View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2483
|
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Ultrapix wrote: |
D1N0 wrote: |
The takumar Bayonet has a terrible glow to it when shot wide open in bright sunlight.
F2.5 by The lens profile, on Flickr (this was on aps-c) |
I wonder if there were more versions of this lens, because the one I had (for a few days) did not show this trend at all, unless in less contrasting conditions it masked it well |
There was a made in Japan version that is more rare. Most were made in Taiwan. But it is still single coated and too compact for a 2.5. _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
The Takumar 2,5/135 had not the SMC. Well. Does it mean that the coated is the same than the older Super Takumar lenses?
In this case, the 2,5/135 super takumar v.1 didn't produce that glow nor that terrible CA |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ultrapix
Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 547 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ultrapix wrote:
Such a glow has little to see with coating, being the spherical aberration the main cause |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
It's not strange the bayonet (4 el) Takumar performs less then the m42 Super Multi Coated 135/2.5 or the Pentax 'K' version. Many corners were cut to make it a cheap lens, this was definitely was not the case with the other two lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10463 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
papasito wrote: |
The Takumar 2,5/135 had not the SMC. Well. Does it mean that the coated is the same than the older Super Takumar lenses?
In this case, the 2,5/135 super takumar v.1 didn't produce that glow nor that terrible CA |
I don't think so, but you never can tell, Pentax Forums says the Bayonet has "non-SMC", and, the Super-Takumar 1:2.5/135 has a 5/4 formula while the Pentax (Bayonet) 1:2.5/135 has a 4/4 formula...
PS There is no "Takumar 2,/135". _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
....... the Super-Takumar 1:2.5/135 has a 5/4 formula while the Pentax (Bayonet) 1:2.5/135 has a 4/4 formula... |
The Konica 135/2,5 has 4/4 formula too and never produced that glow. Quality is not always quantity
visualopsins wrote: |
------PS There is no "Takumar 2,/135". |
Ohhhh...
I apologice. I always believed that Takumar (bayonet) was 2,5/135 mm lens |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7776 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
The Takumar 2,5/135 had not the SMC. Well. Does it mean that the coated is the same than the older Super Takumar lenses?
In this case, the 2,5/135 super takumar v.1 didn't produce that glow nor that terrible CA |
I don't think so, but you never can tell, Pentax Forums says the Bayonet has "non-SMC", and, the Super-Takumar 1:2.5/135 has a 5/4 formula while the Pentax (Bayonet) 1:2.5/135 has a 4/4 formula...
PS There is no "Takumar 2,/135". |
I think this is right, the coating of the 'Bayonet' lens is certainly different to the SMC and Siuper Multi Coated Takumars that I have. I think there might have been a version of this simpler lens with SMC, but I might be wrong? I haven't tried any brutal testing in bright sunshine yet, but in normal situations it seems very good. I also want to test it against a SMC 135 to judge the colour rendition to see if the coating makes a visual difference. From the limited use I've given this lens, it's looking like a very under rated bargain lens. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2483
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
The Takumar Bayonet looks similar to the SMC Pentax-A 135mm 1:2.8 (although that lens was introduced three years later).
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-A-135mm-F2.8-Lens.html
But It weighs 55 grams more than the Pentax-A. There is a later Takumar Bayonet 135mm F2.8 That has the same weight as the Pentax-A version.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-Takumar-135mm-F2.8-Bayonet-Lens.html _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Lloydy wrote: |
visualopsins wrote: |
papasito wrote: |
The Takumar 2,5/135 had not the SMC. Well. Does it mean that the coated is the same than the older Super Takumar lenses?
In this case, the 2,5/135 super takumar v.1 didn't produce that glow nor that terrible CA |
I don't think so, but you never can tell, Pentax Forums says the Bayonet has "non-SMC", and, the Super-Takumar 1:2.5/135 has a 5/4 formula while the Pentax (Bayonet) 1:2.5/135 has a 4/4 formula...
PS There is no "Takumar 2,/135". |
I think this is right, the coating of the 'Bayonet' lens is certainly different to the SMC and Siuper Multi Coated Takumars that I have. I think there might have been a version of this simpler lens with SMC, but I might be wrong? I haven't tried any brutal testing in bright sunshine yet, but in normal situations it seems very good. I also want to test it against a SMC 135 to judge the colour rendition to see if the coating makes a visual difference. From the limited use I've given this lens, it's looking like a very under rated bargain lens. |
I’ve read mixed reviews of this lens, some positive some negative. Can you show some wide open shots with strong highlights? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10463 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
How does Takumar (Bayonet) compare to the 4/4 formula Tamron 03B we know and like?
