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

SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Differenc
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:16 pm    Post subject: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Differenc Reply with quote

Wondering about those two...
Can we say they are the same lenses image-wise?
Are there any differences in bokeh, sharpness, contarst, close focus, c/a, etc..?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have both.

The main difference seems to be the Takumar tends to yellow. Mine is still a bit yellow after the UV treatment.
Otherwise I can't tell them apart really.

I find them very similar, for that matter so is my 55/1.4 Sears/Ricoh.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:

The main difference seems to be the Takumar tends to yellow. Mine is still a bit yellow after the UV treatment.


It could be a plus for B&W.
Btw I thought only Super Takumars were yellow. Am I wrong luisalegria?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am not sure about the SMC Tak because I stupidly "upgraded" my 8 element Super Tak to one, not realising that it wouldn't mount on a normal M42 adapter or camera so it was then sold. However I have used both the Super Tak and the SMC M a lot. In terms of sharpness they are similar: soft wide open, sharp at f2/2.8 and very very sharp from f5.6 so I would think that the SMC Takumar is the same. The change in rendering is different though. With the M lens the change in character is very abrupt, f1.4 looks like no other aperture whereas with the Takumars the change seems more gradual. It is very hard to explain.

Another thing to consider is the build quality. While the M series are still built far better than the average modern lens, the Takumars are really in a different league. There's a certain satisfaction in handling one and using those perfectly damped focusing rings and if the K-M42 adapter wasn't such a pain to take off the camera I'd be rebuilding my Takumar collection.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pii wrote:


Btw I thought only Super Takumars were yellow.


No, even the SMC tend to be yellow if they don't see the daylight for a while ...
Just bring your lenses at work outside without an UV filter and in a few days they will be fine again Wink ...


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

William wrote:
I am not sure about the SMC Tak because I stupidly "upgraded" my 8 element Super Tak to one, not realising that it wouldn't mount on a normal M42 adapter or camera so it was then sold. However I have used both the Super Tak and the SMC M a lot. In terms of sharpness they are similar: soft wide open, sharp at f2/2.8 and very very sharp from f5.6 so I would think that the SMC Takumar is the same. The change in rendering is different though. With the M lens the change in character is very abrupt, f1.4 looks like no other aperture whereas with the Takumars the change seems more gradual. It is very hard to explain.

Another thing to consider is the build quality. While the M series are still built far better than the average modern lens, the Takumars are really in a different league. There's a certain satisfaction in handling one and using those perfectly damped focusing rings and if the K-M42 adapter wasn't such a pain to take off the camera I'd be rebuilding my Takumar collection.


I'm curious about your SMC Tak not mounting? I have the S-M-C 50 1.4 and it mounts fine with the original pentax m42 adapter and mounts fine to my pentax H3v and praktica FX3 . Was there a difference in the mount when they built the SMC version? I do have the SMC 55/2 again no problems in mounting.

I too find that wide open the Tak is different than the M version. Not sure if it's the coatings or something else. The layout of the lenses certainly looks the same to me though.

I like them both myself.

Eric


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe William was referring to a different type of camera. I had an M42>EOS adapter which wouldn't allow infinity with any of the Takumar 1.4/50s. The hole in the adapter was too small to allow the rear elelement to retract to the infinity stop.

The S-M-C versions and later have a lever to communicate the aperture setting to the camera. With some M42>EOS adapters and others, this lever jams on the flange which keeps the auto pin depressed and then either the lens won't screw right in or the aperture dial becomes jammed solid. This is one reason why I prefer the adapters without the flange. However, as you say, this shouldn't be a problem using the original Pentax K adapter as there's no flange, and there's no mirror problems (as on the FF Canons). Many of our members use the SMC 1.4/50 on Pentax DSLRs with no problems - Andreas (kuuan) for example.

William, removing the K adapter is very easy - just use a thumbnail to press the locking spring and turn the adapter in one go.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I was referring to the EOS adapter and it wasn't clear. I had an adapter which jammed with that lever. Had I known that there were flange-less adapters then I may still have that SMC Tak.

I have a cheap K-M42 adapter and in time will get an original. While it isn't hard to remove the adapter, the lock on mine has a tendency to shift and I can't change lenses instantly in the field which is important. If I decide to keep the K-x long term and fix my Pancolar/buy Taks again then it may become a permanent M42 camera.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for the clarification. That makes perfect sense. I had simply looked at the pentax cameras in your signature and assumed too much ! If you stay with pentax bodies the original adapter is worth it in the aggravation saved. I use my fingernails to release the spring as I turn the adapter and it's quite quick and painless( Even with my oversize construction worker fingers ) . I do use a flanged adapter permanently attached to my bellows though.


Thanks again !

Eric


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

William wrote:
Yes, I was referring to the EOS adapter and it wasn't clear. I had an adapter which jammed with that lever. Had I known that there were flange-less adapters then I may still have that SMC Tak.

