View Full Version : Pentax super multi coated TAKUMAR
Hello, I have some questions about those smc takumar in screwmout m42. Has anyone test them against other prime lens? And are they worth investing in?
see
http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/takumar.htm
Dan
I sometimes use a 85mm/1.8 SMC with an adapter on Canon FD bodies. The SMC lenses are very sharp.
Raid
Kim Coxon
06-25-2006, 12:49
The SMC Taks from 24mm to 200mm are some of the best lenses made. The 85/1.8 that Raid talks about is very sought after, difficult to find and has a price to match. Most of the others are readily available and have been reasonably priced. They sre gradually increasing in price though as more people discover what a really good prime is capable of on a DSLR and they will fit most with an adapter.
Kim
Hello, I have some questions about those smc takumar in screwmout m42. Has anyone test them against other prime lens? And are they worth investing in?
The SMC Taks from 24mm to 200mm are some of the best lenses made. The 85/1.8 that Raid talks about is very sought after, difficult to find and has a price to match. Most of the others are readily available and have been reasonably priced. They sre gradually increasing in price though as more people discover what a really good prime is capable of on a DSLR and they will fit most with an adapter.
Kim
Kim,
Many years ago, I did not have a good medium telephoto lens for my small Canon FD system. I used as an el-cheapo alternative the SMC 85mm/1.8 lens. I was very surprised to get back very sharp images. I then added a Canon 85mm/1.2L lens. While I will not sell the SMC 85mm lens, I am considering selling a 17mm Pentax fisheye lens in K mount. Is the K moiunt version less in demand?
Raid
I have SMC Taks in 50, 55, and 200mm and have found all of them to be quite good.
Jim N.
Uncle Bill
06-25-2006, 13:42
Takumar lenses are on the same plane as Leica glass. The 55 f 1.8/ f2 are some of my sharpest lenses and I use my screwmount Pentax gear mostly for black and white photography. On average they are reasonable save for the 85 f1.8. which is rare and silly expensive.
Bill
I got lucky with the superb 85mm/1.8 lens. It is tack-sharp and it can be used on my Olympus Pen FT as a 135mm/1.8 (?) or similar focal length since the Pen FT is half-frame.
I think that since k-mount bodies as well as many dslrs with adapters can use m42 inexpensively, but not vice versa, there might just be more flexibility in m42 than k-mount lenses.
However, if you go to a K-mount of K1000 forum, you'd likely find someone interested.
Kim,
Many years ago, I did not have a good medium telephoto lens for my small Canon FD system. I used as an el-cheapo alternative the SMC 85mm/1.8 lens. I was very surprised to get back very sharp images. I then added a Canon 85mm/1.2L lens. While I will not sell the SMC 85mm lens, I am considering selling a 17mm Pentax fisheye lens in K mount. Is the K moiunt version less in demand?
Raid
The SMC Takumars are quite special. The built quality is superb. Most of these lenses are 30, 35 years old and many look almost new. Optically I can say they have something special, something "organic" or natural to them. In that sense, they are superior to my Nikon, Canon or Konica glass, which seems comparatively clinical. For my money, they're a steal.
Hello, I have some questions about those smc takumar in screwmout m42. Has anyone test them against other prime lens? And are they worth investing in?
They are great lenses. I especially like the 85/1.8, 50/1.4, and 35/3.5. Just watch out for yellowing (there is a cure but I have not tried it since I shoot mainly b/w with them).
You should also look at M42 CZJ lenses. I like the 20mm and 35mm Flektogons, the 50/1.8 Pancolar, and the 135mm Sonnar. The EBC Fujinons are good too.
As regards testing them against other lenses, popphoto (or was it modern photography?) tested the 50/1.4 very favorably. More recently, there have been many amateur tests on the net, mainly using these old lenses on Canon DSLR bodies. I don't know how reliable the testing was.
About whether they are worth investing in, I don't know. The prices have gone up with their use on DSLR's, and they likely will not go any higher.
I use those lenses on the screw-mount Pentax bodies they were made for... and also have adaptors so they may be used on K-mount Pentaxes and the Olympus Pen F bodies. While the adaptations work, there is no auto-diaphragm stop-down, thus the lenses become "manual" or at best "pre-set" in diaphragm operation. Kind of a pain, in my view, though acceptable for tripod use. "Manual" in the sense of focus and aperture control too of course, as that was the state of the art at the time.