Edited: damn in-line spell checker "corrected" Takumar to Yakima. I don't know any Yakima lens! _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10463 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
papasito wrote: |
visualopsins wrote: |
....... the Super-Takumar 1:2.5/135 has a 5/4 formula while the Pentax (Bayonet) 1:2.5/135 has a 4/4 formula... |
The Konica 135/2,5 has 4/4 formula too and never produced that glow. Quality is not always quantity
visualopsins wrote: |
------PS There is no "Takumar 2,/135". |
Ohhhh...
I apologice. I always believed that Takumar (bayonet) was 2,5/135 mm lens |
No apology necessary! Except from me...I meant 2,5/135 not 2,/135...including the (Bayonet) part of the name helps distinguish from the older M42 Takumars named simply "Takumar". _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
55
Joined: 13 May 2013 Posts: 700 Location: U.S.
Expire: 2022-06-15
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:29 am Post subject: Re: Pentax SMC K 135/2,5 (MM version) or 85/1,8 |
|
|
55 wrote:
papasito wrote: |
. . .
The 85 goes for 250 bucks, and the 135 for 150.
None cheap, high cost |
papasito wrote: |
I used in film times the SMC 135/2,5. Very sharp with strong longitudinal CA
it is said that this lens in K version improved the LoCA |
In your film days, did you use the "Super-Multi-Coated" Takumar 135 f/2.5 - with metal focus grip?
I've used both the "S-M-C" Takumar and the SMC (K mount) 135 f/2.5s. And while I don't have any examples to demonstrate, I don't believe the SMC K shows lower CA than the Takumar.
Personally, when I'm in doubt, I let my wallet decide. I'd keep watching and wait for a lower price on the 85. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
55
Joined: 13 May 2013 Posts: 700 Location: U.S.
Expire: 2022-06-15
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
55 wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
How does Takumar (Bayonet) compare to the 4/4 formula Tamron 03B we know and like?
. . . |
Among my copies, the Tamron is sharper wide open and has more contrast.
visualopsins wrote: |
. . .
Edited: damn in-line spell checker "corrected" Takumar to Yakima. I don't know any Yakima lens! |
"Asahi (Pentax) Opt Co Yakima’s 1:5.6/200 Mm Lens,Japan With Leather Case."
Click here to see on Ebay
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
@papasito
I may have a K 135/2.5 I'm willing to part with, as i have the Takumar as well. PM me when interested. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10463 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
55 wrote: |
visualopsins wrote: |
How does Takumar (Bayonet) compare to the 4/4 formula Tamron 03B we know and like?
. . . |
Among my copies, the Tamron is sharper wide open and has more contrast.
visualopsins wrote: |
. . .
Edited: damn in-line spell checker "corrected" Takumar to Yakima. I don't know any Yakima lens! |
"Asahi (Pentax) Opt Co Yakima’s 1:5.6/200 Mm Lens,Japan With Leather Case."
Click here to see on Ebay
|
_________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
victor9000
Joined: 03 Nov 2014 Posts: 2 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
victor9000 wrote:
My M42 135/f2.5 doen't have any of these problems. Maybe it's because the interior side facing the camera is all black.
I had similar problems with 'shiny' lens adapters on some other lenses.
I fixed them by applying black anti-reflex colour to the surface. I use the same colour I have for my telescopes. Sometoimes
Another way would be to apply self-adhesive black velvet foil to the glaring parts, if possible.
Walter _________________ Cam:EOS 100d, 7d & 5dII, Zenith 12s, Pentax Spotmatic SP, Revueflex 3000SL, Olympus OM-1
AF lenses:/b
[b]Canon EF: Tokina 11-16 2.8 & 16-28 2.8/ EF 24-105 4L / Canon EF-35 2.0 / EF-50 1.4 / EF 85 1.8 /EF-100 2.8 USM Macro/ EF 135 2.0L / EF 70-200 4L / EF 80-200 2.8L / EF-100-400 4.5-5.6L
Kenko Teleplus 1.4 MC4 DGX Conv.
MF Lenses:
Pentacon: 135 2.8 (16 lam., Exa) / 135 2.8 M42 / 135 2.8 Practicar (PB)
Pentax: Super Tak 28 & 35 2.8 / Super Tak (8 lens) 50 1.4 / SMC Tak 50 1.4 / SMC Tak 55 1.8 / Super Tak 85/1.9 SMC Tak 105 2.8 / S-M-C Tak 135 2.5 / S-M-C Tak 200 3.5 & 4.0 / Super Macro Tak 50/4 & 100/4
Other: Revuenon 55 1.4 M42/ Revuenon 55/1.2 PK/ Leica Elmar(it) R 135 2.8 & 180 4.0/ Tair 3s 300 4.5 Photosniper M42 / Tair-3 300 4.5 Grand Prix 1958 (P6 normal focussing)
Noflexar M39: 60/4, 105/3.5 & 135/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2020 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
@papasito
I may have a K 135/2.5 I'm willing to part with, as i have the Takumar as well. PM me when interested. |
Thank you, Caspert79 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|