Logical choice

lazyeye · 07-18-2008, 05:39 AM

Helloooo,

Looking to fit a pentax 30n with a 135/3.5; either a Takumar (smc), or a Carl-Zeiss Jena (mc)

Is it a tossup or is one to be recommended over the other?

Thanks

*Nesster* · 07-18-2008, 05:56 AM

Is there a particular reason for your short list? From a mount POV, the 30n is a Ka mount - why not one of the K mount Pentax 135's? I'm assuming the CZ is the screw mount version...

In general the online consensus is that while the 135/3.5 Tak is sharp and contrasty at all apertures, the CZ has the bokeh. Or something like that.

lazyeye · 07-18-2008, 06:12 AM

No reason, I just happen to be watching them both on the bay. I'm actually watching several Takumars, some are m42, some are k. Naturally, I'd rather pick the k mounts.
Is there a major aesthetic difference in terms of bokeh?

*Nesster* · 07-18-2008, 06:54 AM

The K mount Takumars are the budget models, decent but not worth paying a lot for. Pentax really screwed up (is that a pun?) the legendary Takumar name with their idiotic marketing. In K mount you're better off with one of the SMC Pentaxes, they have the coatings and better optics.

I don't really have a personal, direct experience opinion on this, but some say the Taks are 'over corrected' so the bokeh isn't as smooth... for whatever that's worth. Maybe someone with direct experience can chime in.