you point it downwards and feels like it'll fall apart at any moment!

Mine did! It came apart in my hand. It proves that having a lens that's largely metal doesn't matter if it's held together with tape! Really, I'm not kidding.

I was just glad I didn't really pay anything for it, as I really didn't want it anyway. It was paired in a fleabay sale with the sweet and tiny 24-35/3.5 zoom, and I got a good deal.

Whenever I send anything to Eric Hendrickson to be repaired or CLA'd, I also include in the box anything I have that's not worth repairing, and that he might be able to use for parts. That 28-80 helped save him some time on disassembly.

lxdude · Sep 11, 2012

2bits said:
Personally I will stick with the old lenses, which is what my original post was pertaining to.

Sorry to get afield.
I have not heard any of the screwmount Takumar primes denigrated. I have long heard admiration for the lineup's high optical quality, and in particular its consistency one to the next. I have had a Takumar 200/4 for decades, and will never part with it. It's the only Pentax-made lens I have that's not an M or A series. It was late run, maybe '69-'70. I got it in the early or mid 80's. It has never been serviced, yet it still works flawlessly.

My screwmount EBC Fujinons I got when my cameras were Fujica ST801's are great, but to my eye more Nikon-like optically. My old slides taken with the Takumar have a look that's just lovely.
I think I have just convinced myself that I need to get some more Takumars. Or K series lenses.

Tony-S · Sep 12, 2012

My 35mm f/2 M42 (49) is pretty soft wide open, but gets nice by f/2.8 or f/3.5.

2bits · Sep 12, 2012

The 35mm f2 M42 is very high on my want list! I've seen some pretty great stuff done w/ that lens. Used to have one many years ago, but don't remember what happened to it.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 12, 2012

2bits said:
The 35mm f2 M42 is very high on my want list! I've seen some pretty great stuff done w/ that lens. Used to have one many years ago, but don't remember what happened to it.

I have one of those and can confirm it's an amazing performer. So is the 35mm f/3.5, but obviously with 1-2/3 stops less max aperture. It's such a nice lens to put on the camera and just do walk-around shooting with. But put it on a tripod some time using low ISO film, develop carefully and start making larger prints. It takes my breath away every time I enlarge a 35mm negative to 16x20 and see that much detail.

I have never had a Pentax lens I did not love.

2bits · Sep 12, 2012

Last weekend I was out doing yard sales with the wife, and I ran across two Ricoh lenses, k mount, one a 50mm L 1:2, and the other a 55mm 2.2, I don't have a lotta high hopes for them, but they appear pretty sharp. Any opinions on Ricoh lenses? At the same sale I got a 28mm 2.8 Katana Kmount.
Any opinions on it? And one more lens, a Tokina 80-200mm 1:4 K mount which is nice and crisp through the viewfinder. That turned out to be a great sale. Also got 15 rolls of 35mm film for 2 bucks.
Speaking of Pentax lenses, if this don't upset the apple cart!

PentaxBronica · Sep 12, 2012

The only risk with some Ricoh lenses is an extra contact pin. Ricoh added this for program mode on their bodies, but it's in exactly the same place as the Pentax AF screw drive and the lens can end up jammed on Pentax AF bodies as a result.

It's usually pretty easy to make the lens safe by removing the mount and leaving the pin out when you reassemble it.

2bits · Sep 12, 2012

Thanks for the info Pentax, I guess I'm lucky, these don't have an extra pin, they look exactly like a Pentax K mount. And I'm pretty sure they are older lenses anyway. Any opinion on older Ricoh lenses?

Paul Howell · Sep 12, 2012

Ricoh made some good lens, is the 55 2.2 a macro?

2bits · Sep 12, 2012

PDH, the 55 is not macro, but the 28mm Katana says macro on it..

lxdude · Sep 12, 2012

lxdude said:
I was just glad I didn't really pay anything for it, as I really didn't want it anyway. It was paired in a fleabay sale with the sweet and tiny 24-35/3.5 zoom, and I got a good deal.
QUOTE]

Oops! Just for the record, it actually was paired with the most excellent 100mm/4 macro. I was a little over $100 for the two. The 24-35 I bought by itself, for about a hundred bucks.

2bits · Sep 13, 2012

LXdude,
Thanks for the info on the SMC Takumars. I wondered what the SMC was for. I sure could use some feedback on the Ricoh lenses above. I just started shooting film w/ them to see how it comes out, but it will be a bit before I get results.

lxdude · Sep 13, 2012

Super-Takumar (which mine is) are auto-diaphragm (diaphragm closing pin on the back). They are not multi-coated. They are stopped down to meter.

Super-Multi-Coated Takumar are the same lenses with multicoating, which Pentax brought out before other manufacturers. The lenses also have a mechanism to allow full aperture metering with the Spotmatic F. From what I have read, there were some very late production Super Takumars during the transition which had multicoating and no other changes, and they were still marked Super Takumar.

SMC Pentax are Super-Multi-Coated Takumars with the K mount in place of screw mount. They are Pentax's first K-mount lenses. They are sometimes called K-series lenses to distinguish them from the compact M-series and A series which followed, but that is not an official designation.

So while there are common references to SMC Takumars, they were actually Super-Multi-Coated Takumars; the initials SMC only appear on lenses marked "Pentax", not "Takumar".

There are earlier Takumar lenses also, such as the Auto-Takumar, which has a semi-auto (preset) diaphragm.

jochen · Sep 14, 2012

Thank you lxdude for your explanations. I want to add that there were two M 42 lenses which had the name "SMC Takumar", these were the 1:1,8/55 mm and the 1:1,4 50 mm. They came with the Spotmatic F and the Asahi Pentax ES and ES II. These lenses were the only Takumars with a rubber coated focussing ring, all others were full metal. The optical construction was the same as the precursor types. Due to the change to the K-bayonet the rest of the M 42 lenses did not get the rubber coating.

Excalibur2 · Sep 14, 2012

2bits said:
LXdude,
Thanks for the info on the SMC Takumars. I wondered what the SMC was for. I sure could use some feedback on the Ricoh lenses above. I just started shooting film w/ them to see how it comes out, but it will be a bit before I get results.

After first time use I'm pleased with the results from the Rikenon 28mm f2.8 K mount.

lxdude · Sep 14, 2012

jochen said:
Thank you lxdude for your explanations. I want to add that there were two M 42 lenses which had the name "SMC Takumar", these were the 1:1,8/55 mm and the 1:1,4 50 mm. They came with the Spotmatic F and the Asahi Pentax ES and ES II. These lenses were the only Takumars with a rubber coated focussing ring, all others were full metal. The optical construction was the same as the precursor types. Due to the change to the K-bayonet the rest of the M 42 lenses did not get the rubber coating.

Thank you for that information. I was not aware of that!

EDIT: I just went to look on the KEH site and see that there were 50mm/4 lenses with the rubber ring and "SMC Takumar" and 50mm/4 lenses with the metal ring marked "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar". Photo archaeology is such fun!

Speaking of Pentax lenses...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency