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 SMC K 135/2,5 (MM version) or 85/1,8
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Such a glow has little to see with coating, being the spherical aberration the main cause


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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".


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 08, 2020 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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". Smile


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:29 am    Post subject: Re: Pentax SMC K 135/2,5 (MM version) or 85/1,8 Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

Wink


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@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.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

Wink


Laugh 1


PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2020 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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