Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

"Hybrid", 3rd version of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm?!
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 8:54 pm    Post subject: "Hybrid", 3rd version of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm?! Reply with quote

2 versions of Super Takumar f1.4/50mm are documented, early 8 element and later 7 element versions.
The early 8 element version can be identified by the red focus mark being to the right of the numeral 4 on the DOF scale, the "A/M switch" saying "A" and "M" instead of "auto/man", f2 stop says "2" instead of just having a dot and it has a protruding rear element.

Look at the lens in the middle, it has the first three signs of the 8 element seen on the right side, but the rear element is that of the later 7 element seen to it's left:



the "hybrid" to the left, the 8 element version to the right:


I suppose that it is a later 7 element version in the body of the early 8 element, a Hybrid manufactured during the transition period? I shall test them against each other to see if I can make out performance differences


Last edited by kuuan on Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:09 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What are the serial numbers? That may give some clues.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
What are the serial numbers? That may give some clues.


the 8 element has serial number 1585445,
the "hybrid" 1591478,
and the 7 element 3870363


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My vote is for a transitional piece.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kuuan wrote:
themoleman342 wrote:
What are the serial numbers? That may give some clues.


the 8 element has serial number 1585445,
the "hybrid" 1591478,
and the 7 element 3870363


how about the number at the back of auto/manual switch... Question


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My 8 element has no #


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 5:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.aohc.it/tak03e.htm


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could it be as simple as a repair where both bits were available?

Either way, open her up and count the layers :p

But ultimately, no biggie, even if I still secretly want an 8 element just because.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't the position of the IR mark subject to the design scheme of the lens? That's why it's different between the 7 and 8 element versions, no?


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's what I thought too. Unless it just in a different housing.. Alla some little local store repair job.

Either way, put it on eBay as some magical pre-productiom unit and take your thousand bucks and buy some ziess :p


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RAART wrote:

how about the number at the back of auto/manual switch... Question


only the 7 element has a number on the back of the switch, both the 8 element and "hybrid" don't have any

RAART wrote:
http://www.aohc.it/tak03e.htm


in this table the 8 element is said to have 8 elements in 7 groups, correct is 8 elements in 6 groups
it does indicate the weight difference, the 8 element weighs 15 grms more. I have to get hold of a precise scale

themoleman342 wrote:
Isn't the position of the IR mark subject to the design scheme of the lens? That's why it's different between the 7 and 8 element versions, no?


which would indicate that it "is" an 8 element after all?!

Note that the DOF scale is different on all three lenses, the 8 element has a tad smaller "distance scale window" and longer indicator lines on the DOF scale. More importantly the position of the red mark is different on all three lenses, both the 8 element and the "hybrid" have the IR mark to the right of the number 4, but their position is a bit different again. I take this as an indication that it is in original state and a transitional product.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think some clarity will come when comparing the curvature of the back element between versions. The 8 element version has a considerably more convex shape relative to the 7. If the last element of the "hybrid" mimics this shape but has the typical protective "shroud" around it, than I think you indeed have a transitional piece. Otherwise, I see no overwhelming evidence to say it's not just a 7 element optical block transplanted into a 8 element body.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kuuan wrote:

themoleman342 wrote:
Isn't the position of the IR mark subject to the design scheme of the lens? That's why it's different between the 7 and 8 element versions, no?


which would indicate that it "is" an 8 element after all?!

Note that the DOF scale is different on all three lenses, the 8 element has a tad smaller "distance scale window" and longer indicator lines on the DOF scale. More importantly the position of the red mark is different on all three lenses, both the 8 element and the "hybrid" have the IR mark to the right of the number 4, but their position is a bit different again. I take this as an indication that it is in original state and a transitional product.


May be I am wrong but it seems that on the "hybrid" version the IR mark and number 4 mark are just painted wrongly. I mean if you swap white and red between them you get exactly the scale of 7 element version. I don't know how and who did this, it could be indeed a transition version or may be someone tried to fake the 8 element version, but I would guess its optical block is of 7 element version.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I mean if you swap white and red between them you get exactly the scale of 7 element version.


I had not noticed this before. Good observation!


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It could be a transitional piece,.
It could also be a repairmans special, a Frankenstein, with the optical elements of the 7-element version installed in the mechanics of the 8-element version.

This is easy to do with the Super Takumar as the front and rear lens units just screw off as whole blocks, the front one including the aperture mechanism, leaving a shell with the rest of the mechanical systems.

If an 8-element lens had a serious problem with an optical element, it could have occurred to a repairman to swap in the equivalent parts from a 7-element unit. It is interesting to know that the screw threads are compatible between versions. Maybe even the spacing - you could test for that. Does it give accurate infinity ?

