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

Zeiss T* vs. Pentax SMC coatings
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PK mount is unique, it is not the same as Y/C. So I dont see how you can make the claim that zeiss helped developed it.
Secondly, I will never agree that ALL ziess glass is better than all pentax glass, especially in the 70's when pentax had
superior coatings. Zeiss was slow to switch to multicoatings, pentax wasnt, they introduced it in 1971.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fabian wrote:
Zeiss fanboys!


( Laughing )


Yes that's right and glad to be one Very Happy

My Distagon is on it's way from Germany. I will make comparison shots between the Pentax and the Zeiss and post them. Than the jury can deliberate about which lens is best.... Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
PK mount is unique, it is not the same as Y/C. So I dont see how you can make the claim that zeiss helped developed it.
Secondly, I will never agree that ALL ziess glass is better than all pentax glass, especially in the 70's when pentax had
superior coatings. Zeiss was slow to switch to multicoatings, pentax wasnt, they introduced it in 1971.


Go away and do some research, all the info is out there, PK was designed by Zeiss, C/Y is almost identical, these are facts that can be checked so I'm not making a 'claim' I'm merely stating facts.

Zeiss introduced multicoatings years before they started putting the T* designation on them. Pentax made a lot of marketing noise about their SMC so in response, Zeiss started putting the T* letters on their lenses, but they had been multicoated before that. I think they started multicoating consumer camera lenses in 1972, but had been applying it to their Cinema lenses and high end binoculars before that.

It is thought that the SMC technology was exchanged with Zeiss during the period they were working with Pentax and that T* and SMC were similar when first introduced, but it's not easy to find definitive info.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
PK mount is unique, it is not the same as Y/C. So I dont see how you can make the claim that zeiss helped developed it.
Secondly, I will never agree that ALL ziess glass is better than all pentax glass, especially in the 70's when pentax had
superior coatings. Zeiss was slow to switch to multicoatings, pentax wasnt, they introduced it in 1971.


Go away and do some research, all the info is out there, PK was designed by Zeiss, C/Y is almost identical, these are facts that can be checked so I'm not making a 'claim' I'm merely stating facts.

Zeiss introduced multicoatings years before they started putting the T* designation on them. Pentax made a lot of marketing noise about their SMC so in response, Zeiss started putting the T* letters on their lenses, but they had been multicoated before that. I think they started multicoating consumer camera lenses in 1972, but had been applying it to their Cinema lenses and high end binoculars before that.

It is thought that the SMC technology was exchanged with Zeiss during the period they were working with Pentax and that T* and SMC were similar when first introduced, but it's not easy to find definitive info.

You obviously know nothing about the history of multicoated camera optics. PENTAX introduced to the world multicoating in 1971 with their super multi coated takumars and it was a patented exclusive process. It took many years before any other companys coatings could approach the performance of smc. And their wasnt any cines lenses with multicoating before pentax smc either. I just watched a youtube video with an interview with zeiss engineer and he stated zeiss didnt have true multicoating until the 1980's and this came directly from the mouth of the zeiss employee.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

zeiss employee describes 1980's zeiss multicoating : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtmQgoOZ3cw


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a little about pentax's exclusive SMC coatings : http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/technology/SMC.html


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Multicoating probably a myth only to take out more money from pocket, I have Opton Zeiss RF lenses made before any multi coating labelled lenses and they are better than most lenses what I know from Takumar, Nikon, Minolta etc. I also have uncoated or single coated perhaps no RED T pre-war lens and works same fine than lenses from 1960-70 Nikon, Minolta or Zeiss Jena.
What is hurt really lot of dust inside or countless scratch. Konica 35mm 2.8 F mount made around 1960 also good as than any from 1970-1980 and single coated for sure. I did like Super Takumar single coated same than SMC Takumar both M42 or I say Auto Takumar not much less either.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
PK mount is unique, it is not the same as Y/C. So I dont see how you can make the claim that zeiss helped developed it.
Secondly, I will never agree that ALL ziess glass is better than all pentax glass, especially in the 70's when pentax had
superior coatings. Zeiss was slow to switch to multicoatings, pentax wasnt, they introduced it in 1971.


Go away and do some research, all the info is out there, PK was designed by Zeiss, C/Y is almost identical, these are facts that can be checked so I'm not making a 'claim' I'm merely stating facts.

