Macro-Takumar 50mm f4 (native 1:1 magnification)

Nick Siebers · 03-11-2009, 12:13 PM

Oh, the focus ring spun round without any effect on the lens, the aperture rings were hanging so loosely that they could be gently pulled about 3-4mm apart, giving view to the interior of the lens; and they would not turn at all to open or close the diaphragm. Plus the glass was dirty as heck, as one might expect. I worked at it a little, though, and it seemed function could be restored, so I dropped it off at my local camera repair place. They said another $70 to clean and repair, so not such a bargain but hopefully still a good lens out the other end. No response from the seller, of course. :-(

Blue · 03-11-2009, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

Oh, the focus ring spun round without any effect on the lens, the aperture rings were hanging so loosely that they could be gently pulled about 3-4mm apart, giving view to the interior of the lens; and they would not turn at all to open or close the diaphragm. Plus the glass was dirty as heck, as one might expect. I worked at it a little, though, and it seemed function could be restored, so I dropped it off at my local camera repair place. They said another $70 to clean and repair, so not such a bargain but hopefully still a good lens out the other end. No response from the seller, of course. :-(

Reward the seller with a negative feedback.

arpaagent · 03-11-2009, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

Oh, the focus ring spun round without any effect on the lens, the aperture rings were hanging so loosely that they could be gently pulled about 3-4mm apart, giving view to the interior of the lens; and they would not turn at all to open or close the diaphragm. Plus the glass was dirty as heck, as one might expect. I worked at it a little, though, and it seemed function could be restored, so I dropped it off at my local camera repair place. They said another $70 to clean and repair, so not such a bargain but hopefully still a good lens out the other end. No response from the seller, of course. :-(

Wow that sucks. I empathize with you, and how you must have felt when you opened the box

. I received one package with some decent gear (M40, M135, M50), but only to realize they were all heavily infested with fungi. Luckily in that case, the seller was very understanding and allowed me to return the items. Hopefully you will be able to do that in this case, as it sounds to be pretty rough.

Good luck resolving this issue,
-Jim

Zewrak · 03-11-2009, 12:49 PM

Tried to tighten the screws on the focus ring? Also screw out the the filterring. Its a long conical one that loosen quite easily, under it there are 4 small screws if i remember correctly that probably needs tightening.

rowan57 · 03-11-2009, 01:00 PM

Is the SMC (M42) version as good as the original non-SMC? Also, does it have the same aperture shape at f8?

Cheers
Rowan

(First post, Woot!)

Ahh had i done my research first i would have known the SMC version doesn't go to 1:1 and doesnt have the 8-elements that the original has, nevermind, keep looking i guess.

X Man · 03-11-2009, 01:17 PM

No, no, no, no no. There's a system in place at ebay and Paypal that is for just such occasions. The item is obviously unusable and sounds like rubbish. It's not up to you to spend an extra $70 to hopefully, repair it. Furthermore, dropping it off for repair may hinder returning it or getting reimbursed for it.

Still, you should do what you should have done immediately when unable to contact the seller, file a dispute with paypal via ebay for "item significantly not as described". Wait about 3 days for a response from seller. Escalate to a Paypal "Claim". Wait another week and if seller doesn't respond you automatically get all your money back. If contact is made you'll need to provide PP with some more evidence. They'll tell you what you need.

The whole process will take under 30 days. That's what the system is in place for, use it.

Oh, and leave negative feedback.

Regards,
Mike

Originally posted by Nick Siebers

... They said another $70 to clean and repair, so not such a bargain but hopefully still a good lens out the other end. No response from the seller, of course. :-(

**Just1MoreDave** · 03-11-2009, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by rowan57

Is the SMC (M42) version as good as the original non-SMC? Also, does it have the same aperture shape at f8?

Cheers
Rowan

(First post, Woot!)

Ahh had i done my research first i would have known the SMC version doesn't go to 1:1 and doesnt have the 8-elements that the original has, nevermind, keep looking i guess.

Also these lenses have the front element recessed so far, it's effectively always using a hood. That helps reduce the need for flare-resistant coatings.

