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

Asahi S-M-C Takumar 2.5/135
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:09 pm    Post subject: Asahi S-M-C Takumar 2.5/135 Reply with quote
Have never really given this lens a good workout, so took it into the park at the back of my house on Saturday.

Can't recall how much I paid for it, it was considerably cheaper than its f/3.5 brother, and in my humble opinion, it's a keeper Wink

1


2 - 100% crop from above


3


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Really nice! I don't understand why people not respect this lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:32 pm    Post subject: Pentax SMC 135/2.5 Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Really nice! I don't understand why people not respect this lens.


I guess this lens is the M42 screw mount one ... I think many people now confuse it with the later budget price 135/2.5 K mount Takumar ... which was not a particularly brilliant performer - on film anyway. I had one in pre-digital times and it produced rather flat and lifeless negatives, even using acutance (edge-enhancing) developers.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Pentax SMC 135/2.5 Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
Attila wrote:
Really nice! I don't understand why people not respect this lens.


I guess this lens is the M42 screw mount one ... I think many people now confuse it with the later budget price 135/2.5 K mount Takumar ... which was not a particularly brilliant performer - on film anyway. I had one in pre-digital times and it produced rather flat and lifeless negatives, even using acutance (edge-enhancing) developers.


Thanks Steven! I thought this is K mount Takumar...


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Pentax SMC 135/2.5 Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Really nice! I don't understand why people not respect this lens.


Thanks Attila - I think the same way. Okay, it's bigger and heavier, but it's going to spend a lot more time on my camera from now on Wink

scsambrook wrote:
I guess this lens is the M42 screw mount one ... I think many people now confuse it with the later budget price 135/2.5 K mount Takumar ... which was not a particularly brilliant performer - on film anyway. I had one in pre-digital times and it produced rather flat and lifeless negatives, even using acutance (edge-enhancing) developers.


Yes, it's an M42 mount, and is the Super-Multi-Coated version as opposed to the later SMC K mount version. Have seen them going for little money out there but have never been tempted...


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:49 pm    Post subject: Re: Pentax SMC 135/2.5 Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Thanks Steven! I thought this is K mount Takumar...


Embarassed Apologies for any confusion Embarassed

Here it is with its little brother.



PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are two versions of the screw mount 135mm f2.5 lens.

It is said that the latter version is the better of the two. If so it must be pretty good as I own the earlier version and I like it very much. There is a small stamped serial number under the auto / manual aperture slider on the lens and this serial number signifies which model you have. Sorry though, if you are interested, you will have to wait for someone more informed than I as I cannot recall which number refers to which lens and mine is packed away in a box right now as I am renting so some pf my stuff is in storage.

I have always liked Takumar lenses and have probably around 20 of the blighters. They are invariably well made (their only sin is an occasional tendency for the aperture to stick and need a service -which given their age is understandable.) Their optical quality is always in the upper league and they are pleasant to use and handle. This one is no exception being physically a big lens and moderately heavy for a prime.

I thought I recalled my early lens having a slightly warm rendition although your photos look pretty neutral.

Last edited by peterm1 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 9:55 pm    Post subject: 2 versions of SMC 135/2.5 Takumars Reply with quote
There were 2 SMCT versions of the 135/2.5. There was a major reformulation of the lens midway through its SMCT career - from 5 elements in 4 groups to 6 single non-grouped elements. The general agreement is that the 6 element one is far superior. It is the same as the SMC K mount 135/2.5 that was made for only a few years and is not the same as the Pentax bayonet K _Takumar_ 135/2.5.

If you look on the Auto/Manual switch tab on the SMCT you will see a number. It should be either "43802" or "43812." The 02 is the earlier 5/4 version, the 12 the later 6 element version.


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterm1 wrote:
There are two versions of the screw mount 135mm f2.5 lens.

It is said that the latter version is the better of the two. If so it must be pretty good as I own the earlier version and I like it very much. There is a small stamped serial number under the auto / manual aperture slider on the lens and this serial number signifies which model you have. Sorry though, if you are interested, you will have to wait for someone more informed than I as I cannot recall which number refers to which lens and mine is packed away in a box right now as I am renting so some pf my stuff is in storage.