This unit would very likely not be correct as far as aperture as the lever that engages the diaphragm mechanism that translates the motion of the aperture ring to the actual aperture. This is controlled by the rotation of the front optical block within the shell. If that lever moves differently on one shell than the other, and the front block is not correctly installed, the apertures will be off.

Thats also easy to check - see if f/1.4 and f/16 give the same size aperture as the 7-element version.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm I wonder of i can scratch the red off mine...... :p


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dimitrygo wrote:

May be I am wrong but it seems that on the "hybrid" version the IR mark and number 4 mark are just painted wrongly. I mean if you swap white and red between them you get exactly the scale of 7 element version. I don't know how and who did this, it could be indeed a transition version or may be someone tried to fake the 8 element version, but I would guess its optical block is of 7 element version.


you are right, I had not noticed, the red mark hits the number 4, not the white mark. That really looks like an attempt to fake an 8 element and is weird because I don't think it is. The aperture ring and A/M switch are from an 8 element too, the paint job would have been a hell of a job because the paint sure looks original. It was not advertized as 8 element or anything special, I bought it rather cheaply.

themoleman342 wrote:
I think some clarity will come when comparing the curvature of the back element between versions. The 8 element version has a considerably more convex shape relative to the 7. If the last element of the "hybrid" mimics this shape but has the typical protective "shroud" around it, than I think you indeed have a transitional piece. Otherwise, I see no overwhelming evidence to say it's not just a 7 element optical block transplanted into a 8 element body.


The rear element looks like of a 7 element.
My guess is that either someone replaced a faulty rear element of an 8 element with a 'good' rear element of a 7 element, or it's a transitional piece, an early batch of a 7 element using body parts of the earlier version. Though that still doesn't explain the really weird markings around the 4!


PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2012 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
It could be a transitional piece,.
It could also be a repairmans special, a Frankenstein, with the optical elements of the 7-element version installed in the mechanics of the 8-element version.

This is easy to do with the Super Takumar as the front and rear lens units just screw off as whole blocks, the front one including the aperture mechanism, leaving a shell with the rest of the mechanical systems.

If an 8-element lens had a serious problem with an optical element, it could have occurred to a repairman to swap in the equivalent parts from a 7-element unit. It is interesting to know that the screw threads are compatible between versions. Maybe even the spacing - you could test for that. Does it give accurate infinity ?

This unit would very likely not be correct as far as aperture as the lever that engages the diaphragm mechanism that translates the motion of the aperture ring to the actual aperture. This is controlled by the rotation of the front optical block within the shell. If that lever moves differently on one shell than the other, and the front block is not correctly installed, the apertures will be off.

Thats also easy to check - see if f/1.4 and f/16 give the same size aperture as the 7-element version.


WOW, Luis you know these lenses well, and you found the right indicators!
I just checked and aperture ring closed down to f16 the actual aperture only closes down to about f5.6 or a bit smaller, so this IS a repairman's special and not original!
( Just a moment ago I thought to have found another "hybrid" and had taken that as indication that there are original transitional pieces like this one, see 2nd comment of Barbara: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/8312126654/ but I believe that this mystery will be solved too )
so..this would prove that the front block of a 7 element was put into a body of an 8 element, and as it looks also the rear block is of the 7 element, right? Curious if it is a full 7 element version inside the body of an 8 element version or a "mixed" lens, to find out I most likely have to open. Infinity seems to work fine for now I plan to shoot with the lens and see what it does, first shots look fine.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2012 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't say that the aperture problem absolutely proves its a repairmans special, it just opens the possibility.

It could just show that some repairman has opened the lens and reassembled it incorrectly. This is easy to get wrong, to do that correctly one needs to check the minimum and maximum aperture. The retaining ring on the front block has enamel on the screw heads that should indicate the proper alignment, but if a lens has been opened before this may be missing and you will have to go by trial and error.

Since I have never worked on one of these 8-element lenses before I cant tell you whether the movement of the aperture lever is different. I am only suggesting that it might be different because there seems to be a greater angular displacement in the motion of the aperture ring, and this must have an effect on some of the other mechanics.