Zeiss introduced multicoatings years before they started putting the T* designation on them. Pentax made a lot of marketing noise about their SMC so in response, Zeiss started putting the T* letters on their lenses, but they had been multicoated before that. I think they started multicoating consumer camera lenses in 1972, but had been applying it to their Cinema lenses and high end binoculars before that.

It is thought that the SMC technology was exchanged with Zeiss during the period they were working with Pentax and that T* and SMC were similar when first introduced, but it's not easy to find definitive info.

You obviously know nothing about the history of multicoated camera optics. PENTAX introduced to the world multicoating in 1971 with their super multi coated takumars and it was a patented exclusive process. It took many years before any other companys coatings could approach the performance of smc. And their wasnt any cines lenses with multicoating before pentax smc either. I just watched a youtube video with an interview with zeiss engineer and he stated zeiss didnt have true multicoating until the 1980's and this came directly from the mouth of the zeiss employee.


Rubbish, complete rubbish, you need to do some reading, quite obviously. Fuji say they introduced multi coated optics for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and Nikon say they had 4 layer coatings before the introduction of Pentax's SMC. You seem to have swallowed the Pentax marketing line and allowed it to blind you. That youtube video is ludicrous, Zeiss introduced multicoated Hasselblad lenses in 1972.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Multicoating probably a myth only to take out more money from pocket, I have Opton Zeiss RF lenses made before any multi coating labelled lenses and they are better than most lenses what I know from Takumar, Nikon, Minolta etc. I also have uncoated or single coated perhaps no RED T pre-war lens and works same fine than lenses from 1960-70 Nikon, Minolta or Zeiss Jena.
What is hurt really lot of dust inside or countless scratch. Konica 35mm 2.8 F mount made around 1960 also good as than any from 1970-1980 and single coated for sure. I did like Super Takumar single coated same than SMC Takumar both M42 or I say Auto Takumar not much less either.

Multicoating is not a "myth". On multi element lenses it greatly increases transmission, color saturation, and contrast. It also greatly reduces flare. Why do you think every major lens company eventually incorporated multicoating? Because its better peformance and ZEISS didnt have it until the 80's. This is one of the major reasons I like the Pentax K series lenses of the 70's. They are old enough to still have superior build quality and optics but not too old to have the old single ( non smc ) coatings. Yes some lenses with few elements like tessars get by fine without multicoating, when you get into the 10 and 12 or more element lenses like extreme wide angles and zooms ( even the 15mm subject lens ), multicoating makes HUGE difference. So much so that some lenses are not even possible without multicoating!


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
PK mount is unique, it is not the same as Y/C. So I dont see how you can make the claim that zeiss helped developed it.
Secondly, I will never agree that ALL ziess glass is better than all pentax glass, especially in the 70's when pentax had
superior coatings. Zeiss was slow to switch to multicoatings, pentax wasnt, they introduced it in 1971.


Go away and do some research, all the info is out there, PK was designed by Zeiss, C/Y is almost identical, these are facts that can be checked so I'm not making a 'claim' I'm merely stating facts.

Zeiss introduced multicoatings years before they started putting the T* designation on them. Pentax made a lot of marketing noise about their SMC so in response, Zeiss started putting the T* letters on their lenses, but they had been multicoated before that. I think they started multicoating consumer camera lenses in 1972, but had been applying it to their Cinema lenses and high end binoculars before that.

It is thought that the SMC technology was exchanged with Zeiss during the period they were working with Pentax and that T* and SMC were similar when first introduced, but it's not easy to find definitive info.

You obviously know nothing about the history of multicoated camera optics. PENTAX introduced to the world multicoating in 1971 with their super multi coated takumars and it was a patented exclusive process. It took many years before any other companys coatings could approach the performance of smc. And their wasnt any cines lenses with multicoating before pentax smc either. I just watched a youtube video with an interview with zeiss engineer and he stated zeiss didnt have true multicoating until the 1980's and this came directly from the mouth of the zeiss employee.


Rubbish, complete rubbish, you need to do some reading, quite obviously. Fuji say they introduced multi coated optics for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and Nikon say they had 4 layer coatings before the introduction of Pentax's SMC. You seem to have swallowed the Pentax marketing line and allowed it to blind you. That youtube video is ludicrous, Zeiss introduced multicoated Hasselblad lenses in 1972.