I have a cheap K-M42 adapter and in time will get an original. While it isn't hard to remove the adapter, the lock on mine has a tendency to shift and I can't change lenses instantly in the field which is important. If I decide to keep the K-x long term and fix my Pancolar/buy Taks again then it may become a permanent M42 camera.


Sorry to drift a bit OT, but wouldn't another solution be to just get multiple adapters, and keep them permanently on the lenses? They're not extraordinarily expensive.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

abe in space wrote:
William wrote:
Yes, I was referring to the EOS adapter and it wasn't clear. I had an adapter which jammed with that lever. Had I known that there were flange-less adapters then I may still have that SMC Tak.

I have a cheap K-M42 adapter and in time will get an original. While it isn't hard to remove the adapter, the lock on mine has a tendency to shift and I can't change lenses instantly in the field which is important. If I decide to keep the K-x long term and fix my Pancolar/buy Taks again then it may become a permanent M42 camera.


Sorry to drift a bit OT, but wouldn't another solution be to just get multiple adapters, and keep them permanently on the lenses? They're not extraordinarily expensive.

You can't do that with the original Pentax M42 > PK adapter and its cheap clones. You have to mount the adapter separately and then mount the lens. Also the adapter locks into the camera when you mount it, and to unlock it you have to remove the lens first. Basically the adapter is part of the camera, not the lens - it converts the K mount camera into an M42 camera.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just looked up what data I can find on the Pentax-M smc 1.4/50 and the SMC Takumar 1.4/50. I couldn't find diagrams straight off, but both lenses have 7 elements in 6 groups, similar minimum focussing distance, similar 49mm filter thread and similar weight. If they tweaked the design at all it would have been very minor.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When I bought my Takumar 50mm 1.4, I did a lot of reading and research and did come up with the differentiation between the models:

- Super Takumar (8 elements)
- Super Takumar (7 elements)
- Super-Multi-Coated Takumar
- SMC Takumar

IIRC, the Super-Multi-Coated and SMC versions didn't have the issue with yellowing. It's possible that the 8 element version didn't yellow also, but I'm afraid that I don't remember. I do remember though, that the rear element of the 8 element version sticks out a bit and can hit the mirror on a 5D.

I ended up buying the S-M-C version and love it Smile


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:34 pm    Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Diffe Reply with quote

Pii wrote:
Wondering about those two...
Can we say they are the same lenses image-wise?
Are there any differences in bokeh, sharpness, contarst, close focus, c/a, etc..?


M lens is shorter and lighter, close focus distance is the same, 45cm.
Optical construction is said to be the same, but on the net I get the impression that the S-M-C and SMC ( which should be 100% identical ) usually are preferred over the M lens. Differences, if existent, should be minor, maybe smoother transition from sharpness to unsharpness of the M42 versions?

kukhuvud wrote:
...the Super-Multi-Coated and SMC versions didn't have the issue with yellowing...


disagreed, verified by own experience


Last edited by kuuan on Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


smc super ltd auto by Nesster, on Flickr
this was pre-windowsill de-yellowing. As you can see the SMC has also yellowed, though less than the Super, probably due to it being a younger lens.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, consider me SCHOOLED! Wink


PostPosted: Tue Nov 08, 2011 11:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I don't believe the radioactive element (which yellows) was discontinued until the K series. Although I have never handled one of the K's Sad

Eric


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 2:21 am    Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Diffe Reply with quote

kuuan wrote:

M lens is shorter and lighter, close focus distance is the same, 45cm.
Optical construction is said to be the same, but on the net I get the impression that the S-M-C and SMC ( which should be 100% identical ) usually are preferred over the M lens. Differences, if existent, should be minor, maybe smoother transition from sharpness to unsharpness of the M42 versions?

I'll be the killjoy here. I used to have both lenses, the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 (with rubberized focusing ring) and the Pentax-M version. They are pretty different in pretty much everything except the focal length/aperture and the 49mm filter size. The M version is lighter and seems to have better coatings. At least my copy of the SMC Tak was yellow; de-yellowed nicely in 2 weeks under the sun. My copy of SMC Pentax M is sharper wide open; although both lenses have pretty low contrast at 1.4, the Takumar has the "glow" wide open, which characterizes that lens and makes it a love or hate affair. By f/2.8, they are undistinguishable. Also, their rendering is rather different; I do prefer the M's rendering, but know a lot of people who love what the Tak does to background blur.

Having said that, these ARE very different lenses, even if their optical construction appears similar on paper. To me, I'd take the M (actually, I sold the SMC Takumar... was too tempted with their going prices, got $140 for mine. Try getting that for an M!)


PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agree with aoleg
I compared my smc m with my friend's smc tak, beside what aoleg said. I found smc m little bit faster
I sell smc m here, but i forgot Very Happy someone asked if the lens still available or not. I checked again, there's little see of fungus. so I reduce price to 50eur (it was 70eur) he never replied
still, this lens is my fave, to travel with my NEX


PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:53 am    Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Diffe Reply with quote

aoleg wrote:
kuuan wrote:

M lens is shorter and lighter, close focus distance is the same, 45cm.
Optical construction is said to be the same, but on the net I get the impression that the S-M-C and SMC ( which should be 100% identical ) usually are preferred over the M lens. Differences, if existent, should be minor, maybe smoother transition from sharpness to unsharpness of the M42 versions?