Seems to me the users of various non-Pentax dSLR cameras have to be pretty desperate for a fine prime lens to go this route.
tedwhite
06-26-2006, 19:42
I have used Pentax Spotmatic bodies and Takumar lenses for several decades. The Spotmatics are built like tanks and seem to last forever. The lenses I have and think highly of are:
1. 28/3.5. In that focal length, unbeatable. As sharp at the edges as in the center.
2. 50/1.4. Very sharp, very fast, but with age prone to yellowing; easily reversible by a simple technique. Remove both caps, wrap in foil, shiny side inward. Leave rear of lens exposed. Place outside in sunlight, rear angled toward sun, and securely braced. Here in Arizona clearing the yellow usually takes about ten days. Don't, of course, leave it out in rain. PM me if you decide to do this and I'll provide more info.
3. 105/2.8. Probably the best bargain in a portrait lens. A bit longer than the coveted and horribly pricey 85mm, but very, very good.
4. 135/2.5. Again, in this medium telephoto focal length I don't think it can be beat.
All these lenses are screwmounts and, with the aid of an adapter, work quite nicely on my Pentax ist DS. Of course, with the 1.5 multiplier factor you gain with the long lenses and lose with the wide angles. Also they become presets, a small problem, really.
Regards,
Ted
I think you're correct, especially for pros or amateurs that can afford the good new lens that mate to the dslrs -- the lens are there, but for us budget minded folks, the m42's I have for my film SLR would cost 10x or more to re-buy to get the autofocus/auto-everything convenience, so however small the niche is of using adapters, I think there will be one, especially for the crossover film/digital user base.
Out of sheer luck I guess, my Chinon CM-5 body meters fine with the M42 to K adapter on an 18mm 3.4 Sigma, and 35mm 1.9 Vivitar, and my adapter sets the M42 base flush to the body so I get infinity focus.
They are extremely dark stopped down, so I need to focus them wide open, then close down to meter and shoot. I think a tele with this setup would definitely require a tripod setup.
I use those lenses on the screw-mount Pentax bodies they were made for... and also have adaptors so they may be used on K-mount Pentaxes and the Olympus Pen F bodies. While the adaptations work, there is no auto-diaphragm stop-down, thus the lenses become "manual" or at best "pre-set" in diaphragm operation. Kind of a pain, in my view, though acceptable for tripod use. "Manual" in the sense of focus and aperture control too of course, as that was the state of the art at the time.
Seems to me the users of various non-Pentax dSLR cameras have to be pretty desperate for a fine prime lens to go this route.
Out of sheer luck I guess, my Chinon CM-5 body meters fine with the M42 to K adapter on an 18mm 3.4 Sigma, and 35mm 1.9 Vivitar, and my adapter sets the M42 base flush to the body so I get infinity focus.
They are extremely dark stopped down, so I need to focus them wide open, then close down to meter and shoot. I think a tele with this setup would definitely require a tripod setup.I'd actually be surprised if your Chinon didn't meter properly (stopped down of course) with the adapted lenses, and the correct M42-K adaptor does lie flush with the bayonet mount flange, though I hear there are some cheap ones that don't, and of course that's a problem!
On your latter comment, of course that's the normal experience in using the famous Spotmatic, though made easier with the meter switch also stopping the lens down when activated. Using a Spotmatic, I didn't necessarily meter for each exposure, just check around as with a hand-held meter and stick with the same camera settings until the light was clearly different. I'd usually switch off the meter, opening the lens back up and check my composition and focus before taking the shot... with auto diaphragm operation.
Where I think the adapted lenses are most inconvenient is that except for shots taken wide-open (or nearly so) you have to manually stop the lens down (with the Auto/Manual switch) for every shot.
I've heard stories of dSLR users deliberately bending the Takumar lens's diaphragm actuation pin to jam it in, I guess to make it stopped down always, or snipping the pin off entirely, or wanting an adaptor that includes an internal shoulder that presses the pin when the lens is mounted. I don't recall the reasoning there, but I don't like to hear of good lenses mangled.
telenous
06-28-2006, 00:19
Hello, I have some questions about those smc takumar in screwmout m42. Has anyone test them against other prime lens? And are they worth investing in?