How can you say the youtube video is "ludicrous" when its a ZEISS engineer who clearly states the facts that zeiss didnt have multicoating until the 80's like most other lens companies did too???


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
Attila wrote:
Multicoating probably a myth only to take out more money from pocket, I have Opton Zeiss RF lenses made before any multi coating labelled lenses and they are better than most lenses what I know from Takumar, Nikon, Minolta etc. I also have uncoated or single coated perhaps no RED T pre-war lens and works same fine than lenses from 1960-70 Nikon, Minolta or Zeiss Jena.
What is hurt really lot of dust inside or countless scratch. Konica 35mm 2.8 F mount made around 1960 also good as than any from 1970-1980 and single coated for sure. I did like Super Takumar single coated same than SMC Takumar both M42 or I say Auto Takumar not much less either.

Multicoating is not a "myth". On multi element lenses it greatly increases transmission, color saturation, and contrast. It also greatly reduces flare. Why do you think every major lens company eventually incorporated multicoating? Because its better peformance and ZEISS didnt have it until the 80's. This is one of the major reasons I like the Pentax K series lenses of the 70's. They are old enough to still have superior build quality and optics but not too old to have the old single ( non smc ) coatings. Yes some lenses with few elements like tessars get by fine without multicoating, when you get into the 10 and 12 or more element lenses like extreme wide angles and zooms ( even the 15mm subject lens ), multicoating makes HUGE difference. So much so that some lenses are not even possible without multicoating!


Try them , in extreme cases like 15mm I confirm what you say , above not really try a multicoated 50mm and single coated one, diffrence will little , shoot against light... to avoid flare very special case most photo not born in this situation. So right not myth, but don't need on all lenses and silly to choce a 80mm SMC takumar and not respect Auto Takumar because of multi-coated is better.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
PK mount is unique, it is not the same as Y/C. So I dont see how you can make the claim that zeiss helped developed it.
Secondly, I will never agree that ALL ziess glass is better than all pentax glass, especially in the 70's when pentax had
superior coatings. Zeiss was slow to switch to multicoatings, pentax wasnt, they introduced it in 1971.


Go away and do some research, all the info is out there, PK was designed by Zeiss, C/Y is almost identical, these are facts that can be checked so I'm not making a 'claim' I'm merely stating facts.

Zeiss introduced multicoatings years before they started putting the T* designation on them. Pentax made a lot of marketing noise about their SMC so in response, Zeiss started putting the T* letters on their lenses, but they had been multicoated before that. I think they started multicoating consumer camera lenses in 1972, but had been applying it to their Cinema lenses and high end binoculars before that.

It is thought that the SMC technology was exchanged with Zeiss during the period they were working with Pentax and that T* and SMC were similar when first introduced, but it's not easy to find definitive info.

You obviously know nothing about the history of multicoated camera optics. PENTAX introduced to the world multicoating in 1971 with their super multi coated takumars and it was a patented exclusive process. It took many years before any other companys coatings could approach the performance of smc. And their wasnt any cines lenses with multicoating before pentax smc either. I just watched a youtube video with an interview with zeiss engineer and he stated zeiss didnt have true multicoating until the 1980's and this came directly from the mouth of the zeiss employee.


Rubbish, complete rubbish, you need to do some reading, quite obviously. Fuji say they introduced multi coated optics for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and Nikon say they had 4 layer coatings before the introduction of Pentax's SMC. You seem to have swallowed the Pentax marketing line and allowed it to blind you. That youtube video is ludicrous, Zeiss introduced multicoated Hasselblad lenses in 1972.

How can you say the youtube video is "ludicrous" when its a ZEISS engineer who clearly states the facts that zeiss didnt have multicoating until the 80's like most other lens companies did too???


Because, if you do even the slightest amount of research you will discover for yourself that what he says is completely wrong.

Please, stop making false claims about Zeiss not having MC until the 1980s, this is spreading blatantly false information.

Also, please stop claiming Pentax invented multi-coating, they did not, categorically, it was invented in the 1940s by Katharine Burr Blodgett:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
PK mount is unique, it is not the same as Y/C. So I dont see how you can make the claim that zeiss helped developed it.
Secondly, I will never agree that ALL ziess glass is better than all pentax glass, especially in the 70's when pentax had
superior coatings. Zeiss was slow to switch to multicoatings, pentax wasnt, they introduced it in 1971.


