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

M42 15mm F3.5 SMC Takumar Aspherical vs Non-Aspherical ?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:02 am    Post subject: M42 15mm F3.5 SMC Takumar Aspherical vs Non-Aspherical ? Reply with quote

Anybody know how to tell whether the smc takumar 15mm F3.5 is the aspherical version vs
the non-aspherical version. I think it has something to do with the way the distance scale is
marked but I forgot and cant remember which version of the lens I have. Thanks in advance....


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is the version I have but I dont know whether its aspherical or not?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As it has the "4 feet" marking on the distance scale you have the aspherical version Smile

BTW, are you in any way related to JCO? Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spotmatic wrote:
As it has the "4 feet" marking on the distance scale you have the aspherical version Smile

BTW, are you in any way related to JCO? Wink

Thanks for the info. Ive always wondered BTW, is the later, non-aspherical version or the earlier aspherical version the
better performer? Or possibly no significant difference?

Incidently, the number "4" as a tell tale sign also occurs on another SMC Tamumar, the 135mm F2.5 V2 has the number"4"
on the DOF scale while the V1 of the same lens doesnt.

Yes, I AM JCO!


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

FWIW, I also own the SMC Pentax-A version of this lens which is the non-aspherical K mount version but I never tried
doing any head to head tests against my M42 aspherical version. Might be something worth trying someday.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
This is the ASPHERICAL version I have :

photographed with a Pentax *istDS using a SMC Pentax-A 50mm F2.8 Macro lens at F16


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:09 am    Post subject: Wait a minute.. Reply with quote

Ooops....I think I may have some personal confusion going on here. This lens is the M42 SMC Takumar 15mm F3.5 and didnt ALL of them come in the aspherical version only? Now that my mind has cleared a little I believe that the first K version, the SMC Pentax 15mm F3.5 lens, which I dont own, is the only series of the lens that came in both aspherical and non-aspherical versions, correct ? ? ?

BTW, On my SMC-Pentax-A 15mm F3.5 lens which is non-aspherical, there is a "3" instead of a "4" on the distance scale which agrees with your information regarding the "4" only on the aspherical versions.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:23 am    Post subject: Aspherical vs. Non-Aspherical Reply with quote

Aspherical lens elements are generally used to design a lens more compact, but this does not mean, that such a lens is optical better as the one without aspherical elements.

A very good example is the ZM Distagon 2,8/25mm, compared with the Leica M 2,8/24mm ASPH.! The Zeiss is rated better, and it is also a lot cheaper!


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just did a little more research on these and I think I have it cleared up now. According to PentaxForums.com BOTH the M42 version and the first K mount version were available in BOTH aspherical and non-aspherical versions. The aspherical versions came first and were quickly phased out in favor of the non-aspherical versions. As for rarity, in K mount there are probably more non aspherical than aspherical, and in M42 there are probably more aspherical than non-aspherical based on dates of release of each but this I do not know for sure, its only a deduction.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:33 am    Post subject: Re: Aspherical vs. Non-Aspherical Reply with quote

OPAL wrote:
Aspherical lens elements are generally used to design a lens more compact, but this does not mean, that such a lens is optical better as the one without aspherical elements.

A very good example is the ZM Distagon 2,8/25mm, compared with the Leica M 2,8/24mm ASPH.! The Zeiss is rated better, and it is also a lot cheaper!

Well there is one advantage to aspherical lenses, and thats the fact that you can design a lens with same corrections with less elements so that should reduce flare and increase contrast all else being equal. Im not trying to say in this case that the aspherical
version is better or worse than the non-aspherical, I dont know, thats why I am asking if anyone else knows!


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:36 am    Post subject: Re: Aspherical vs. Non-Aspherical Reply with quote

OPAL wrote:
Aspherical lens elements are generally used to design a lens more compact, but this does not mean, that such a lens is optical better as the one without aspherical elements.

A very good example is the ZM Distagon 2,8/25mm, compared with the Leica M 2,8/24mm ASPH.! The Zeiss is rated better, and it is also a lot cheaper!

BTW, Arent nearly all lenses cheaper than Leica??? Razz


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Aspherical vs. Non-Aspherical Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
OPAL wrote:
Aspherical lens elements are generally used to design a lens more compact, but this does not mean, that such a lens is optical better as the one without aspherical elements.

A very good example is the ZM Distagon 2,8/25mm, compared with the Leica M 2,8/24mm ASPH.! The Zeiss is rated better, and it is also a lot cheaper!

BTW, Arent nearly all lenses cheaper than Leica??? Razz



YES, because the Zeiss/Cosina production of ZM glasses for photography and industrial use is much higher! Leica would be happy to have the same amount produced for sale! Its a pitty to wait for a overpriced Leica M glass for one year to get!


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In fact I never saw any non aspherical Takumar 15/3.5 on more than 10 lenses. I'm not it it exists, contrary to what is said on B Dimitrov's site. On my site with examples : http://kajiwara.weebly.com/takumar-1535.html


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Prof. Glatzel, chief lens designer at ZEISS at that time was responsible for re-working the design of the non-aspherical f3.5/15mm both for Zeiss and Pentax at that time. Goal which was achieved was to eliminate the very expensive aspherical element.

He used to make technical presentations and speeches about his lens design work at the university and if I'm not wrong, he once did about this lens. Here what my friend marco Cavina dug out about it:






(c) Marco Cavina

Btw. this is mine:



We had this topic in 2010 already, see here: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=25829


PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Aspherical vs. Non-Aspherical Reply with quote

OPAL wrote:
Aspherical lens elements are generally used to design a lens more compact


The primary reason to employ aspherical elements is to avoid the spherical aberration that is introduced by spherical elements. Aspherical elements can also help in reducing other types of aberrations.