Pentax Takumar 28/2.8 Takumar and Pentax SMC 28/2.8 A How do they compare?

Started Jun 22, 2008 | Discussions
tombell1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,841Gear list
Like?
Pentax Takumar 28/2.8 Takumar and Pentax SMC 28/2.8 A How do they compare?
Jun 22, 2008

Looking at these two lenses ..... does anyone have experei==ience of them.

how do they compare ..... I am not sure looking at Stens-photgraphy site which the Takumar one is!!!

Thanks
--
Tom Bell
Dartmoor
Devon

http://flickr.com/photos/tombell1

 tombell1's gear list:tombell1's gear list
Fujifilm XF1 Fujifilm X100S Pentax K-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
JeremyLFW
Contributing MemberPosts: 535
Like?
Re: Pentax Takumar 28/2.8 Takumar and Pentax SMC 28/2.8 A How do they compare?
In reply to tombell1, Jun 22, 2008

I can't say anything about the Takumar (other than I have my doubts), but my A version beats my M28/3.5 and FA28/2.8 handily in any setting except for lacking AF.

Most of the 28mm shots in my flickr come from the A28.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/183/450194714_227e622e4c_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/449501189_f5b96ea75f_b.jpg

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just1moreDave
Regular MemberPosts: 418
Like?
Re: Pentax Takumar 28/2.8 Takumar and Pentax SMC 28/2.8 A How do they compare?
In reply to tombell1, Jun 22, 2008

The screw-mount Takumar 28mm lenses (Super-Takumar and Super-Multi-Coated) were f3.5. So I suspect this Takumar is a K-mount. That means the Pentax version at least originally cost more. It should have better coatings. The K-mount versions look a lot different than screw-mount versions, so even a terrible photo would show the difference.

Looking at Bojidar's site, there are a number of 28mm lenses without the SMC coating and various brands. The Takumars appear to use the same or very similar optical formula to the Pentax M v2, A and F models. So maybe this Takumar is OK. I would be careful about paying more than say 80% of the going price for the Pentax-A model. I have seen a few on eBay, but missed the auctions that were cheap enough to get one for curiosity.

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/index.html

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
tombell1
Senior MemberPosts: 2,841Gear list
Like?
Re: PentaxTakumar not Pentax??
In reply to Just1moreDave, Jun 23, 2008

Sorry to be so thick but clearly from these comments takumar are not Pentax as such ....

What is then a reasonable ammount to pay for a Pentax SMC A 28.2.8 as this is clearly a good lens
--
Tom Bell
Dartmoor
Devon

http://flickr.com/photos/tombell1

 tombell1's gear list:tombell1's gear list
Fujifilm XF1 Fujifilm X100S Pentax K-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AdamT
Forum ProPosts: 56,234Gear list
Like?
Re: PentaxTakumar not Pentax??
In reply to tombell1, Jun 23, 2008

Sorry to be so thick but clearly from these comments takumar are not
Pentax as such ....

Takumar was the Budget name for some Pentax Lenses - Nikon did the same with their series E primes which were basically the same as the AIS versions but with more plastic in the construction (not much though), lesser coatings and no ears for coupling with pre-FM cameras - some were as good as the AIS versions and there were a couple of lenses which weren't available in AIS format - just as there are Taks which aren't available with the Pentax name and coatings (I think) .

A pentax version of the same lens will always be better than the Tak BUT by how much is a moot point, in some lenses, barely any better at all..

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Sigma DP1 Fujifilm X-S1 Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon Coolpix P330 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
inverseroom
Regular MemberPosts: 316
Like?
Re: PentaxTakumar not Pentax??
In reply to AdamT, Jun 23, 2008

I don't believe that's true. The screwmount SMC Takumars are superb, and except for the rubber focusing ring are made entirely of metal.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
glasbak
Regular MemberPosts: 390
Like?
Re: Pentax Takumar 28/2.8 Takumar and Pentax SMC 28/2.8 A How do they compare?
In reply to tombell1, Jun 23, 2008

tombell1 wrote:

how do they compare .....

the following lenses are optical and mechanical identical (except that the takumars have no SMC coating), apart from some minor external finish (text color/rubber grip etc).
And of course, the A versions have the A functionality.

smc-m 1:2.8 28mm model 2
takumar 1:2.8 28mm

smc-a 1:2.8 28mm
takumar-a 1:2.8 28mm

The non A versions probably already have the A aperture movement, never checked this, so these are probably easy to convert to real A lenses. They do have already room internal for the A switch mechanism, it is just not machined/installed.