Go away and do some research, all the info is out there, PK was designed by Zeiss, C/Y is almost identical, these are facts that can be checked so I'm not making a 'claim' I'm merely stating facts.

Zeiss introduced multicoatings years before they started putting the T* designation on them. Pentax made a lot of marketing noise about their SMC so in response, Zeiss started putting the T* letters on their lenses, but they had been multicoated before that. I think they started multicoating consumer camera lenses in 1972, but had been applying it to their Cinema lenses and high end binoculars before that.

It is thought that the SMC technology was exchanged with Zeiss during the period they were working with Pentax and that T* and SMC were similar when first introduced, but it's not easy to find definitive info.

You obviously know nothing about the history of multicoated camera optics. PENTAX introduced to the world multicoating in 1971 with their super multi coated takumars and it was a patented exclusive process. It took many years before any other companys coatings could approach the performance of smc. And their wasnt any cines lenses with multicoating before pentax smc either. I just watched a youtube video with an interview with zeiss engineer and he stated zeiss didnt have true multicoating until the 1980's and this came directly from the mouth of the zeiss employee.


Rubbish, complete rubbish, you need to do some reading, quite obviously. Fuji say they introduced multi coated optics for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and Nikon say they had 4 layer coatings before the introduction of Pentax's SMC. You seem to have swallowed the Pentax marketing line and allowed it to blind you. That youtube video is ludicrous, Zeiss introduced multicoated Hasselblad lenses in 1972.

How can you say the youtube video is "ludicrous" when its a ZEISS engineer who clearly states the facts that zeiss didnt have multicoating until the 80's like most other lens companies did too???


Because, if you do even the slightest amount of research you will discover for yourself that what he says is completely wrong.

Please, stop making false claims about Zeiss not having MC until the 1980s, this is spreading blatantly false information.

Also, please stop claiming Pentax invented multi-coating, they did not, categorically, it was invented in the 1940s by Katharine Burr Blodgett:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett

Lets clear this up, what pentax released in 1971 was SUPER MULTI COATING which is and was a 7 layer multicoating process for camera lenses that NO ONE had ever done before and it was patented and a pentax exclusive. Other companies later introduced
there own but INFERIOR multicoating processes in the 70's and 80's and YOU are the one spreading false imformation about zeiss because its the ZEISS engineer, not you, who states that zeiss developed the zeiss multicoatings in the EIGHTIES, not 1972. What are you trying to say, the zeiss lens engineer knows less about zeiss lenses than you do? Well IM not buying into that BS.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
Attila wrote:
Multicoating probably a myth only to take out more money from pocket, I have Opton Zeiss RF lenses made before any multi coating labelled lenses and they are better than most lenses what I know from Takumar, Nikon, Minolta etc. I also have uncoated or single coated perhaps no RED T pre-war lens and works same fine than lenses from 1960-70 Nikon, Minolta or Zeiss Jena.
What is hurt really lot of dust inside or countless scratch. Konica 35mm 2.8 F mount made around 1960 also good as than any from 1970-1980 and single coated for sure. I did like Super Takumar single coated same than SMC Takumar both M42 or I say Auto Takumar not much less either.

Multicoating is not a "myth". On multi element lenses it greatly increases transmission, color saturation, and contrast. It also greatly reduces flare. Why do you think every major lens company eventually incorporated multicoating? Because its better peformance and ZEISS didnt have it until the 80's. This is one of the major reasons I like the Pentax K series lenses of the 70's. They are old enough to still have superior build quality and optics but not too old to have the old single ( non smc ) coatings. Yes some lenses with few elements like tessars get by fine without multicoating, when you get into the 10 and 12 or more element lenses like extreme wide angles and zooms ( even the 15mm subject lens ), multicoating makes HUGE difference. So much so that some lenses are not even possible without multicoating!