You would have to open the lens and try to align it properly to find out for certain. If you can't get it correct then it is definitely a Frankenstein.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kuuan wrote:
dimitrygo wrote:

May be I am wrong but it seems that on the "hybrid" version the IR mark and number 4 mark are just painted wrongly. I mean if you swap white and red between them you get exactly the scale of 7 element version. I don't know how and who did this, it could be indeed a transition version or may be someone tried to fake the 8 element version, but I would guess its optical block is of 7 element version.


you are right, I had not noticed, the red mark hits the number 4, not the white mark. That really looks like an attempt to fake an 8 element and is weird because I don't think it is. The aperture ring and A/M switch are from an 8 element too, the paint job would have been a hell of a job because the paint sure looks original. It was not advertized as 8 element or anything special, I bought it rather cheaply.


a close up of the marks:


the white mark really looks as if there was another paint underneath, crooked but also white. Still, from what I see, I'd rather believe that there has not been any "repaint" job after the lens had left manufacturing. A slight difference of tone between the reds/orange of the mark and the diamond appear to be the consistent with all three lenses.


kuuan wrote:
themoleman342 wrote:
I think some clarity will come when comparing the curvature of the back element between versions. The 8 element version has a considerably more convex shape relative to the 7. If the last element of the "hybrid" mimics this shape but has the typical protective "shroud" around it, than I think you indeed have a transitional piece. Otherwise, I see no overwhelming evidence to say it's not just a 7 element optical block transplanted into a 8 element body.


The rear element looks like of a 7 element.
My guess is that either someone replaced a faulty rear element of an 8 element with a 'good' rear element of a 7 element, or it's a transitional piece, an early batch of a 7 element using body parts of the earlier version. Though that still doesn't explain the really weird markings around the 4!


I must correct myself: comparing the rear elements of the three lenses I believe that the curvature of all three rear elements is about the same. The lack of the protective rim around the rear lens on the 8 element makes it only "appear" to be more convex but it actually isn't, or if so only to a minimum degree that can not be discerned neither by naked eye nor by overlaying photos of the lenses.

luisalegria wrote:
I wouldn't say that the aperture problem absolutely proves its a repairmans special, it just opens the possibility.

It could just show that some repairman has opened the lens and reassembled it incorrectly. This is easy to get wrong, to do that correctly one needs to check the minimum and maximum aperture. The retaining ring on the front block has enamel on the screw heads that should indicate the proper alignment, but if a lens has been opened before this may be missing and you will have to go by trial and error.

Since I have never worked on one of these 8-element lenses before I cant tell you whether the movement of the aperture lever is different. I am only suggesting that it might be different because there seems to be a greater angular displacement in the motion of the aperture ring, and this must have an effect on some of the other mechanics.

You would have to open the lens and try to align it properly to find out for certain. If you can't get it correct then it is definitely a Frankenstein.


thank you very much Luis, I soon will look into this, most probably open the lens ( as soon as I have the leisure for it )


PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whatever this lens is, I'd leave it as is till you have definitive proof one way or another.
As for proof, get some IR filters and shoot some test shots to see where the IR line should be.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lightshow wrote:
Whatever this lens is, I'd leave it as is till you have definitive proof one way or another.
As for proof, get some IR filters and shoot some test shots to see where the IR line should be.


good idea!

but since the "hybrid's" aperture only closes down to about f5.6 it either, as pointed out by Luisalegria, must be a "Frankenstein", as he calls it, or at least opened and reassembled faultily, see:

luisalegria wrote:
I wouldn't say that the aperture problem absolutely proves its a repairmans special, it just opens the possibility.

It could just show that some repairman has opened the lens and reassembled it incorrectly....If you can't get it correct then it is definitely a Frankenstein.


..at least I wanted to check if it can be reassembled correctly. To do that one only needs to remove the name ring, 3 screws holding the filter ring and another three screws holding the full optical block. The entire optical block is not opened at all, stays fully intact

So I just did that. It was very easy to reassemble correctly, now the aperture works normally from wide open to fully closed Smile

I could not resist and also opened the 7 element version to compare the optical blocks and noticed small differences: the screws of the "hybrid" retaining the full block has separate washers, the screws of the 7 element don't, the fatter part of the hybrid looks one solid piece, that of the 7 element has a groove resp. I believe has separate rings, and the rings retaining the front lens are different:

the "Hybrid":



the 7 element S.T.



PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

since it is so easy..to see how the optical block looks like I also opened the 8 element.
Screws had washers like those of the 'hybrid' and again it is a bit different to that of both the 7 and 8 element version:



( the lower part is an adapter used to support the block, so that it can stand without the protruding rear lens touching the ground )


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

to compare better here the lens blocks of all three lenses together




Again the 'hybrid' is different to both and besides the housing of the rear lens has more in common with the 8 element. Still I don't know if optically it is an 8 or a 7 element but by now I am pretty sure that it really is a transitional product.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andreas! Long time no see and best wishes to you! Smile

Maybe I'm a simple mind but I'd say that the 8-element version can be distinguished from the 7-element version because the 8-element version has clear glass while the radioactive 7-element contains considerably yellowed elements. This is also clearly visible in the last photo you posted above.