View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
edumad
Joined: 11 Feb 2009 Posts: 348 Location: Esposende, Portugal
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:15 pm Post subject: Takumar Bayonet 135mm F2.5 Asahi Opt. Co. |
|
|
edumad wrote:
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. _________________ TWAPSI - The World As Photography Sees It |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Gardener
Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gardener wrote:
It's a decent lens that often gets bad rap from people who don't own one. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
newst
Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA
|
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
newst wrote:
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. _________________ Steve
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
philslizzy
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
philslizzy wrote:
I've got one of these and don't think I've ever used it. You CAN have too many really good 135's. _________________ Hero in the 'messin-with-cameras-for-the-hell-of-it department'. Official. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10956 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
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. _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., 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
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A 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 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
memetph
Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
memetph wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TrueLoveOne
Joined: 30 Sep 2012 Posts: 1839 Location: Netherlands
Expire: 2013-12-24
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 8:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
TrueLoveOne wrote:
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 _________________ My Flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/chantalrene/
Sony A7, Canon 5D mkII, Minolta 7D + RD3000 and some more.....
Minolta and Konica collector.... slowly selling all the other stuff! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10956 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2015 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
memetph wrote: |
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. |
Yes, with 4 elements, sharpness is okay wide open at f/2.8, but wide open at f/2.5 is soft... _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., 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
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A 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 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3930 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2021 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
visualopsins wrote: |
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. |
I just got a Takumar (Bayonet) 2.5/135mm. Like my M42 S-M-C 2.5/135 (version 2) it looks like new, and unlike my S-M-C 2.5/135 (version 2) it's not de-centered.
The Takumar (Bayonet) 2.5/135mm certainly is sharp wide open (on 24 MP FF), even in the corners, and it certainly isn't inferior to the good corners of my M42 S-M-C 2.5/135 (version 2). There are some CAs, though, comparable to most other 2.8/135mm lenses I own. Only the Carl Zeiss Sonnar (CY) 2.8/135mm has less CAs.
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7786 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
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.
_________________ 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 |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10956 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2021 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
visualopsins wrote: |
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. |
I just got a Takumar (Bayonet) 2.5/135mm. Like my M42 S-M-C 2.5/135 (version 2) it looks like new, and unlike my S-M-C 2.5/135 (version 2) it's not de-centered.
The Takumar (Bayonet) 2.5/135mm certainly is sharp wide open (on 24 MP FF), even in the corners, and it certainly isn't inferior to the good corners of my M42 S-M-C 2.5/135 (version 2). There are some CAs, though, comparable to most other 2.8/135mm lenses I own. Only the Carl Zeiss Sonnar (CY) 2.8/135mm has less CAs.
S |
So what you are saying is the bayonet version is as good as your de-centered S-M-C... LOL _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., 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
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A 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 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2530
|
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2021 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
It is soft at 2.5 but mainly near infinity and sunny conditions _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659
|
Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2021 7:43 pm Post subject: Re: Takumar Bayonet 135mm F2.5 Asahi Opt. Co. |
|
|
papasito wrote:
edumad wrote: |
....and sharper than the my AF lenses most of the time.. |
.
As almost all of us here, I had (and have now) a lot of manual lenses.
But I don't remember any of those to be more shaper than my Sony GM AF/MF lenses.
in the Pentax 135/2,5 question, the M42 2 v. and K original, are very sharp lenses, with strong CA to my eyes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|