Try them , in extreme cases like 15mm I confirm what you say , above not really try a multicoated 50mm and single coated one, diffrence will little , shoot against light... to avoid flare very special case most photo not born in this situation. So right not myth, but don't need on all lenses and silly to choce a 80mm SMC takumar and not respect Auto Takumar because of multi-coated is better.

the 85mm takumar is not that great of an example because its only 5 elements. The advantages of supermulitcoating really come into play with lenses with many more elements like extreme wideangles or zooms. Try this test with an old zoom and you will easily see the multicoated lens has much better contrast than single coated equivilent.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
PK mount is unique, it is not the same as Y/C. So I dont see how you can make the claim that zeiss helped developed it.
Secondly, I will never agree that ALL ziess glass is better than all pentax glass, especially in the 70's when pentax had
superior coatings. Zeiss was slow to switch to multicoatings, pentax wasnt, they introduced it in 1971.


Go away and do some research, all the info is out there, PK was designed by Zeiss, C/Y is almost identical, these are facts that can be checked so I'm not making a 'claim' I'm merely stating facts.

Zeiss introduced multicoatings years before they started putting the T* designation on them. Pentax made a lot of marketing noise about their SMC so in response, Zeiss started putting the T* letters on their lenses, but they had been multicoated before that. I think they started multicoating consumer camera lenses in 1972, but had been applying it to their Cinema lenses and high end binoculars before that.

It is thought that the SMC technology was exchanged with Zeiss during the period they were working with Pentax and that T* and SMC were similar when first introduced, but it's not easy to find definitive info.

You obviously know nothing about the history of multicoated camera optics. PENTAX introduced to the world multicoating in 1971 with their super multi coated takumars and it was a patented exclusive process. It took many years before any other companys coatings could approach the performance of smc. And their wasnt any cines lenses with multicoating before pentax smc either. I just watched a youtube video with an interview with zeiss engineer and he stated zeiss didnt have true multicoating until the 1980's and this came directly from the mouth of the zeiss employee.


Rubbish, complete rubbish, you need to do some reading, quite obviously. Fuji say they introduced multi coated optics for the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and Nikon say they had 4 layer coatings before the introduction of Pentax's SMC. You seem to have swallowed the Pentax marketing line and allowed it to blind you. That youtube video is ludicrous, Zeiss introduced multicoated Hasselblad lenses in 1972.

How can you say the youtube video is "ludicrous" when its a ZEISS engineer who clearly states the facts that zeiss didnt have multicoating until the 80's like most other lens companies did too???


Because, if you do even the slightest amount of research you will discover for yourself that what he says is completely wrong.

Please, stop making false claims about Zeiss not having MC until the 1980s, this is spreading blatantly false information.

Also, please stop claiming Pentax invented multi-coating, they did not, categorically, it was invented in the 1940s by Katharine Burr Blodgett:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Burr_Blodgett

Katherine Burr Blodgett did not invent the super multi coating process. A small company working for nasa did and then pentax bought the rights and owned the patents and released the first lenses in the world with super multi coating on them in 1971.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:

Lets clear this up, what pentax released in 1971 was SUPER MULTI COATING which is and was a 7 layer multicoating process for camera lenses that NO ONE had ever done before and it was patented and a pentax exclusive. Other companies later introduced
there own but INFERIOR multicoating processes in the 70's and 80's and YOU are the one spreading false imformation about zeiss because its the ZEISS engineer, not you, who states that zeiss developed the zeiss multicoatings in the EIGHTIES, not 1972. What are you trying to say, the zeiss lens engineer knows less about zeiss lenses than you do? Well IM not buying into that BS.


You are completely and utterly wrong on all these points. Have you actually read anything on this subject other than the Pentax marketing brochures?

That Zeiss engineer is talking out of his arse and the official Zeiss information confirms that.

This picture of the earth was taken on December 7th, 1972 using a Hasselblad equipped with a multi-coated Zeiss lens:





1970s Hasselblad brochure about multicoated Zeiss lenses:



1973 Hasselblad brochure about multicoated lens:



1972 Distagon 2.8/16 with multicoating:



Leitz were actually the first maker to put a multi-coated lens into production, not Pentax.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
hifisapi wrote:

Lets clear this up, what pentax released in 1971 was SUPER MULTI COATING which is and was a 7 layer multicoating process for camera lenses that NO ONE had ever done before and it was patented and a pentax exclusive. Other companies later introduced
there own but INFERIOR multicoating processes in the 70's and 80's and YOU are the one spreading false imformation about zeiss because its the ZEISS engineer, not you, who states that zeiss developed the zeiss multicoatings in the EIGHTIES, not 1972. What are you trying to say, the zeiss lens engineer knows less about zeiss lenses than you do? Well IM not buying into that BS.


