Super-Multi-Coated Takumar vs Pentax-M 135mm f/3.5

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands

Decided to test both lenses against each other @ near infinity to see how the behave as landscape lenses.

comparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

@ f/3.5 the Takumar shows an image that is sharper and more contrasty than the Pentax-M. Centrally, both lenses show some manageable CA. Corners of the Takumar are much better (sharper, less CA).
@ f/5.6, center performance of both lenses is comparable. Corners of the Takumar are still better.
@ f/8, things change in favor of the Pentax-M. Corners are a bit better.
@ f/11, the Takumar seems to suffer a bit more from diffraction. It's notably softer in the center than the Pentax-M. Corners of the Pentax-M remain a bit better.

Conclusion: The Pentax-M is pretty weak wide open, but get's satisfactory sharp on a 42+ mp sensor throughout the frame @ f/8. Which lens is better depends on your purpose. @270 grams opposed to the Takumar's 331 grams, the Pentax-M is very light. It's also a few centimeters shorter. If you're prepared to stop down, it's a nice travel companion. Despite it's low weight, build quality is there as well.

If you don't necessarily need the reach of a 135mm though, I recommend the Pentax-M 100mm f/2.8 instead, which at 225 grams is a true feather weight and is a much better performer IMO, with usable corners wide open which become perfectly sharp @ f/4.

chhayanat · Joined: 11 Apr 2016 Posts: 245 Location: The Cow Belt

Useful test. Have used the M 100/2.8 since 1981. The first one I bought was stolen and was replaced with the current one. Found it useful for portraits a Pentax MX. After the shift to digital feels a little redundant but I am not terribly keen to buy another lens.

titrisol70 · Joined: 14 Dec 2021 Posts: 178 Location: State of Denial

I have both, and yes the Super and SMC takumar 135/3.5 feel better

Dejan · Joined: 05 Jan 2021 Posts: 148 Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Any differences could also only be present due to sample variation (or aging variation more likely). In any case, production did become cheaper and cheaper over time (nothing like today though). I prefer the Takumars (where optical design is the same) simply because of the build quality (M lenses are pretty nice though, this is not a big deal for me) and M42 mount; because I love using helicoids instead of standard adapters.

D1N0 · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2530

I've always liked the 120/2.8 and the 150/3.5 from the M-series better. The S-M-C Takumar 135mm 1:2.5 (second six element version also available as SMC Pentax) was even better.

BrianSVP · Joined: 09 Jun 2023 Posts: 335 Location: Philadelphia

If we're talking feel, as in the haptics of the lens, the Takumars are really unsurpassed by anything, at least IMO. The M series sacrifice a bit of it for lighter construction, but is still quite good.

Lida · Joined: 13 May 2015 Posts: 8

I would go against the grain and say that my takumars have fared worse than my M and K series in terms of robustness.

I have had the 85mm f1.9, the 35mm f2 v1, and the 50mm macro v1. All three have had mechanical issues including backlashing focussing helicoids, screws ondoing themselves (inside the barrel on inspection!), or in the case of the 85mm - the entire barrel being loose longitudinally by 2-3mm. None of my M or K series lenses have had any mechnical issues.

I will admit that the aperture rings on the takumars are very tactile though. Focussing feel is more or less the same as the M or K series to me.

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands

connloyalist · Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 342 Location: the Netherlands

Interesting! Out of curiosity, does anyone have the 120mm version of both the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar and the Pentax-M? And any thoughts on how the 120 compares to the 100 and the 135?

I own the Pentax-M 120mm, but not any of the other lenses. I do have both versions of the 150mm but haven't done a similar comparison with those.

Regards, C

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands

connloyalist · Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 342 Location: the Netherlands

BrianSVP · Joined: 09 Jun 2023 Posts: 335 Location: Philadelphia

The one complaint I have about the Takumars, which is also true about a few of the M series as well, is that many of the smaller primes have a focus scale that is a glued-on aluminum strip. Over time, the glue becomes brittle, and the strip can detach and move freely with respect to the ring itself, which might be what you are experiencing as backlash. All the Takumars use bi-metal helicoids, which wear very little over time compared to all-aluminum ones, which are used on some of the lower-end m series lenses, so I'd find it odd if it were true helical backlash you were feeling.

The internal construction of the two series is very similar, so I'd imagine both would be equally likely to have screws come loose, although perhaps the heavier weight of the Taks stresses them a bit more.

BrianSVP · Joined: 09 Jun 2023 Posts: 335 Location: Philadelphia

Agree that the 100 is better than the 135/3.5 or the 120mm, but IMO the late Takumar/K 135/2.5 really is the best of the bunch. The 100 is a very good lens, but not as good as the Nikon 105mm 2.5. Moving back a bit in focal lens, the Pentax-M 85mm f/2 is a severely underrated lens, overshadowed by legendary the 85mm Takumars, but marvelous in its own way.

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11