Moose wrote:
> keith_w wrote:
>> Moose wrote:
>>
>>> The Takumar 50/1.4 Super-Multi-Coated, with the words spelled out in
>>> full, is reputed to be one of the finest normal lenses ever made for
>>> SLRs. The next, version, with the abbreviation "SMC", is more
>>> controversial.
>> It's said that this version is optically identical to the S-M-C version, and
>> it's supposed to be the same design.
>> See van Oosten, pages 194 & 195.
>> I've not run across the controversy...
> My exposure in this area is pretty limited, so I bow to your superior
> knowledge.
Oh please. Don't saddle me with knowledge OR intelligence labels! <g>
All I did was to remember who it was that said what is in my head, and where
to find the source. Merely qualities of a persistent amateur researcher who is
experiencing the inexorable slide to misplaced or mislabled pigeon holes!
> I do remember reading on a P lens site that the mechanical aspects of
> the lens were simplified in later versions because production costs for
> the original were getting very high. I don't remember the details, but
> the gist was that less complex and robust mechanical design and possible
> less precise assembly could compromise the precision of the optical
> formula in element centering and location. Anyway, the folks there
> believed later ones were less likely to be great than earlier ones. FWIW
Makes sense to me!
keith
--
>> Both have the same element grouping, both have an 8-bladed aperture. I don't
>> know how they might differ otherwise.
>> I have an exemplary copy of each, and am apparently not sufficiently
>> discerning to be able to tell.
>> In fact, except for the Super Multi-Coating on the above two, both are
>> supposed to be genetically identical to their predecessor, the great
>> Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4.
>> If anyone can tell me what to look for, I'd be happy to test them!
> Sounds like a waste of time and effort to me. I do a little lens testing
> from time to time, but it's pretty boring and time consuming. If I've
> got a lens that's giving me great results I like, I don't see any point
> in further testing. The last two tests I've done were strictly to see if
> a used lens I bought was up to snuff before the return period was up.
> Both were. :-)
>
> Occasionally the urge to satisfy some curiosity about lens(es) comes up,
> but usually it passes.
>
> Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|