Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Pentax takumar 135mm f2.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:53 pm    Post subject: Pentax takumar 135mm f2.5 Reply with quote

Just won the ebay auction

so pictures soon!

Guido

Click here to see on Ebay


Last edited by Jigt on Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:13 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Man it was so cheap ! Congratulation!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From sellers description and according to Bojidar Dimitrovs' Site
it's a non-SMC Takumar 135/2.5 (Bayonet)

http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/_non-SMC/tak_135f2.5.html

Because of that, the lens description was hided by seller. Rolling Eyes

The price is OK, but not that cheap. Wink

Cheers
Hasan


PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 9:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First I did not wont to bid because its a non SMC lens.

But this convinced me.

Guido




http://stans-photography.info/


PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have SMC Takumar 135mm f/3.5 M42 and non SMC Super-Takumar 135mm f/3.5 M42. I tell you I didn't find any difference between them. You made a great bargain. I suppose this is a great lens I can't wait for test shoots.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
I have SMC Takumar 135mm f/3.5 M42 and non SMC Super-Takumar 135mm f/3.5 M42. I tell you I didn't find any difference between them. You made a great bargain. I suppose this is a great lens I can't wait for test shoots.


Hi Atilla, hi Jigt!
First of all, sorry I didn't want to badmouth something. Embarassed

Atilla, your lenses are both M42 screwmounts,
and are known to be good performer.
But the Takumar(PK-bayonet), we are talking about
were the uncoated cheap lens-line, Pentax came out with after 1975.

These should be avoided, because they perform miserably -
compared to every SMC or non-SMC screwmount Pentax lens.

The only thing they share, is just the name "Takumar".

Here's a interesting Thread about non-SMC Takumars(bayonet)
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CLSc

Jigt, at stansphotography, most users advise against buying that lens.


Cheers
Hasan


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyway, he got the lens for under 15,-.
Even if the lens was not that good, it wouldn't be too bad, would it?

Try it, maybe it's better than many think. If not, sell it again, I believe that you won't lose money...

Carsten


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I cant lose much with my 15 euro risk.

I have read the reviews at stan's page and others on the net.

Special on this lens is that she is quitte soft wide open and becomming rather sharp at 5.6. I see this lens more in the sence as a portrait lens and I think its build for that.

I have bought several lenses and had them sold again after some test.

One thing I learned about reviews that there is nothing more important then your own experience.

Let the (my) results decide.


Guido


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jigt wrote:
...Let the (my) results decide.


Exactly!!!


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guys, I already wrote before, I don't want to badmouth a lens.

Just wanted to correct a information.
which probably could be/and is important for newcomers.

So, if this is forbidden, I won't bother in future. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I made an error in the Title off this topic, gues thats what you mean.

In anyway no offence.

Guido


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hasan, don't worry!
I guess all kind of information, even if it is not that nice for an owner of a lens, is welcome here.

Some of us just follow the idea that not only buying excellent (and well tested) lenses is fun, especially if you can get a decent lens for a good price.

Furthermore, meanwhile I have realised that I sometimes like lenses very much which others (even the majority) thinks are crap.
I just like the lens' "personality". So the best test for you is done by yourself.

Still, please do not hesitate to provide information. That's what we all are here for!

Carsten


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hasan wrote:
Guys, I already wrote before, I don't want to badmouth a lens.

Just wanted to correct a information.
which probably could be/and is important for newcomers.

So, if this is forbidden, I won't bother in future. Rolling Eyes


hasan, thanks for your information on this lens. I admit I was confused by the title of this thread. I'd never heard of any "non-SMC" Takumar lenses and you cleared this up for me. [edit: I now see the SMC in the thread title has been removed Smile]

The old "Auto Takumar" and "Super Takumar" lenses obviously don't have SMC in their name because multi-coating hadn't been invented. The first multi-coated lenses were called "Super-Multi-Coated Takumar" (abbreviated to S-M-C) and then when the bayonet K-mount was released the lenses became "smc Pentax", in lower case and dropping the Takumar name.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My mistake,

I type accidently SMC in the text sorry.

guido


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you very much Hasan to open our eyes, I didn't think about P/K bayonet lenses worst than with M42 screw.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hasan wrote:
Guys, I already wrote before, I don't want to badmouth a lens.

Just wanted to correct a information.
which probably could be/and is important for newcomers.

So, if this is forbidden, I won't bother in future. Rolling Eyes


This forum is land of freedom Smile you can say anything what you think about photo related gears. This site is not connected to any lens maker. Sometimes we have different opinion from same stuff that is normal no problem at all.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

two K versions of this lens. one smc,58mm filter is an outstanding lens. this one takes a 52mm filter and is non-smc. i had one for awhile but really didn't need another paper weight. the reason it's cheap is because it is. i found it to be unacceptable until stopped down to a point that it defeated the reason for having it. it's fast speed. i've been a pentax fan for over 30 years and why they ever offered this lens is beyond me.
hope your copy is better than mine.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had this lens myself (years ago before dslr hit the market).
I have the K 2.5/135 SMC too and on film-slr the difference was obvious.
Then I found (somewehere in the internet.....) a guy who proved that on dslr the difference isn't that big anymore (god only knows why....):
His pics proved his writing.
On my Pentax DS the K 2.5 isn't that good anymore as with film-slr.
I just don't use it outside or for big distances anymore now but only as a portrait-lens. The bokeh is quite nice....

As for the lens that was bought:
Still really good build quality, built-in lens hood (not like the K 2.5 SMC-Version...), light-weight (you carry a light-weight lens much more often than a heavy one - don't you?).
I really liked the lens!


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thx for sharing you eperience Paul, I have been reading something similar so i took the risk. 15 is not exactly a big risk.

Guido


PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hasan wrote:
Guys, I already wrote before, I don't want to badmouth a lens.
Just wanted to correct a information.
which probably could be/and is important for newcomers.
So, if this is forbidden, I won't bother in future. Rolling Eyes


All opinions are and will always be welcome, Hasan. Both positive and negative.
So please keep sharing yours.
This is a free place and such will stay. Smile


PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The lens arived today,

Good condition at firts look, but the diafragma does not move or moves to slow. There is oil on the blades. I mailed the seller and see what happens.

I made a test shot wide open. Normal things like levels and light USM after resizing.



PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2007 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Can you put a 100% crop from focused part. It will be help to get impression from the lens, now I can get impression from your composition what is great but not from the lens quality.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Made you some new pictures because it was dificult to judge the other one.
wide open at iso 800!
full size only levels corrected. (6 Mega pxls)

http://home.scarlet.be/geystersveld/forum/135__25.jpg

and a 100 % from the center

Guido