Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

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

Why takumar f1.8 and f2?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 3:06 am    Post subject: Why takumar f1.8 and f2? Reply with quote

I was wondering if anyone knows why Takumars were produced both in f2 and f1.8 in both 55mm and 50mm. Just a marketing ploy? Are there any considerable quality differences? I apologize if this question has been raised before. Thanks

~Marc


PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 5:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thats a good question.

It looks like the 55/2 was meant to be a little cheaper, as it was standard on the lower-end Spotmatics like the SP500 and SP1000.

One has to wonder about the utility of this distinction though. Its not obviously a cheaper lens to make.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:04 am    Post subject: Re: Why takumar f1.8 and f2? Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
Just a marketing ploy?


Yes, from what I've heard, this is the case. There's not supposed to be much difference.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's a theory that the lenses a bit further out of tolerance were set to f/2 - ie. the ones that didn't pass muster at 1.8. That however sounds like bunk as it would be more costly to do the test and adjustment... so I'm with the marketing theory... Pentax did that with the cameras too, selling a cheaper but near identical body but with the 1000 speed missing - yet the setting's there and the shutter's able to do 1000.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I looked at the dates on the AOHC site to see if they give a clue. Except for 1960-61 when the 55/2 had a break, both versions were in continuous production through various versions from 1958-1975. The details of the optical design are indentical. I think this backs up the marketing argument too.

But in those days it was much more difficult to control the consistency of quality we are used to today. I can well imagine the QC department dividing the glass into good and not-so-good, and labelling the lenses 1.8 and 2.0 respectively.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had previously read that it was due to marketing, with the lenses being essentially the same. They are good performers incidentally.

I think there was a time when it made marketing sense to have a lens that was marked f1.8 rather than f2. And if my memory is also correct, Nikon did exactly the same - their early 50mm f2 and their later 50mm f1.8 are said to be identical or nearly so. Perhaps this is what triggered Pentax to respond in the smae way.

Asahi Optical Co did this kind of thing on at least on other occasion - The instance that comes to mind relates to their cameras. They marketed one (was it the S1? I cannot recall without getting out my books and or the cameras themselves) which had a 1/1000 top speed. They decided to market a lower specc'ed cheaper one with a top speed of 1/500 - the S1a if memory serves my correct.

All they changed was the top plate of the camera which no longer had the 1/1000 position marked on it. You could in fact still use the camera at this speed, with the shutter set at the blank position for 1/1000.

Purely marketing! I guess it was cheaper to do this and to sell the camera for less (hence appealing to a new market demographic) than it was to re-engineer the camera and do it properly.)


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very interesting! For some reason my search for an all-round standard always comes back to Takumar. I have so many 50ish lenses already it's hard to imagine getting another one though.

I heard about the speeds on the camera before. I find that just hilarious.

Thanks everyone!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes I understand that - I went thru a phase where I just could not get enough Takumars. As a result I probably have 80% of the ones made in the Takumar / auto Takumar / Super Takumar / SuperMultiCoated Takumar series plus some SMC Takumars. I then stopped buying but there are a couple I still would not mind owning. (like the auto takumar 105mm which I have never seen in Australia and have only ever found on eBay.) The reason is the build quality and optical quality. While there may be some European lenses that better some of these in optical performance, the European lenses tend to quirky in design and there is no other brand of M42 mount lenses that are so consistently good across the board.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd just wish to have an old Tak 58/2 Wink


PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I'd just wish to have an old Tak 58/2


I've heard of this one...a atypical kind of optical design for SLRs no?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
I'd just wish to have an old Tak 58/2


I've heard of this one...a atypical kind of optical design for SLRs no?


I guess it's one of the few SLR lens with a Heliar design.

Unfortunately the only one I saw on sale was at Adorama and wasn't cheap.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rare offered takumar Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@voytek: When you post a link to Ebay, you only need to copy and paste the item number between the Ebay tags, not the full URL. I've corrected it for you! Smile


PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A G Photography wrote:
themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
I'd just wish to have an old Tak 58/2


I've heard of this one...a atypical kind of optical design for SLRs no?


I guess it's one of the few SLR lens with a Heliar design.

Unfortunately the only one I saw on sale was at Adorama and wasn't cheap.


Are you talking about the Takumar 58/2.4 or the 58/2.0 lens? Both lenses are a tribute from Asahi Optical Co. to the classic (read: German) optical designs.

The 58/2.4 is a rare example of a lens designed for 35mm format using the 5 element 3 group Heliar formula. All the classical Heliar lenses made by Voigtländer were designed to be fitted on medium or large format cameras, because the Heliar design was thought not to have enough sharpness for small format applications. With the progress made in the field of optical glass manufacturing, Asahi was able to design a Heliar suitable for 35mm cameras. This lens was a bit soft wide open but sharpness greatly improved from F/4. The bokeh, as expected, was to die for.

The Takumar 58/2.4 first appeared in 1955 in M37 mount as an alternative standard lens for the Asahiflex IIa -- the normal lens being the Takumar 50/3.5, another classical design, a Tessar formula. Then in 1957, the lens was adapted to the new M42 mount to be sold with the original Asahi Pentax. It was only manufactured for a few months, before being supplanted by the Takumar 55/1.8.

The Takumar 58/2.4 is rather uncommon but not rare, at least in M37 mount. I have three samples of this lens, two in M37 and one in M42. The best way to get this lens for free is to look for an Asahiflex IIa or Asahi Pentax camera sold with its original lens, and then to resell the camera body for the same price you bought the whole set.

As for the 58/2, it is a rare Sonnar design also dating back from 1957 -- I think there is no other normal lens for 35mm SLRs using the Sonnar design. I don't have this lens but, according to what I know of other Sonnar lenses, it is certainly a great performer.

Cheers!

Abbazz


Last edited by Abbazz on Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:47 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:16 am    Post subject: Re: Why takumar f1.8 and f2? Reply with quote

themoleman342 wrote:
I was wondering if anyone knows why Takumars were produced both in f2 and f1.8 in both 55mm and 50mm. Just a marketing ploy? Are there any considerable quality differences? I apologize if this question has been raised before. Thanks

~Marc


Hi Mole (is this a reference to Atlantis?),

There is no optical difference whatsoever between these two lenses. As stated by others, this is pure marketing: Pentax needed a "cheaper" lens to sell in entry level kits, so a limiter ring was inserted inside the light path of the 55/1.8 lens to reduce the maximum aperture to F/2.0.

According to G. van Oosten, it is quite easy to remove the limiter ring inside the first version of the 55/2.0 lens, turning it into a fully functional 1.8 lens.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
@voytek: When you post a link to Ebay, you only need to copy and paste the item number between the Ebay tags, not the full URL. I've corrected it for you! Smile

Thank you