Takumar Bayonet 135mm F2.5 Asahi Opt. Co.

[edumad]

Went to shoot some trail runners at an event and ended up disregarding the Pentax 18-55mm WR and the Sigma 17-70mm for this lens.
I was just having to much fun, so stuck to 135mm. Its limiting but what it does, it does well.

With a bit of luck and slow moving on their part I managed to grab some decent shots.

IMGP5273 by eduardodourado, on Flickr

IMGP5274 by eduardodourado, on Flickr

With a lens that has this on the back element:
IMGP5077 by eduardodourado, on Flickr

Some low contrast and PF at wide apertures are its flaws, but the results are great otherwise. Not the sharpest 135mm I've tried but pretty good and sharper than the my AF lenses most of the time.

I seem to remember it not being very well regarded, so I think I should give it some praise.

[Gardener]

It's a decent lens that often gets bad rap from people who don't own one.

[newst]

I have three Takumar 135mm lenses. The Bayonet 135/2.5, a small preset m42 model 135/3.5 and the big M42 135/2.5. The bayonet and preset lenses are much more fun to use than the big 2.5 and I get better photos when I use them.

[philslizzy]

I've got one of these and don't think I've ever used it. You CAN have too many really good 135's.

[visualopsins]

After using M42 S-M-C 2.5/135 version 2, and SMC Pentax 2.5/135, for years, Pentax decides to take advantage of popular & revered "Takumar" name, selling inferior lenses -- hence the deserved bad rap from that generation who owned the previous Takumars.

Are there any bad f/2.8 135mm? There are so many that are good it seems like no. The M42 S-M-C 2.5/135 version 2, and SMC Pentax 2.5/135 are in a different class altogether, not fair to compare. The Takumar K mount doesn't have enough lens elements to be sharp wide open, like all the previous generation of Takumars with good reputation.

[memetph]

Not enough lens elements to be sharp wide open ? This lens has 4 elements and it is possible to make sharp tele lenses with 4 elements. My Rokkor MD 135mm 2.8 is a good example and there are others.

[TrueLoveOne]

Imho, this lens has a bad reputation because of the fact that people do compare it with it's better coated Pentax brothers.

I think this "bad rep" is mainly a story created on the net. My copy was sharp enough wide open, i enjoyed using it, even if there are better 135s out there. There are always better lenses, but that doesn't make a good lens bad!

Some examples, first one wide open, shot with NEX3. Others are on film, i do not remember the used aperture.

1.
The sound of analogue by René Maly, on Flickr

2.
Bike by René Maly, on Flickr

3.
Solitude by René Maly, on Flickr

4.
Phonecall by René Maly, on Flickr

[visualopsins]

[stevemark]

[Lloydy]

I really like my 135 / 2.5 Bayonet - it's the only 2.5 I've got, but I do have 18 135 / 2.8's, and the Takumar is up there with the best of them such as the Yashica ML, Rokkor and the Pentacon Electric.

The Takumar Bayonet is a much maligned lens, I don't doubt the later version is a better lens, but that certainly doesn't make this version a bad lens.

[visualopsins]

[D1N0]

It is soft at 2.5 but mainly near infinity and sunny conditions

[papasito]