Nick Siebers · 03-11-2009, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Reward the seller with a negative feedback.

It is surprising to me that someone would be willing to get bad feedback for a measly $70, but so it goes. I wasn't that upset, I mean I had already done the math: Out-of-focus picture + minimal description + a random "lens sold as is" just underneath where it says "7 day return period" with "money back" = possibly a scam. But she had a lot of good feedback. I suppose I could do something with PayPal to get my money back, but it seems the lens will prove salvageable. Here's hoping!

troyz · 03-12-2009, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by rowan57

Is the SMC (M42) version as good as the original non-SMC? Also, does it have the same aperture shape at f8?

Cheers
Rowan

(First post, Woot!)

Ahh had i done my research first i would have known the SMC version doesn't go to 1:1 and doesnt have the 8-elements that the original has, nevermind, keep looking i guess.

Welcome to the forum!

Actually, all the Pentax 50mm/f4 macro lenses have a similar (Tessar-type) optical design, and differ primarily in coatings and mechanical details.

Die Cast Pro - Macro-Takumar 50mm f/4.0 1:1

That being said, IMHO the preset screwmount version is damn good looking.

Someone really ought to start a "Tessar-type" club to get all the Pentax 50 macro/Volna/Industar/Tessar people together!

Sorry to hear about Nick's bad e-bay experience. I think X-man's policy is good (except that I wouldn't enter any e-bay feedback while still trying to negotiate a return with the seller; the e-bay feedback is the only leverage you've got).

X Man · 03-12-2009, 10:26 AM

Thanks, but I'd leave the negative after warning the seller I was planning on doing so, in order to give them one last shot at resolution. Otherwise, you'd only attempt further contact with the seller to bolster the PayPal dispute/claim. Leaving a well deserved negative shouldn't have any unwanted effect on the Paypal case and it actually might help prove that you're serious.

Regards,
Mike

Originally posted by troyz

I think X-man's policy is good (except that I wouldn't enter any e-bay feedback while still trying to negotiate a return with the seller; the e-bay feedback is the only leverage you've got).

rowan57 · 03-12-2009, 12:03 PM

Hmmm i might look into one of the 50/4's then, i want a new macro, gotta love M42 though!

Nick Siebers · 03-12-2009, 07:20 PM

As an update, late today they wrote with an address to where I could return it. The reply comes over 72 hours after I first wrote them, but it lessens my bad feeling about their operation. They didn't make any guarantee of condition, just of return. I may just give a neutral feedback, after all.

And the repair people were quite optimistic it could be restored to good condition. So here's hoping!

rowan57, I will strongly recommend any of the Super-Macro-Takumar 50mm f/4, the SMC M macro 50mm f/4, or the Sears/Soligor m42 55mm f/2.8 macro. I think someone is selling one of the latter on the marketplace right now. And yes, I have a LBA problem. :-)

rowan57 · 03-13-2009, 08:34 AM

Cheers Nick, im definitely looking more at the M42 mount Tak's, i love the M42, its such a solid sensible mount!

emr · 03-23-2009, 10:15 AM

As I'm still waiting for mine to arrive, I'd like to ask whether this lens is OK wide open? Or does the picture quality demand usually stepping down a stop or two?

arpaagent · 03-23-2009, 11:40 AM

From what I've shot with it, the lens is quite sharp wide open (as a lot of macros are). I did some macro shots this weekend (some with this lens) that I hope to get up here pretty soon. I didn't do a lot of wide open shots b/c the DOF is tiny for macro at only f/4, but I think I have a few that I could share...or could take a few this afternoon if I get home before it gets dark.

-Jim

03-11-2009, 01:00 PM	#20
rowan57 New Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 19	Is the SMC (M42) version as good as the original non-SMC? Also, does it have the same aperture shape at f8? Cheers Rowan (First post, Woot!) Ahh had i done my research first i would have known the SMC version doesn't go to 1:1 and doesnt have the 8-elements that the original has, nevermind, keep looking i guess. Last edited by rowan57; 03-11-2009 at 01:08 PM. Reason: Not research enough!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Macro Takumar f/4 50mm	Asudef	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	02-17-2012 07:45 AM
[macro] Computing magnification?	miks	Photographic Technique	7	10-25-2010 05:42 AM
For Sale - Sold: Macro-Takumar 50mm f4 (native 1:1 magnification)	arpaagent	Sold Items	2	04-12-2009 08:24 PM
For Sale - Sold: Super Macro Takumar 50mm, Super Takumar 200mm, F 35-80mm Lenses	Nick Siebers	Sold Items	4	02-01-2009 08:56 PM
Macro Magnification	ccallana	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	04-20-2007 03:03 PM

03-11-2009, 12:13 PM	#16
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	Oh, the focus ring spun round without any effect on the lens, the aperture rings were hanging so loosely that they could be gently pulled about 3-4mm apart, giving view to the interior of the lens; and they would not turn at all to open or close the diaphragm. Plus the glass was dirty as heck, as one might expect. I worked at it a little, though, and it seemed function could be restored, so I dropped it off at my local camera repair place. They said another $70 to clean and repair, so not such a bargain but hopefully still a good lens out the other end. No response from the seller, of course. :-(

03-11-2009, 12:17 PM	#17
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Nick Siebers Oh, the focus ring spun round without any effect on the lens, the aperture rings were hanging so loosely that they could be gently pulled about 3-4mm apart, giving view to the interior of the lens; and they would not turn at all to open or close the diaphragm. Plus the glass was dirty as heck, as one might expect. I worked at it a little, though, and it seemed function could be restored, so I dropped it off at my local camera repair place. They said another $70 to clean and repair, so not such a bargain but hopefully still a good lens out the other end. No response from the seller, of course. :-( Reward the seller with a negative feedback.

03-11-2009, 12:35 PM	#18
arpaagent Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Raleigh, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 803 Original Poster	Originally posted by Nick Siebers Oh, the focus ring spun round without any effect on the lens, the aperture rings were hanging so loosely that they could be gently pulled about 3-4mm apart, giving view to the interior of the lens; and they would not turn at all to open or close the diaphragm. Plus the glass was dirty as heck, as one might expect. I worked at it a little, though, and it seemed function could be restored, so I dropped it off at my local camera repair place. They said another $70 to clean and repair, so not such a bargain but hopefully still a good lens out the other end. No response from the seller, of course. :-( Wow that sucks. I empathize with you, and how you must have felt when you opened the box . I received one package with some decent gear (M40, M135, M50), but only to realize they were all heavily infested with fungi. Luckily in that case, the seller was very understanding and allowed me to return the items. Hopefully you will be able to do that in this case, as it sounds to be pretty rough. Good luck resolving this issue, -Jim

03-11-2009, 12:49 PM	#19
Zewrak Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Nowhere, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 654	Tried to tighten the screws on the focus ring? Also screw out the the filterring. Its a long conical one that loosen quite easily, under it there are 4 small screws if i remember correctly that probably needs tightening.

03-11-2009, 01:17 PM	#21
X Man Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 478	No, no, no, no no. There's a system in place at ebay and Paypal that is for just such occasions. The item is obviously unusable and sounds like rubbish. It's not up to you to spend an extra $70 to hopefully, repair it. Furthermore, dropping it off for repair may hinder returning it or getting reimbursed for it. Still, you should do what you should have done immediately when unable to contact the seller, file a dispute with paypal via ebay for "item significantly not as described". Wait about 3 days for a response from seller. Escalate to a Paypal "Claim". Wait another week and if seller doesn't respond you automatically get all your money back. If contact is made you'll need to provide PP with some more evidence. They'll tell you what you need. The whole process will take under 30 days. That's what the system is in place for, use it. Oh, and leave negative feedback. Regards, Mike Originally posted by Nick Siebers ... They said another $70 to clean and repair, so not such a bargain but hopefully still a good lens out the other end. No response from the seller, of course. :-(

03-11-2009, 01:33 PM	#22
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by rowan57 Is the SMC (M42) version as good as the original non-SMC? Also, does it have the same aperture shape at f8? Cheers Rowan (First post, Woot!) Ahh had i done my research first i would have known the SMC version doesn't go to 1:1 and doesnt have the 8-elements that the original has, nevermind, keep looking i guess. Also these lenses have the front element recessed so far, it's effectively always using a hood. That helps reduce the need for flare-resistant coatings.

03-11-2009, 02:41 PM	#23
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	Originally posted by Blue Reward the seller with a negative feedback. It is surprising to me that someone would be willing to get bad feedback for a measly $70, but so it goes. I wasn't that upset, I mean I had already done the math: Out-of-focus picture + minimal description + a random "lens sold as is" just underneath where it says "7 day return period" with "money back" = possibly a scam. But she had a lot of good feedback. I suppose I could do something with PayPal to get my money back, but it seems the lens will prove salvageable. Here's hoping!

03-12-2009, 10:12 AM	#24
troyz Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 389	Originally posted by rowan57 Is the SMC (M42) version as good as the original non-SMC? Also, does it have the same aperture shape at f8? Cheers Rowan (First post, Woot!) Ahh had i done my research first i would have known the SMC version doesn't go to 1:1 and doesnt have the 8-elements that the original has, nevermind, keep looking i guess. Welcome to the forum! Actually, all the Pentax 50mm/f4 macro lenses have a similar (Tessar-type) optical design, and differ primarily in coatings and mechanical details. Die Cast Pro - Macro-Takumar 50mm f/4.0 1:1 That being said, IMHO the preset screwmount version is damn good looking. Someone really ought to start a "Tessar-type" club to get all the Pentax 50 macro/Volna/Industar/Tessar people together! Sorry to hear about Nick's bad e-bay experience. I think X-man's policy is good (except that I wouldn't enter any e-bay feedback while still trying to negotiate a return with the seller; the e-bay feedback is the only leverage you've got).

03-12-2009, 10:26 AM	#25
X Man Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 478	Thanks, but I'd leave the negative after warning the seller I was planning on doing so, in order to give them one last shot at resolution. Otherwise, you'd only attempt further contact with the seller to bolster the PayPal dispute/claim. Leaving a well deserved negative shouldn't have any unwanted effect on the Paypal case and it actually might help prove that you're serious. Regards, Mike Originally posted by troyz I think X-man's policy is good (except that I wouldn't enter any e-bay feedback while still trying to negotiate a return with the seller; the e-bay feedback is the only leverage you've got).

03-12-2009, 12:03 PM	#26
rowan57 New Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 19	Hmmm i might look into one of the 50/4's then, i want a new macro, gotta love M42 though!

03-12-2009, 07:20 PM	#27
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	As an update, late today they wrote with an address to where I could return it. The reply comes over 72 hours after I first wrote them, but it lessens my bad feeling about their operation. They didn't make any guarantee of condition, just of return. I may just give a neutral feedback, after all. And the repair people were quite optimistic it could be restored to good condition. So here's hoping! rowan57, I will strongly recommend any of the Super-Macro-Takumar 50mm f/4, the SMC M macro 50mm f/4, or the Sears/Soligor m42 55mm f/2.8 macro. I think someone is selling one of the latter on the marketplace right now. And yes, I have a LBA problem. :-)

03-13-2009, 08:34 AM	#28
rowan57 New Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 19	Cheers Nick, im definitely looking more at the M42 mount Tak's, i love the M42, its such a solid sensible mount!

03-23-2009, 10:15 AM	#29
emr Guest	As I'm still waiting for mine to arrive, I'd like to ask whether this lens is OK wide open? Or does the picture quality demand usually stepping down a stop or two?

03-23-2009, 11:40 AM	#30
arpaagent Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Raleigh, NC Photos: Gallery Posts: 803 Original Poster	From what I've shot with it, the lens is quite sharp wide open (as a lot of macros are). I did some macro shots this weekend (some with this lens) that I hope to get up here pretty soon. I didn't do a lot of wide open shots b/c the DOF is tiny for macro at only f/4, but I think I have a few that I could share...or could take a few this afternoon if I get home before it gets dark. -Jim