You are completely and utterly wrong on all these points. Have you actually read anything on this subject other than the Pentax marketing brochures?

That Zeiss engineer is talking out of his arse and the official Zeiss information confirms that.

This picture of the earth was taken on December 7th, 1972 using a Hasselblad equipped with a multi-coated Zeiss lens:





1970s Hasselblad brochure about multicoated Zeiss lenses:



1973 Hasselblad brochure about multicoated lens:



1972 Distagon 2.8/16 with multicoating:



Leitz were actually the first maker to put a multi-coated lens into production, not Pentax.

you are as confusing multicoating vs SUPER MULTI COATING which was developed by OCLI and all rights acquired by PENTAX. LIKE I SAID, the worlds first lenses with super multi coating, which was a patented process then owned by pentax was in 1971 ahead of leica or zeiss. Unless the patents have run out, leica and zeiss are still probably using inferior coatings to Pentax's SMC which was EXCLUSIVE PROCESS.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pentax released their SMC coatings on their 35mm lens line in 1971. How many years did it take before zeiss came up with their inferior coatings on their 35MM lenses?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
Pentax released their SMC coatings on their 35mm lens line in 1971. How many years did it take before zeiss came up with their inferior coatings on their 35MM lenses?


Look, Zeiss multicoatings were not and are not inferior to SMC, the two companies worked together at the time when SMC was introduced.

Zeiss ended production of the Contaflex in 1971, it was too expensive to produce SLRs in West Germany so they went looking for a Japanese partner who could carry out production in Japan. This was Pentax, as part of this partnership, Pentax received the K mount design and the designs for the 2/28 Distagon and 2.58/15 Distagon because at the time, these were cutting edge highly complex designs and beyond what Pentax themselves were able to design. Zeiss received SMC technology as part of this deal too.

Zeiss began production of multicoated SLR camera lenses in the autumn of 1972, they didn't start adding the T* lettering until production of multicoated lenses had been underway a couple of years, this was in response to Pentax making such a hoopla in their marketing about their SMC. The first application of multicoatings on Zeiss glass was not in camera lenses, so it is safe to say they were multicoating glass for several years prior to introducing it to camera lenses in 1972.

All this information is widely and easily available, why are you ignoring it and carrying on this stupid Pentax mythology that is completely wrong?

Early production multicoated Planar 1.7/50:







It is blatantly obvious that that lens has multicoatings and it was produced in the first half of the 1970s, so how can you keep insisting Zeiss didn't introduce multicoatings until the 1980s?

How you can keep claiming Pentax's product was superior is beyond me, I doubt you'll find anyone to agree with you.



Anyone here that would agree with hifisapi that the Pentax K 1.8/55 has superior coatings to the contemporaneous Zeiss Planar 1.7/50?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Im not confused, you are. You keep confusing generic "multicoating" with Pentax's exclusive and patented "super multi coating" which WAS superior to any other company's coatings in the 70's and no other company including zeiss or leica had it. And they had it FIRST also, which was the 1971 introduction date.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

And secondly you cant tell what kind or type or performance of multicoatings just by looking at some lens photos either so you post doesnt make any sense.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now you're just being obtuse. The Planar 1.7/50 is a very well known lens, just look around this forum at how many members own it and have posted samples from it. It is known for the excellence of it's coatings and they are definitely not inferior to Pentax, no way, never, not in any technical or practical sense. Zeiss and Pentax were working at the partnership at the time when both companies introduced multicoating to their SLR lenses so it is highly likely that SMC and T* were very similar, if not identical at the beginning. T* evolved over the years and Zeiss has always kept the formula a secret.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope, I dont agree. Pentax had a great thing going with their SMC process and they would never give it to zeiss. It was exclusive and patented and not all multicoatings are equal.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another interesting thread ruined! Rolling Eyes

Can we call it quits now please?


PostPosted: Fri Dec 21, 2012 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I understand your point Peter, but isn't it important to spread correct information and refute the incorrect?

Perhaps split the thread so there is a new one about the Zeiss-Pentax co-operation and their respective coatings, then we can properly establish the correct information?