I have always liked Takumar lenses and have probably around 20 of the blighters. They are invariably well made (their only sin is an occasional tendency for the aperture to stick and need a service -which given their age is understandable.) Their optical quality is always in the upper league and they are pleasant to use and handle. This one is no exception being physically a big lens and moderately heavy for a prime.

I thought I recalled my early lens having a slightly warm rendition although your photos look pretty neutral.


There are indeed two versions of the lens, the earlier version had the Product Number 43802 and had 5 elements in 4 groups, whilst the later version's Product Number was 43812, which had 6 element in 6 groups. (Thanks to Mr Van Oosten for this information Wink)

It's the later version I've got, although at some stage I'll probably happen upon one of the 5/4 versions and make it part of my collection - which is becoming like a disease these days, although each and every lens gets used and none of them sit in cages waiting for sugar-cubes to be thrown to them Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:08 pm    Post subject: Re: 2 versions of SMC 135/2.5 Takumars Reply with quote
jmiro wrote:
If you look on the Auto/Manual switch tab on the SMCT you will see a number. It should be either "43802" or "43812." The 02 is the earlier 5/4 version, the 12 the later 6 element version.


Thanks for the confirmation - must learn to type faster and keep the 'Bible' close by instead of in the bedroom Embarassed


PostPosted: Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Really nice! I don't understand why people not respect this lens.


I think the earlier version is soft wide open. I didn't use the lens for some time. Later I used "it" on 5D and couldn't understand how it could be so much sharper! Then I discovered I own two copies, one of each 43802 and 43812. The 43812 is a much better lens imho.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
On the page by Marco Cavina
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Pentax_28_2_M/00_pag.htm
he is suggesting that perhaps the K 135/2.5 has connections with Zeiss.
I don't understand Italian, but perhaps someone can tell us what he is exactly saying?
It's in the second paragraph.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mal - Nice looking sharpness and pop to that lens. I have the F3.5 version but I have only tried it out once. It's ok, but I have so many 135s I find it's near the back of the queue.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:
On the page by Marco Cavina
http://www.luciolepri.it/lc2/marcocavina/articoli_fotografici/Pentax_28_2_M/00_pag.htm
he is suggesting that perhaps the K 135/2.5 has connections with Zeiss.
I don't understand Italian, but perhaps someone can tell us what he is exactly saying?
It's in the second paragraph.


Synthesis of first: after Zeiss Ikon bankruptcy, Zeiss decided to find some cooperation with "the enemy", starting from Asahi that , due to their success, refused to cooperate in the widest sense aimed by Zeiss.

Second paragraph:

So, at the beginning of '70, while Zeiss was still looking around for a manufacter able to produce the future Contax SLR, a two-way information and technology flow took place with Pentax. It is not possible to know how strict was this collaboration, however for some time technical archives of the two brands gained reciprocal benefits.
As an example, a friend owning a large collection of Zeiss and Pentax lenses, made me notice that my SMC-Pentax-K 135mm f/2,5 -made in those times- at open diaphragm presented the classical "sawtooth" blades disposition, typical of Zeiss in those times. Furthermore, also the "click" sound on the diaphragm ring was different for previous and following Pentax while being more similar to Zeiss. Apart from feticism (my note: perhaps referred at sound), the most visible outputs of technical collaboration were Pentax K bayonet (developed by Zeiss) and Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2, which interested Asahi, although a secret agreement between Zeiss and Yashica was already started.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you!
So nothing definitive.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It´s very interesant question here.

The smc lenses had the fame to be better than the K version, especially to the "M" ones. Is it true? Should be the M series out of zeiss ?

Thanks guys.

Rino.-


PostPosted: Mon Sep 27, 2010 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a really pretty lens IMHO. A photographer friend of mine has one of these and I covet it madly. I still really want to get a 135MM and a 200MM M42 at some point. It will be a long while before I can afford to fill out the Takumars that way, but it's still a goal. I've never actually met an M42 Takumar that I didn't like. They all seem like pretty amazing lenses to me and I really wish I had the budget right now to grab me some more.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1