I'll be the killjoy here. I used to have both lenses, the SMC Takumar 50/1.4 (with rubberized focusing ring) and the Pentax-M version. They are pretty different in pretty much everything except the focal length/aperture and the 49mm filter size. The M version is lighter and seems to have better coatings. At least my copy of the SMC Tak was yellow; de-yellowed nicely in 2 weeks under the sun. My copy of SMC Pentax M is sharper wide open; although both lenses have pretty low contrast at 1.4, the Takumar has the "glow" wide open, which characterizes that lens and makes it a love or hate affair. By f/2.8, they are undistinguishable. Also, their rendering is rather different; I do prefer the M's rendering, but know a lot of people who love what the Tak does to background blur.

Having said that, these ARE very different lenses, even if their optical construction appears similar on paper. To me, I'd take the M (actually, I sold the SMC Takumar... was too tempted with their going prices, got $140 for mine. Try getting that for an M!)


very interesting Aoleg and IAZA, I am very interested in any personal experience comparing M42 with later versions!

As mentioned I did not talk from personal experience but had resumed what I have gathered from opinions on the net.
I had wanted to do my own comparison and had bought a M lens once. The first test shots showed quite a difference in rendering and were not too favorable, but soon I discovered that the lens had a separation of cemented elements which certainly must influence it's performance negatively.
Still, from this experience I expect quite a noticeable difference in performance. From the extensive use of 'my' copy of the S-M-C I would disagree and say that it does not glow wide open

Some day I will get a M1.4/50 again, I have all earlier M42 versions and want to compare. I am absolutely unbiased as to which one I would find better and prefer, generally I love lenses to be small which could give the M lens an edge. On the net one finds the opinion that the later 'A' lens is the best of all and identical to the latest AF Pentax FA lens. Once I had planned to get the FA but then was told by two users with experience of S-M-C and FA that I would not gain anything but the AF... hm..


PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have any 50/1.4 takumar, unfortunately, I'm trying to cut down on lens buying addiction. I have pentax M50/1.4 and k50/1.4. The latter is said to be the same design as the last takumar smc, but I doubt it.
I have tried my two models, and I can say M50 and K50 render exactly the same, colours, sharpness wide open, at 2.8, 5.6 and 8. I didn't test bokeh, because I'm not skilled at that but the eight-blade diaphragm looks pretty much identical to me. I infer they are the same lens with different barrel.
Since the M version is smaller and lighter, I will get rid of the K version.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 24, 2015 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the 8 & 7 element Super Tak 50/1.4's, the S-M-C Tak, the K and the A, I'm missing the Auto, the SMC Tak, and the M.
Of the ones I do have, I prefer the K 50/1.4, I just get more wow shots from it.
But then I do love the feel of the all metal Tak's.

William, your EOS adapter with the flange could have been fixed rather easily, and you could have continued to use your lenses, the flange opening just needed to be opened up a little bit, a round file would fix it in short order.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 25, 2015 3:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Among hoarders here haha I have a few of the 1.4s and had wondered what differences were there beyond sharpness. I need to get around to testing them to see how they differ.

On a side note: I can confirm that the super tak (7 elements), SMC tak and the K had varying degrees of yellowing, mostly cured with several days under a jansjo LED lamp from IKEA. (you can also throw the super tak 35/2 in there as well)

http://www.ikea.com/ca/en/catalog/products/20169658/


PostPosted: Sun Jul 03, 2022 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the M-version doesn't suffer from Yellowing. The K-version does. But maybe Pentax changed it somewhere in the K version. This one does have obvious yellowing but seems to have an early serial number. I thought I had won it but something went wrong in the auction.... (Edit: Oh well my money was refunded like I lost it, then an hour later I have won the auction and they deducted it again)



PostPosted: Tue Jul 05, 2022 3:28 am    Post subject: Re: SMC Pentax M 50mm f1.4 & SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 Diffe Reply with quote

Pii wrote:
Wondering about those two...
Can we say they are the same lenses image-wise?
Are there any differences in bokeh, sharpness, contarst, close focus, c/a, etc..?


The M series while having similar formula is smaller, lighter and has better coatings; and you know a micron here, a micron there, yields a lens that is similar but not the same.
M-lens will have much better contrast, and sharpness at the center. Bokeh is similar but not identical.
I had the M and the A for a while, but sold them and kept the Takumars and FA

With the exception of the 8 element 50/1.4 all the Takumars tend to yellow as the thorium element in the glass discolors, this can be cured by exposing it to UV or bright light for a few days (difference is very noticeable) http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Takumar#The_Takumar_50.2F1.4

The old Super-takumars make images which are nicer to my eye


Last edited by titrisol70 on Tue Jul 05, 2022 6:18 pm; edited 1 time in total