Difference between Super-Takumar/SMC 35mm F3.5 and Pentax K35/3.5

<p>Does anyone know the difference between the later M42 version and the SMC Pentax (K) 35mm F3.5 lenses?<br>

From what I gather, both are 5-4 optical designs but the filter thread sizes are different.<br>

Are they the same optically?</p>

<p>One of my main lookup sources on the Pentax lenses: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/index.php<br>

It's usually a decent starting point for figuring out what's what.</p>

<p>I have the 1962 version of this lens: M42 35mm f/3.5. </p>

<p>Coatings. The older lenses won't have the SMC. That SMC makes a subtle, but detectable, difference in the general purpose appearance of color photos. An experienced photographer can sometimes tell the difference between a photo with a coated and uncoated lenses. To the unexpecting eye, the coated lens - color picture will seem a little less hazy, a little stronger on the color. [As a trend, descriptive, not absolute or always so.]</p>

<p>Automatic features in the K-Mount version are probably more likely to be compatible with automatic functions on more recently made cameras. [Depends on design specifics.]</p>

<p>Other than that, a good wide angle workhorse is a good wide angle workhorse. You pretty much can't lose with either lens. </p>

Jon, you seem to be asking about the difference between the last screw-mount 35/3.5 and the first bayonet mount 35/3.5. As I recall, the glass is the same and the coating is the same. SMC Takumars were all super-multi-coated, as were all bayonet-mount lenses. I remember the screw-mount 35/3.5 well -- I had one. The Super Takumar and SMC Takumar versions of that lens had a 49mm filter diameter. I never touched the newer K-mount 35/3.5. Previous screw-mount Takumar lenses were coated, but not super-multi-coated. I don't know how far you have to go back to find a non-coated Takumar lens. Most of the lenses in the first series of bayonet-mount lenses -- the SMC Pentax lenses -- weren't produced very long before the newer SMC Pentax M series came out.

<p>Filter size are different (49mm verse 52mm) but the lens elements seems to me the same size. Also, internal light baffle are better for the k-mount version. IMHO, the K-mount version is better. </p>

And to think famous photog.s like E. Atget became famous using uncoated primitive lenses like Rapid Rectilinears, even having image circle vignetting show up on most of his photos.

 

I wonder what he would say if he knew it has all come down to quibbling over a "hair's difference" between lenses in this day? :)

<p>I have two screw mount versions of the 35/3.5. Both the Super-Multi-Coated-Takumar and the lens marked SMC are multi-coated. My only faster Pentax 35 is the 35/2 Pentax SMC-M. Other Takumars made the change to SMC Pentax and lasted a short while before the M lenses were made. These include the 28/3.5, 55/1.8, 55/2, 135/3.5 and possibly the 200/4. </p>

<p>Yes, I'm wondering if SMC Pentax K35 F3.5 is worth the premium over Super-Takumar/SMC 35 F3.5 lenses. They look the same to me optically.<br>

I did some more search: http://takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pentax_35.html<br>

Those tests seem to indicate that K35/3.5 and FA35/2 are sharpest in the focal length.</p>

<p>Looks like the same glass to me...<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2985545730_dfe786b73a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="334" /><img src="http://ndbs.hp.infoseek.co.jp/camera/pentax/images/p35f35/p35f35-f.jpg" alt="" width="260" height="230" /></p>

<p>I imagine the price difference is mostly due to relative rarity - various M42 versions were produced for perhaps more than a decade but the K-mount version only a relatively short time. Also, the K-mount version will naturally be 'newer' as well. If the plan is to shoot this on a Pentax digital body, there's some debate about which would be more desirable; some don't mind the adapter and like the ability to shoot with Av mode, others are used to the manual-only stop-down mode required with the K version.</p>

OK, first of all, the M42 lens pictured here is not multicoated, which means it's one generation older than the very last M42 35/3.5 lens. And the K-mount version pictured is one that I'm not familiar with. I agree it looks to be the same glass, except that it's multicoated, but the front element retaining ring looks to be wider, so it probably has the 52mm filter thread mentioned earlier. That lens (the K-mount version) was not on the market very long before the M-series lenses were introduced -- I'm guessing no more than two years in the mid-1970s.

According to review found on site referred by John, the later Super Takumar version 2 is essentially the same as Super-Multi-Coated Takumar. They were made right before pentax acquired smc patent and rebadged the super takumars to SMC, but that is probably only a very small sample. It seems that the way to tell is by looking at the serial number under the automatic diaphram switch. http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/index.php

 

I was also told that the single coated super takumars look yellowish while the multi-coated look blue/green when the glass is viewed? is that how you tell whether it's multicoated?

Jon, the name of the lens will tell you if it's multicoated. In M42 mount, they are called Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses. A Super Takumar or Auto Takumar lens is coated but not super-multicoated. In K-mount, they are SMC ... never mind -- all K-mount lenses are multicoated. Back to screw-mount Takumars -- there is one other difference between Takumar and Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses: the multicoated ones have a small metal node on the rear mount that connects to the full-aperture metering mechanism in the Spotmatic F. This can be a huge problem if you try to use a Super-Multi-Coated Takumar on a non-Pentax screw-mount camera. Many instances have been documented of the SMC Takumar getting stuck on other brands of cameras and needing camera-repairman surgery to remove them. SMC Takumar lenses were first introduced on Spotmatic II and IIa cameras, which did not have full-aperture metering. The Spotmatic F came along some time after the II and IIa. The yellow cast you referred to is another matter altogether. The lenses didn't come from the factory yellow. They became that color over the years, and it's a defect. Search for information on that here; there have been numerous threads about that.

<p>Jon, I like this site for Takumar information, and not just the 35mm f/3.5 but all of them. http://whitemetal.com/pentax/index_pentax_lenses.htm<br /> By the way where did you get that photo of the Super-Takumar 35mm above? Oh I know, from me. That's my lens! I like it so much I have two of them. The one in the photo you posted was my first Tak. The second one came in a set along with a 50mm f/1.4 and an SMC 135mm f/3.5. The others in this photo I bought separately.</p><div></div>

<p>Will, are you refering to the yellow cast from super-takumar 50/1.4 lenses with radioactive elements? I've seen both Super-Takumars of various focal lengths that comes with either a yellow/gold coating or blue/greenish coating. The newer ones such as SMC or Pentax-A/M/F/FA etc have the blue/greenish coating. This seems unrelated to the yellow/radioactive dis-coloring issue?<br>

Douglas-I hope you don't mind me posting that photo here. Very nice looking lens!</p>

 

<p>I don't mind at all. I was just surprised to see it. And yes it is a very nice lens. I should use it more then I do.<br>

<br /> As seen in my photo link above I also have a Super-Takumar 50mm f/1.4 and it has that yellowish tint which is the radioactive element. I need to put in in the sun or under a blue light to clear it up. That is the proposed solution I have read about.<br /> <br /> The blue green tint is the SMC coating. My one SMC lens (SMC Takumar 135mm f/3.5) has that same blue green tint. All of my other lenses are Super-Taks and are clear as a can be.</p>

Jon, I don't know of any Takumars that came from the factory with that yellowish tint. I was referring to the radioactive problem that had been discussed here many times.