Super Takumar Serial Number Year Chart
LINK ->>->>->> https://shoxet.com/2t7EhJ
You can identify this cheap American version by serial numbers beginning with 4, and only focussing to 2'/0.6m. If you have one of these in-hand you'll see that the focus ring is all plastic, as is the aperture ring.
The lens starts with serial number 37x, which means it was made by Tokina. This macro is marked 1:1, but I think I am only getting about 1:2, I think there might be a matching converter that I am missing. The filter threads are 58mm, and the lens is a 8 element in 6 group design, with fixed elements at the rear. It weighs a hefty 615g (21.7 oz). Diaphragm has 8 blades, that have a very slight curve at wide apertures, and straighter stepped down to smaller apertures. Minimum focus distance is 0.35m (13.9 in). Remember that I am photographing a normal subject chart at approximately 1:54 magnification, not a 1:1 chart so performance could differ for macro subjects.
On 6 September 1965 I bought a 400 mm f/8 Soligor telephoto lens, serialnumber T 393329 and a 3× Soligor teleconverter. I don't know what happened to the lens; Ithink that it must have been stolen from our house.
Then in August 2010, I bought an SMC Macro-Takumar 50 mm f/4 macro lens, serial number 4417366, along with the second Pentax SV mentioned above. It's clearly much later and presumably works (possibly with adaptor) in newer Pentax bodies:
On 14 July 2018, along with the Asahi Pentax KM, I received an SMC Pentax 55 mm f/1.8 lens (presumably the same optics as the 55 mm Super-Takumar that I got with my first Pentax SV), serial number 1245598.
On 23 April 2014 I boughther an Olympus E-PM2, serial number BGT501312, with an M.Zuiko Digital14-42 mm f/3.5-5.6 II R lens, serial number ABH956018. This is quite closely related tomy Olympus OM-D E-M1, but it's much smaller. Unfortunately, it's still not as small as the Canon it replaces:
The description and photos are representative of the item you will receive - of course, if you're looking for a specific version, or serial number, feel free to get in touch and ask us for more details.
I recently purchased a GQ GMC-320Plus Geiger Muller Counter, and finally got around to passing it over most of my lenses and actually measuring any lenses that seemed likely to be radioactive. Thus, I'm now listing μSv/h measured front:back in My Lenses page along with partial serial numbers.
I've had my 645super for many years now and it's my favorite camera to use. The meter on mine is fantastic and really easy to read. I'm constantly on the look out for a Mamiya 7 or 7ii but prices keep going up.
It has a negative large enough to make 20" prints. I have a RB but it is so heavy I can't walk with it out of a backpack but the 645 pro tl with wlf and manual film advance is light enough to carry over a shoulder or around the neck. If I really want the most resolutioin I need, I will use the RB but it primarly lives in studio. If I need portrait mode, the 645 elf is small and fits in my bag. With 3 backs, portra, hp5 at 1600, I canload the third back with hp4 at 80, or ilford 3200 at 1600 depending on mood of shot or how much detail I want. In 35mm I tend to carry a 35, 85 and 135 and right now instead of the 35 equivalent 55 mm, I have the 50 mm equiv 80 that is tiny and light weight but super sharp instead of a 35. After 62 years of shooting it is my absolute favorite because it adapts so well. And in studio, with the 210 it is amazing. My initial reason for a 645 is I like the way 3200 film grain is rendered on that size. But since I have a 24" printer, it allows me to print my work at all sizes I like.
In practice, when new, the lens is an improvement from the general group of 70-300mm lenses that many users will be upgrading from and the reputation that the lens has acquired is, for the most part, well deserved. It is only with the higher demands of digital capture, where everything gets inspected at 100% or more that some aspects of the design have come into question. Having said that, the example supplied by Canon for this test, serial number 200225, showed poor resolution even to the naked eye. There are also some CA problems with this particular optic.
I have been using Leicaflex cameras and lenses for 50 years now, and I am still amazed. I have a copy of the revised 50mm Summilux-R from 1997, and it is better than the 1969 version which I previously owned. That lens (1969 version) was in every way superior to the Nikkor discussed here. 2b1af7f3a8