Non-Takumar lenses with mechanics as good

[glaebhoerl]

Ever since I got my 50/1.4 S-M-C Takumar it has barely left the camera. Apparently sheer joy of using the lens counts for a lot, sometimes even more than size/weight (I can also imagine it outweighing optical quality, not that this Takumar is a slouch). None of my other lenses (except for the 200mm Takumar, of course) are even in the same league for how nicely the focus and aperture rings work. So "I should get more Takumars" is obvious, but are there any other lenses out there whose mechanics are as good? (And especially, any which are as affordable for mere mortals?)

[antico]

Pentax-m lenses.

[glaebhoerl]

The one Pentax-M lens I have (135/3.5) is not nearly as good, only around the same level as Rokkors and Zuikos or a bit below.

[antico]

I had a Takumar 50 f1.4, it's has a great building quality, but I don't think it is much better than any Pentax-m lens. I find it very similar with the Rikenon 50 f1.4. Why do you believe the pentax 135 3.5 is not nearly as good? Focus ring? Diaphragm ring?
I would not say that any Pentax-m is good as the Pentax 50 1.2, which I believe is one of the best in terms of building quality, but I think lots of Pentax-m have very good mechanics.

[blende8]

I agree that the Takumars are a joy to use.
The Pentax K lenses (those prior to M) are like the Takumars, but with PK-bayonet mount.
When they changed from M42 to K-mount, they took over most of the Takumar designs.

Short list:

15/3.5
17/4 Fish
18/3.5 (new design)
20/4 (new design)
24/3.5
24/2.8 (new design)
28/3.5
28/2 (new design)
30/2.8 (new design)
35/2
35/3.5

85/1.8
105/2.8
120/2.8
135/3.5
135/2.5
150/4
200/2.5 (new design)
200/4
300/4 (new design)
400/5.6
...

[newst]

Konica Hexanon lenses. Rangefinder or SLR. Konica put as much or more care into the design and quality of their lenses as anyone did.

Carl Zeiss pre-war lenses (may require CLA, not their fault that the grease available then wasn't able to last 70+ years.

Canon LTM lenses.

[DigiChromeEd]

[newst]

That is correct. Konica lenses are more recent than Takumar lenses. The Hexanon AR lenses have an aperture designed to be controlled by the camera so manual operation is not as smooth as the Takumar fully manual lens is. This only applies to the Hexanon AR SLR lenses however, not the LTM and M mount Hexanons.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Lots of manual lenses made before the oil crisis in 73 are just as smooth as a Takumar. If they aren't, it's usually due to age and drying lubricants.

[Gerald]

[mo]

The all metal M42 Auto Rikenons are "almost like" the Takumars,especially in style but sadly not quite the same in smoothness in focusing. They can be found cheap if you are patient and look for both camera and lens. I do like the 1.7/50 and the 55/1.4.

[visualopsins]

Tokinas

[stevemark]

[iangreenhalgh1]

The all-metal Konicas are every bit as smooth as any Takumar. Like I said, after the oil crisis in 73, things changed and makers cut custs. The F mount Hexanons from the early 60s are among the best built lenses you will ever find, smooth as solk.

[WNG555]

Takumars set a very high standard for build quality!

Some of the older Hexanon AR EE primes were impressive, the Tomioka-made AUTO Mamiya/Sekors, and the Yashinon DX primes were as well.
Older MC Minoltas, Komine-made Vivitars, and selective Tokina-made primes made for other brands, including Rikenons.

[fwcetus]

[memetph]

Mechanically all my Hexanons AR are terrible because of the aperture ring.
My Takumars 55mm are my best in terms of pleasure to use a combination of smoothness , precision , lightness and compactness.
My Rokkor MC 50 1.4 PG is also butter smooth and precise but heavier. I was impressed recently by a Distagon 35 C/Y but also heavier.

[iangreenhalgh1]

What's wrong with the aperture ring of Hexanons? How are they different to any other lens with a click stop aperture?

[Aanything]

I have a little set of RE. Auto topcors, and they all feel (and look) great, even the one (135/3.5) that looks a bit abused.

[y]

I bought myself a MC Rokkor PG 50/1.4 because of the smoothness. Its build quality is very similar to Taks, in my opinion.

[konicamera]

When saying that lens such and such is really smooth/rough/terrible I think we should distinguish between the focusing ring and the aperture ring. While the focusing on Hexanon lenses is, in my experience, as smooth as on anyone else’s lenses, the aperture is another question. A few words on Hexanon AR aperture rings:

Leaving aside factors such as the metal oxidation and/or the drying up of lubricants after 40 years, I think Konica could have gone to greater lengths to ensure ease of manual operation of its aperture rings, but didn’t because – as Ian already pointed out – the aperture on Hexanon lenses was designed for shutter-priority AE operation and is actuated internally by the camera. Consequently, most Konica AR lenses – especially those made from 1965 to the second half of the 1970s – have a thin aperture rings mounted on an even narrower race.

Their awkwardness of manual operation is compounded by the smallish detent ball mounted on excessively stiff detent springs (on lenses with half-stops there are two sets of springs and balls, located on opposite sides of the lens barrel and acting alternately) so that shifting the ring from its position requires considerable force (relatively speaking). These obvious design flaws are puzzling given the fact that the company touted its lenses’ half-stop aperture settings until sometime in the mid-1970s. But all this changed with the introduction of the compact lenses. If you compare the earlier and later versions of the 28/3.5, the 50/1.4 and 1.7, the 135/3.5, and the 200/3.5 (4.0) for example, you will see that the compact versions’ aperture ring is almost twice the width of the earlier versions, and shifts with great ease.

Those above-mentioned four compact lenses were made by Konica, but the ones made by Tokina (those with the thin rectangular AE lock button), like the 40/1.8 pancake, the 50/1.8 and most of the later zooms, also have a very smooth aperture ring, even if it is also quite narrow. But in this case the narrowness is no problem, because the aperture ring shifts even more easily than that of the Konica-made compacts. Those aperture rings seem to be made of hard poly-carbonate and seem to be dry-mounted (no lubrication). They are extremely easy to operate manually.

The nicest aperture rings I have used (‘felt’ would perhaps be a better word) are the ones found on Minolta’s late MC lenses. Smooth butter...

[iangreenhalgh1]

+1 for RE Topcors, perhaps the most finely engineered of all Japanese lenses.

Thanks for the info on Hexanons, I've truly never noticed any problems with Hexanon aperture rings but now I understand the issue some have.

[Lloydy]

The M42 Mamiya Sekor lenses with the straight, finely knurled focus rings take some beating. They are very smooth with no lash on the helicoid, and the lube seems to be good. I have no oil leaching onto the blades or glass from the grease, and they aren't stiff.

[kuuan]

Canon LTMs come quite close,
Topcor-S f2/5cm has great build quality, very smooth focus ring and I even prefer the feel of it's aperture ring

...
( generally this discussion feels a bit like redemption. it has been a while but as a declared Takumar fan one hasn't always had it easy, also around here )

[iangreenhalgh1]

Thing is, I've had some truly awful lenses that were smooth as silk or Takumar or whatever measure you wish to use. I remember a Soligor 2.8/35 that was like that - mechanically beautiful, optically rotten and a third party 4.5/300 whose name I forget that was about as good as the bottom of a coke bottle optically but felt really nice mechanically.