Over a period of few months I have somehow amassed four 50mm fast Pentax primes of varying vintage. They are not expensive as they retail for about 40 GBP but I wouldn't be surprised if you managed to find them much, much cheaper, provided you are patient. The older Takumars (the so-called Super Takumars that went with the classic Spotmatic) have outstanding construction quality, on a par with Leica's best in the 60's. Like others have already implied, handling an early Takumar is a very satisfying photographic experience. Word has it that Pentax was actually losing money with every fast prime it was producing back then in a kind of bend backward management strategy that made a good name for the company (I believe I 've read this somewhere in Mike Johnson's Luminous Landscape pages). Later reincarnations of the Takumar have very high construction quality standards as well.
From the use I 've made of them, it appears to me that the later versions perform better, perhaps because the Pentax multicoating was refined and perfected. I have found the very early Takumar in particular to suffer more from both flare and ghost lights from strong light sources compared to its successor, the SMC Takumar that came with Spotmatic F (let alone the later SMC Pentax primes for K-mount). I guess one can say that construction quality is better with the older lenses while performance improves with the newer versions.
With the Chinon, there is no Auto/Manual switch, so I just use the lenses on the M setting, and turn the aperture ring to meter and shoot, and turn it wide open to focus. The tricky part is to stop back down with aperture ring without screwing up the focus. I often go back and forth wondering if I've bumped the focus ring while stopping down.
Yeah, I don't know what the pin bending with Takumar's is for on dslrs. Changing lenses to K-mounts is a pain, I have to use a special wrench that came with the adapter so I mainly keep the adapter on the body, and alternate between the 18 and 35 on the Chinon.
I'd actually be surprised if your Chinon didn't meter properly (stopped down of course) with the adapted lenses, and the correct M42-K adaptor does lie flush with the bayonet mount flange, though I hear there are some cheap ones that don't, and of course that's a problem!
On your latter comment, of course that's the normal experience in using the famous Spotmatic, though made easier with the meter switch also stopping the lens down when activated. Using a Spotmatic, I didn't necessarily meter for each exposure, just check around as with a hand-held meter and stick with the same camera settings until the light was clearly different. I'd usually switch off the meter, opening the lens back up and check my composition and focus before taking the shot... with auto diaphragm operation.
Where I think the adapted lenses are most inconvenient is that except for shots taken wide-open (or nearly so) you have to manually stop the lens down (with the Auto/Manual switch) for every shot.
I've heard stories of dSLR users deliberately bending the Takumar lens's diaphragm actuation pin to jam it in, I guess to make it stopped down always, or snipping the pin off entirely, or wanting an adaptor that includes an internal shoulder that presses the pin when the lens is mounted. I don't recall the reasoning there, but I don't like to hear of good lenses mangled.
Do the Super Multicoated ones work with Fujica ST 705s? The SMCs don't, right?
Kim Coxon
06-28-2006, 07:08
SMC = Super MultiCoated ;) Early ones were labeled Super Multi Coated and had metal focus ring. Later ones were labelled SMC and had a rubber focus ring but they are effectively the same lens. They will work on the 705 but once on you won't be able to remove them! If you have no intention of getting an SPF or ES series, you can remove the full aperture pin and then they will work on all the M42 cameras including the SPF and ES series but the full aperture metering will be disabled.
Kim
Do the Super Multicoated ones work with Fujica ST 705s? The SMCs don't, right?
I have about 60 or so M42 lens; including a bunch of Takumars in pretty much all the focale from 24mm to 200mm. Sone of them are excellent indeed, but there also are plenty of non-pentax M42 that are superior too. The Carls Zeiss Jena are exceptional, some Chinon are also very good, and the well known russians also had quite a few exceptional lens!
There are also "inferior" brands that produced "superior" lens on that mount, like Soligor and Vivitar, some of them are superior even to Pentax glass...
oftheherd
07-03-2006, 05:32
SMC = Super MultiCoated ;) Early ones were labeled Super Multi Coated and had metal focus ring. Later ones were labelled SMC and had a rubber focus ring but they are effectively the same lens. They will work on the 705 but once on you won't be able to remove them! If you have no intention of getting an SPF or ES series, you can remove the full aperture pin and then they will work on all the M42 cameras including the SPF and ES series but the full aperture metering will be disabled.
Kim
I'm not at home to try, but what prevented them from being removed? I know there are tabs on the Fujica lenses both for registration and for the open aperture metering. I thought that I remembered that SMC lenses could be removed, but were just a little tricky. Was I just lucky? I think the only SMC lens I have is a 50mm f/1.8. All the lenses I normally use for the Fujicas are either Fujinons or Vivitar TX mounts.
Michael I.
07-03-2006, 05:39
I have a pentax k1000 with 50/2; k mount to m42 adapter(quirky) and a couple of m42 lenses(non pentax) and accessories;if intrested feel free to pm me
oftheherd
07-03-2006, 06:09
I have about 60 or so M42 lens; including a bunch of Takumars in pretty much all the focale from 24mm to 200mm. Sone of them are excellent indeed, but there also are plenty of non-pentax M42 that are superior too. The Carls Zeiss Jena are exceptional, some Chinon are also very good, and the well known russians also had quite a few exceptional lens!
There are also "inferior" brands that produced "superior" lens on that mount, like Soligor and Vivitar, some of them are superior even to Pentax glass...
Recent revalations by Herbert Keplar of Modern and PP&I fame indicate that Cosina probably made many of the Vivitar and Soligor lenses (as well as cameras). It was probably the particular forumla and the required quality control that made the difference.
I think Cosina or somebody else may have made many of the "name" brands as well, as I once read that even some of the "name" brands didn't actually have their own plants for lens manufacture. I don't now remember which were which. I also read somewhere that many bought glass from the same manufacturer, but then ground it to their specifications. Anybody remember more on that?
Ronald M
07-03-2006, 06:16
Sharp yes, but does not get the same tonal representation on film as do Leica or Zeiss.
I had every one from 21 to 300 mm and they are all gone and I do not miss them one bit. Leica glass is what got me what I wanted and Zeiss is a close second.
You can put Leica, Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss negs on a light table and separate out the Nikon, Canon, and Pentax without a problem. Actually my spouse can do it, and she knows zero about photography.
Joe Brugger
07-03-2006, 13:17
I'm not at home to try, but what prevented them from being removed? I know there are tabs on the Fujica lenses both for registration and for the open aperture metering. I thought that I remembered that SMC lenses could be removed, but were just a little tricky. Was I just lucky? I think the only SMC lens I have is a 50mm f/1.8. All the lenses I normally use for the Fujicas are either Fujinons or Vivitar TX mounts.
The SMCT lenses have a small springloaded pin on the back of the mount that can drop into lens mount screw heads on some M42 mount cameras and lock the lens in place. They mount and dismount without problem on Pentaxes. I remember Fujicas and a Russian make, maybe Zenit, being reported as problems.
I enjoyed my Spot F's when I was working with them but the only lens I miss is the 85/1.8.
Joe, mentioning the 85/1.8 in the same sentence as the Spotmatic F leads me to think you mean the rather rare lens of 1972-73... I had the earlier 1.8 Auto-Takumar, and traded it in for a new 1.9 Super Takumar just months before the SMC version came along. I kicked myself for not waiting, then that was replaced by the SMCT 1.8... If that was the same glass as my K-mount 85/1.8 it must have been great. The SMCT 120/2.8 was another great lens; I just received a K-mount version of that one today!
Joe Brugger
07-03-2006, 19:27
Dougg:
At the time I sold off my screw-mount stuff; maybe three bodies and six lenses, the 85/1.8 SMCT represented about half of the value. It was an excellent lens and good ones now run $300 and up. You're right, the full-aperture metering screwmount version is rare. You can imagine my feelings, buying all that stuff in '73-'74, to have the K-mount arrive in '75. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif
:bang:
Joe, mentioning the 85/1.8 in the same sentence as the Spotmatic F leads me to think you mean the rather rare lens of 1972-73... I had the earlier 1.8 Auto-Takumar, and traded it in for a new 1.9 Super Takumar just months before the SMC version came along. I kicked myself for not waiting, then that was replaced by the SMCT 1.8... If that was the same glass as my K-mount 85/1.8 it must have been great. The SMCT 120/2.8 was another great lens; I just received a K-mount version of that one today!
Doug,
I have a 85mm/1.8 SMC lens. Is it really "rare"?
Raid
Joe Brugger
07-03-2006, 20:20
Raid: It's pretty rare if it's the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar for screwmount and full-aperture metering with the Spot F. KEH recently listed one in EX nick for $389; quite a lot for an M42 lens. The K-mount appeared in '74 or '75.
Raid: It's pretty rare if it's the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar for screwmount and full-aperture metering with the Spot F. KEH recently listed one in EX nick for $389; quite a lot for an M42 lens. The K-mount appeared in '74 or '75.
Joe:
Yes, it is that one for my Spotmatic F. It is very clean and has been taken of me very well. I may have bought it through Shutterbug durings the magazine's golden times.
Raid
The fine lens deserves to be used... here's one from my 85/1.8
Doug: I agree with you, but I have been putting my SLR gear to the side while using my rangefinder gear.
Raid
P.S.I like your posted photo.
Is the 2nd pin of the SMC easy to remove? Can they be put back, or is removal permanent? And if they don't have the 2nd pin anymore, can they still be used with adaptors with DSLRs?
Is the 2nd pin of the SMC easy to remove? Can they be put back, or is removal permanent? And if they don't have the 2nd pin anymore, can they still be used with adaptors with DSLRs?
Why remove them? I have used these with adapters without any problems. The SMC lenses have a sliding "manual/auto" switch on the base of the barrel - you can just set this on manual. Best thing is to try out your lenses first to see if there is any problem.
I have acquired some of the lenses mentionned by your very nice and helpful comments. I got in m42 the SMC takumar 50/1.4 the SMC 24/3.5, 35/2, 35/3.5, 105m/2.8, and the super takumar 55/1.8.
The ones that yellowed are the 35mm f2 and the fast 1.4 50mm. I have tried putting them under the sun and, they cleared a lot but they are not completely cleared.
I tested each one with my pentax DS and they perform very well, even manually. On a DSLR, the bayonnet K lenses that I have (50/1.4, and 135/2.5) won't work with Aperture Priority mode as they don't stop down manually, they will only work in manual mode, there the m42 mount lenses are superior.
Yes the 85mm seems to be the most expensive but desirable telephoto in the takumar line up. I may have made a mistake but I choose the Jupiter 9 85mm/2 lens as a replacement. I am disapointed with the quality of construction in comparaison to the Takumars that are superb, but also disapointed with it wide open as it is way soft and with low contrast. Maybe it is only suitable in that setting for B&W portraiture. Here some pics of the jupiter 9, the first photo at f4 and then the 105mm 2.8 smc takumar wide open and last is the Jupiter 9 wide open
never needed to remove any pins to work on my k-mount. Lots of folks here are just drill crazy :p
Why remove them? I have used these with adapters without any problems. The SMC lenses have a sliding "manual/auto" switch on the base of the barrel - you can just set this on manual. Best thing is to try out your lenses first to see if there is any problem.
I too would urge restraint in "tampering" with the SMC Takumars which are much less common than Super Takumars, and made with a calibration lug and a moving tab that conveys aperture info to the camera, as well as the standard push-in pin for auto aperture stop-down that is common to all. The SMC lenses are the only ones that allow open-aperture metering with the last of the screw-mount bodies, the models ES, ESII, and SPF.
Users of these Pentax models are particularly keen on having SMC lenses for this reason, though of course all previous Takumars will work too in stop-down metering, less convenient. The compatibility is two-way, as previous thread-mount Pentaxes back to 1957 can also use the SMC lenses though they offer no metering advantage, if a meter is even present.
Why remove them? I have used these with adapters without any problems. The SMC lenses have a sliding "manual/auto" switch on the base of the barrel - you can just set this on manual. Best thing is to try out your lenses first to see if there is any problem.
Coz they can't be used with my Fujica ST705 with the two pins (as Kim mentioned, they'll get stuck on the camera). I've always wanted a fast lens, but from what I hear, the f/1.4 super takumars can't hold a candle the SMC ones. But I don't want to get SMC lens for the Fujica, remove the 2nd pin, and ruin it forever for other cameras like DSLRs, if that's going to happen.
Coz they can't be used with my Fujica ST705 with the two pins (as Kim mentioned, they'll get stuck on the camera). I've always wanted a fast lens, but from what I hear, the f/1.4 super takumars can't hold a candle the SMC ones. But I don't want to get SMC lens for the Fujica, remove the 2nd pin, and ruin it forever for other cameras like DSLRs, if that's going to happen.
The EBC Fujinon lenses are as good, IMHO, and would save you the trouble. They are less common and more sought after on the used market. I would try a 55/1.8 EBC Fujinon, if you can find one.