If you use them on a crippled k-mount camera (all DSLR's are crippled), go for the A version.

George

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
AdamT
Forum ProPosts: 56,234Gear list
Like?
Re: PentaxTakumar not Pentax??
In reply to inverseroom, Jun 23, 2008

I don't believe that's true. The screwmount SMC Takumars are superb,
and except for the rubber focusing ring are made entirely of metal.

I said the NIKON Es had plastic parts I didn't mean to infer the Taks were likewise

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Sigma DP1 Fujifilm X-S1 Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon Coolpix P330 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
inverseroom
Regular MemberPosts: 316
Like?
Re: PentaxTakumar not Pentax??
In reply to AdamT, Jun 23, 2008

Sure, I understand. I just don't think that Takumar meant "budget"--AFAIK, in the late screwmount years, the SMC Takumars were the best thing they were making.

I'm biased though, I really dig these lenses.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
gkreth
Senior MemberPosts: 2,969
Like?
Re: Pentax Takumar 28/2.8 Takumar and Pentax SMC 28/2.8 A How do they compare?
In reply to tombell1, Jun 23, 2008

tombell1 wrote:

Looking at these two lenses ..... does anyone have experience of them.

SPLOSdb gave the SMC 28 f/2.8 a minus (-) rating ("OK, but not particularly notable performance").

The SMC 28mm f/3.5 gets better ratings.

Dunno about the Takumar bayonet, but I've never read anything very positive about them; "not as bad as everyone thinks" I think is the the most positive things I've heard anyone say...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
glasbak
Regular MemberPosts: 390
Like?
Re: PentaxTakumar not Pentax??
In reply to inverseroom, Jun 23, 2008

inverseroom wrote:

Sure, I understand. I just don't think that Takumar meant
"budget"--AFAIK, in the late screwmount years, the SMC Takumars were
the best thing they were making.

Takumar named K-mount lenses are the budget lenses, without SMC coating.

George

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Just1moreDave
Regular MemberPosts: 418
Like?
Re: PentaxTakumar not Pentax??
In reply to inverseroom, Jun 23, 2008

inverseroom wrote:

Sure, I understand. I just don't think that Takumar meant
"budget"--AFAIK, in the late screwmount years, the SMC Takumars were
the best thing they were making.

I'm biased though, I really dig these lenses.

It was no doubt some marketing genius's idea. The screw mount Takumars were very fine lenses with state-of-the-art lens coatings and excellent build quality. The K-mount lenses that used the name were OK, with ordinary coatings. Those lenses were built to sell for less than the SMC Pentax line. Maybe it worked - there sure are a lot of the K-mount Takumars around. I don't know what it cost in sales of SMC Pentax lenses or the brand value created over decades.

Since these K-mount Takumars were originally inexpensive, they still should be cheaper than an SMC Pentax. At the right price, they might be worth owning. Confusion about the name, carefully worded eBay auctions and unaware bidders can push prices beyond the cost of a Pentax equivalent. The lenses are common enough to just wait for another one.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bdery
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,890Gear list
Like?
Re: Pentax Takumar 28/2.8 Takumar and Pentax SMC 28/2.8 A How do they compare?
In reply to tombell1, Jun 23, 2008

I have a Takumar 28 mm bayonet, and quick testing with it suggests that it's decent, but softer than my SMC-M 50 mm and Takumar bayonet 135 mm f2,8. Maybe it's my copy, and it's only quick testing, nothing really conclusive. However, it's not "soft", just softer than the rest. And when stopped down a stop, it becomes nicely sharp, if not as sharp as the 50mm.

It IS coated, but not supermulticoated. SMC are better resistant to flare, apparently, but I have no point of comparison.

If you can get it for really cheap (mine cost about 10$) then it's a good prime to have in a bag. If you're looking at outstanding quality, then you're looking at a Limited

The built is very rugged, but the focus ring throw is quite short, and on mine, the aperture rign is a bit hard to turn.

Just my two cents. It's not a lens that will be used often, as my Sigma 17-70 is almost as fast, and quite better optically.
--
bdery

Québec city, Canada

Pentaxian in the making
http://s108.photobucket.com/albums/n13/bdery/

 bdery's gear list:bdery's gear list
Pentax K-3
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads