Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Pentax Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:24 pm    Post subject: Pentax Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet) Reply with quote
Does anyone have experience with this lens?
If so, how does it perform optically?

I've heard there are many Takumar 135 versions.
I'm not sure if this is any good.

Does it worth $50?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is the cheaper version without SMC. It can easily be found on eBay etc. but if I were you I'd choose the SMC Pentax 135/2.5 (or SMC Takumar 135/2.5 if you're into M42 shooting).


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hello,

AFAIK, there are at least two versions of this lens, one with 6 elements, the other (cheapest) one with 5 elements ... If this is the 6 elements version, i think the price is good ...

Hope this helps

Best regards

P.S.: You can determine the type of the lens by looking at its focusing scale: if it has marked 35m just before the infinity symbol, it should be the 6 elements version, if it has marked 30m, instead, it is the 5 elements version ...


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
indianadinos wrote:
Hello,

AFAIK, there are at least two versions of this lens, one with 6 elements, the other (cheapest) one with 5 elements ... If this is the 6 elements version, i think the price is good ...

Hope this helps

Best regards

P.S.: You can determine the type of the lens by looking at its focusing scale: if it has marked 35m just before the infinity symbol, it should be the 6 elements version, if it has marked 30m, instead, it is the 5 elements version ...


Please bear in mind that the original poster is asking about the Takumar Bayonet version. Or do you imply that there are two Takumar Bayonet versions? There are three versions of the M42 135/2.5 which can easily be identified through the product number which is engraved on the Auto/Manual switch.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Bajonet version is always lot cheaper than M42 I had only M42 version. I expect from price not a good lens, but I never tested personally.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It has 25 (meter written with green letter) before infinity, followed by 35 (feet written in blue letter.)

Is this with 5 or 6 element?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had 135mm f2.5 six elements version also not impressed me at all. I thought 3.5 is same or better.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
which adapter should I look for 1DsMKII?
I think I may be able to buy it for $30, so I may as well try it out.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Generally I have good experience with two sellers.

Jinfinance and big_is.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This lens sounds very much like the so-called "non-SMC" Takumar, which have a poor reputation. It has 4 elements in 4 groups.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_135f2.5.html


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So, it's not even worth to try it for $30? Sad Embarassed Crying or Very sad


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
huhging wrote:
So, it's not even worth to try it for $30? Sad Embarassed Crying or Very sad

I'm sorry, I have no direct experience of these non-SMC lenses myself, but you can find pretty scathing reviews if you Google "non-SMC", mostly relating to the zooms though. It seems certain they were a budget range and a big step-down from expected Pentax quality.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
huhging wrote:
So, it's not even worth to try it for $30? Sad Embarassed Crying or Very sad


for 30 dollars, maybe. the Takumar name is synonymous with very high quality regarding the older m42 mount lenses from the 50's through the 70's. when pentax reused the name on its bayonet (K mount lenses) it was the name given to its budget lenses without the SMC coating. optics wise it is fine, it will just be far more prone to flair as it doesn't have SMC. what is your budget for a 135mm? I suppose you cant really go wrong for 30 dollars, there are worse lenses out there. but pentax has made plenty of 135mm lenses over the years, a lot of which can be had quite cheap (Takumar m42) when it comes to K mount they are more expensive, but not ridiculous. except of course the A version which is somewhat elusive. if you want a 135mm prime with the 'A' contacts I don't think the Takumar bayonet is that bad of a choice, but just keep in mind that any of the SMC pentax lenses will give better results.

here are some reviews of the Takumar bayonet: http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showproduct.php?product=223&cat=46

the average prices according to actual lens owners (cant be considered 100% accurate)
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/index.php

Takumar(Bayonet) 135 2,5 = 60 USD
SMC-A 135 2,8 = 125 USD
SMC-M 135 3,5 = 56 USD
SMC Pentax 135 2,5 (original K mount) = 200 USD
SMC Pentax 135 3,5 (original K mount) = 85 USD

I paid 65 USD for my S-M-C Takumar m42 with caps, hood, and case. I paid 90 USD for my SMC-M.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have this (Takumar Bayonet). BTW it does not have the A-contacts. It's the "Takumar-A" which have the A-contacts, I have a 70-200/4 Takumar-A as well.

There is a 135/2.5 and a 135/2.8 version. I have the 2.5 which is what is discussed here.

It does not have SMC coating (I think it is still multi-coated though). At f/2.5 it has amazing CA's Shocked although these are only visible at 100% so for web size images you would not see anything.

However stopped down to f/4 I would say it is about the equal of my SMCP-M 135/3.5 and CZ Jena 135/3.5 wide-open so not bad at all.

I consider the 135/2.5 Takumar Bayonet as an f/4 lens which you can open up to f/2.5 if you need it, so long as you're aware of the problems.

I got mine for $20 though. Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for your kind infos....


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You have two superb cameras can you see differences between them , please consider about old MF lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
huhging,
you already have the voight apo-lanthar and tair-11. maybe add a pentacon or meyer 135 or the canon 135/2L if you're really into 135's?

the takumar bayonet 135 is simply not one of the best 135 lenses, its only claim to fame is the f/2.5 speed...


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My favorite focal length is 85mm, and 135mm.... Very Happy
Although lately i've been playing with Rokkor 58 a lot.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
You have two superb cameras can you see differences between them , please consider about old MF lenses.


Oops, I forgot to change my profile....

I upgraded to 1DsMKII from 5D.
I was thinking about 5DMKII, but I pulled the trigger on a deal I couldn't pass. it's one of the best decision I made.

I feel the IQ from 1DSMKII is lot better. (more film-like)
Also, 100% view finder is so wonderfu. (I don't think I can go back to non-100% view finder anymore.
And 1DsMKII has much less mirror issue with 3rd party manual focus lenses.
And, if you have any AF canon lenses, the AF of 1DsMKII, as you probably know, is on a different level than 5D.
Finally, the build of the camera is just awesome. When I hold 1DsMKII in my hands, it make you feel like a pro.

Don't get me wrong. I think 5D or 5DMKII are wonderful cameras, but trust me, they are NOT 1D-series camera. It's a different ball game.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you! Price tag say what you confirmed.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I own all this stuff and can say the 3,5/135 Smc-takumar is the best ... not far away however .... I hardly put the 135 /2,5 (6 elements version) in my top 10 135mm ... (Apo-telezenitar , j-37, czj 3,5 mc, super-dynarex 4/135 , smc-takumar 3,5/135, smc-takumar 2,5/135 ,Tair-11a ... tamron 2,8/135 bbar, fujinon 3,5, vivitar-komine 2,8/135 , Zenitar 2,8/135 ....)

135mm war is not over , I'm afraid !


Zenitar 135mm :







Ultra-compact lens , made by cosina . , $10 ... what else ? Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice portrait! I guess independent from lens!


PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think that it has gotten a undeserved reputation because it was not made in Japan. I believe it was made in Taiwan and a budget alternative. It is of course not as good as the k-version but i still is a solid performer. I am always amazed by the output when I get home to the computer. Thats the reason I am looking for the k-version, for the extra performace. I also have both m42 and M versions of the 135 3.5 to compare to.

Wide open Takumar (bayonet) 135mm 2,5



A 100%crop from another photo. If it is so bad at CA, it should show up here I guess.



The whole picture



No Post Processing at all, on both.
/Jan
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1