Consider the depreciated value of a butchered rare SMC lens vs the price of a used ST705 body:
http://cgi.ebay.com/FUJICA-ST-705-35MM-SLR-CAMERA-BODY-GOOD-CONDITION_W0QQitemZ7631285607QQihZ017QQcategoryZ15 241QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Coz they can't be used with my Fujica ST705 with the two pins (as Kim mentioned, they'll get stuck on the camera). I've always wanted a fast lens, but from what I hear, the f/1.4 super takumars can't hold a candle the SMC ones. But I don't want to get SMC lens for the Fujica, remove the 2nd pin, and ruin it forever for other cameras like DSLRs, if that's going to happen.
I have a Pentax SMC K-50mm f/1.4 which is easily the most amazing lens for the price around! It looks the same as a Takumar, including its size (which is much larger than an -M lens), but it's in K-mount. You can't go wrong with a lens like this.
$100 for a lens which should easily be 5x that price? Yeah..
Also, don't forget about the new Pentax lenses. Their limited 31/1.8, 43/1.9 and 77/1.8 are supposed to be close to the best lenses Pentax has ever crafted. I'm not even sure how they make money honestly.
I've always found the following site useful when I'm looking up lenses by Pentax: http://stans-photography.info/LongComments.html
Hope it serves someone as well as it has served me.
zuikologist
07-14-2006, 01:42
Sharp yes, but does not get the same tonal representation on film as do Leica or Zeiss.
I had every one from 21 to 300 mm and they are all gone and I do not miss them one bit. Leica glass is what got me what I wanted and Zeiss is a close second.
You can put Leica, Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss negs on a light table and separate out the Nikon, Canon, and Pentax without a problem. Actually my spouse can do it, and she knows zero about photography.
I have not made the comparison, but many photographers claim very similar characterisitcs for Pentax and Zeiss lenses, possibly due to their collaborations in the 1960's and 1970's.
My own view is that the pentax screw mount lenses are amongst the best of their era. And litle wonder too. They were regarded in this light back then also. While in SLRs, Nikon got all the kudos due to its professional standing, amongst amateurs the pentaxes were king. They produced top quality images and were beautifully made.
Amongst my favourites:
- The 28mm f3.5. Very sharp and very contrasty
- The 50mm f 1.4. A classic shooter.
- The 85mm f1.8. Regarded as one of the best around
- The 105mm f 2.8. I regard as one of the best in the range - right up there wiht the world renowned nikon version that is popular even now.
- The 135 f2.5 Surprisingly sharp for a wider lens in this focal lenght
- The 200 mm f 4 This lens is a cracker. Utterly sharp at virtually all stops. Look a the MTF curves and you would swear its a Leica.
The list goes on. Others swear by some of the cheapies (and because they were cheap and common does not mean they were bad) Usually the opposite in fact: Lenses with moderate specs are usually not only very good if competently made but also cheap to manuafacture and popular for the same reasons. The 35mm f 3.5, the 50mm f 1.8, the 135mm f 3.5 were all excellent lenses and still are. Plus they are CHEAP.
If you want to try Penatx lenses give them a go. You will almost certainly never be disappointed by their results. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) because most of these lenses are relatively cheap and common , say, by comparison with the Nikon equivalents not much is written about them and they tend not to be in huge demand except amongst those lucky people who know the truth.
the only problem with these lenses I have found is that they occasionally develop a sticky diaphragm. But at least this is an inexpensive fix.
I should have added the pentaxes were regarded in their time as being extremely sharp in the centre but not so sharp at the edge. While this may not be so technically sound it worked for most photographers. Many seemed to think that they also rendered their images well. I must drag mine out again and try them once more. My favourite cameraas are actually the pre spotmatics which work fine although they have no metering of course.
I am fortunate enough to own both the SMC version of the 95mm f 1.8 and the early auto takumar version for the pre spotmatic bodies. Both are excellent and I would hate to haev to part with them. But as someone else said, there are many "cheap" M42 lenses by other brands. I also own a well made 21mm f4 by (i think) ozunon or one of the other second string Japanese companies. It is superb. Well made and surprisingly sharp for a cheap ultra wide.
My only slight gripe with pentax is that while you cna get an adapter use th lesnses both on K mount pentaxes and on canons the adapter for the nikon either has to have glass which degrades quality or the lens will not focus at infinity. Nothing you can do about this becasue of body geometry.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.