View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2024 10:12 am Post subject: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar vs Pentax-M 135mm f/3.5 |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chhayanat
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 Posts: 245 Location: The Cow Belt
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2024 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
chhayanat wrote:
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. _________________ Chhayanat
Pentax-M 28/2.8; 35/2; 50/1.4; 100/2.8; 80-200/4.5; 400/5.6.
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4; Pancolar 50/1.8 (black).
Film cameras:
Zeiss Ikon Volta 135/6.3 Sonnar 9cm x 12 cm plate/sheet film;
Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 521 75/3.5 Novar (post-War) 6cm x 4.5cm
Pentax MX x 2 (black);
Digital bodies:
Pentax K200D;
Samsung GX-20; |
|
Back to top |
|
|
titrisol70
Joined: 14 Dec 2021 Posts: 178 Location: State of Denial
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
titrisol70 wrote:
I have both, and yes the Super and SMC takumar 135/3.5 feel better _________________ Pentaxian and proud
Cameras: Spotmatic, I and F, Pentax ME, MESuper, ME-F, P30t, K-x, MZ-5, Mz-7 // K100D, Kx, K5IIs, K3-iii
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Super Takumar 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/28, 1:1.8/55, 1:1.4/50 (7-element), 1:3.5/135
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/55, 1:1.4/50, 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:4/200
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50
Lots of M, A, F, FA, DA series lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dejan
Joined: 05 Jan 2021 Posts: 148 Location: Belgrade, Serbia
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2024 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dejan wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2530
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
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. _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BrianSVP
Joined: 09 Jun 2023 Posts: 335 Location: Philadelphia
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2024 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BrianSVP wrote:
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.
titrisol70 wrote: |
I have both, and yes the Super and SMC takumar 135/3.5 feel better |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lida
Joined: 13 May 2015 Posts: 8
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2024 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lida wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2024 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
BrianSVP wrote: |
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.
titrisol70 wrote: |
I have both, and yes the Super and SMC takumar 135/3.5 feel better |
|
I love the haptics of Takumars as well, it’s better than Pentax-M for sure. For a lightweight lens however, I find the build quality of Pentax-M better than almost all competition.
When it comes to durability, I find it really hard to draw any conclusions. I think that in the days, Takumars and Pentax K series were considered more professional grade lenses than Pentax-M. This also means, in general, that those lenses were abused quite a bit more. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2024 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
chhayanat wrote: |
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. |
Yeah, it totally surpassed my expectations when I bought it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
connloyalist
Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 342 Location: the Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
connloyalist wrote: |
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 |
I used to have the Pentax K 120mm f/2.8, which is optically the same as the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar. I compared it to some of my 135's; I sold it because its performance was not better than some of my 135's, but I could sell it for good money. I didn't have the Pentax-M 135/3.5 yet at the time , but I'm pretty sure the 120/2.8 is a better lens optically, at least at wider apertures. Not as good as the Pentax-M 100/2.8 IMO, but I didn't do a direct comparison. The Pentax-M 100/2.8 performs about the same as the Minolta MD 100/2.5, I don't know if you have experience with that lens. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
connloyalist
Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 342 Location: the Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
connloyalist wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
I used to have the Pentax K 120mm f/2.8, which is optically the same as the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar. I compared it to some of my 135's; I sold it because its performance was not better than some of my 135's, but I could sell it for good money. I didn't have the Pentax-M 135/3.5 yet at the time , but I'm pretty sure the 120/2.8 is a better lens optically, at least at wider apertures. Not as good as the Pentax-M 100/2.8 IMO, but I didn't do a direct comparison. The Pentax-M 100/2.8 performs about the same as the Minolta MD 100/2.5, I don't know if you have experience with that lens. |
Thank you. Honestly, the main reason I picked up the 120mm is because it is an unusual focal length. But I am not disappointed with its performance. Actually, since I have started exploring Pentax lenses I have been consistently impressed by how well they do. I am on M4/3, so that should make a difference in terms performance around the edges compared to APS-C let alone full frame.
I am going to have to look into getting myself a Pentax 100mm 2.8.
Regards, C. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BrianSVP
Joined: 09 Jun 2023 Posts: 335 Location: Philadelphia
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BrianSVP wrote:
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.
Lida wrote: |
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. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
BrianSVP
Joined: 09 Jun 2023 Posts: 335 Location: Philadelphia
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BrianSVP wrote:
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 wrote: |
connloyalist wrote: |
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 |
I used to have the Pentax K 120mm f/2.8, which is optically the same as the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar. I compared it to some of my 135's; I sold it because its performance was not better than some of my 135's, but I could sell it for good money. I didn't have the Pentax-M 135/3.5 yet at the time , but I'm pretty sure the 120/2.8 is a better lens optically, at least at wider apertures. Not as good as the Pentax-M 100/2.8 IMO, but I didn't do a direct comparison. The Pentax-M 100/2.8 performs about the same as the Minolta MD 100/2.5, I don't know if you have experience with that lens. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3133 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
BrianSVP wrote: |
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. |
Maybe I'll put that to the test, although in my case it will be the Nikkor Ai-s 105mm f/1.8 (which should be only very slightly superior to the 105/2.5), and I'll throw in the Minolta as well. I can test the S-M-C Tak 135/2.5 against the S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5 and maybe throw in another brand as well. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10958 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2024 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
BrianSVP wrote: |
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. |
Maybe I'll put that to the test, although in my case it will be the Nikkor Ai-s 105mm f/1.8 (which should be only very slightly superior to the 105/2.5), and I'll throw in the Minolta as well. I can test the S-M-C Tak 135/2.5 against the S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5 and maybe throw in another brand as well. |
_________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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 |
|
|
|