| Author: | | Showing Reviews 1-13 of 13 | | New Member Registered: March, 2009
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: October 18, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | sharp, fast, quality build, good bokeh | | Cons: | very slight lateral CA | |
I have the second model (6/6)
It's very important to distinguish between the models, because optical difference is really significant. The second model is sharper, has smoother bokeh (the first one is prone to double-lining) and less axial CA (bokeh CA). The second model is very good, but it has slight lateral CA (visible mostly in infinity shots taken around f/5.6-f/8).
I would recommend the second model as a fast sharp telephoto lens. If you don't mind slower aperture, I'd recommend Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135/3.5 instead.
I would not recommend the first model (5/4) of 135/2.5. It's only slightly cheaper and much worse the 6/6.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: August, 2009 Location: Lexington, KY Posts: 29
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: October 12, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $72.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Small for speed, build quality | | Cons: | Heavy | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 9
| |
This is for a "minty" Super Takumar on 1.5X crop digital. There is one tiny metallic-looking speck inside this lens, but it seems harmless.
This lens is not the fastest 135mm lens, but it is reasonably fast and very Takumar -- in both construction and image quality. I don't see any problems from this not being an S-M-C/SMC... perhaps this lens has the SMC coatings but not the extra body coupling?
I now have a large collection of 135mm lenses. Mechanically, all six M42 lenses are actually very good, although the Taks focus smoother. This isn't as fast a lens as my Spiratone f/1.8, but it's not that big a difference in speed or IQ and handling is very different. Compared to the f/3.5 Takumar, this lens is slightly softer off center at f/2.5, but probably equals it at the same apertures -- tied for the sharpest of my 135s on 1.5X crop digital. My two Vivitar f/2.8 are both slightly softer, but really great at close focus distances or even on a bellows/tubes. My Sears (Tomioka?) f/2.8 doesn't compete with the Taks. My Mamiya/Sekor f/2.8 is surprisingly competitive, except for two issues: (1) it is an auto lens with no auto/man switch and (2) the aperture ring extends back around the M42 mount, which means it doesn't infinity focus using an M42 adapter on a mount that has a wider diameter (e.g., Sony). The Tak f/2.5 blows away my Soligor f/2.8 preset (but what lens doesn't?). The Soligor is physically huge and heavy; the Tak f/2.5, Sears, and M/S are fairly heavy, but not much different in size from the Vivitars and Tak f/3.5. The f/1.8 could swallow any two of the others whole.
The f/2.5's weight is a mixed blessing: lighter would be easier to carry, but the extra mass does help one hold the camera steady. It certainly makes a better general purpose fast 135mm than any of the other lenses.
If image quality were just a hair better wide open, this would be a 10. It's more than acceptable wide open on APS-C, but I have my doubts about how soft the full-frame corners would be (I haven't tried it). In any case, this lens is at least a very solid 9.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: June, 2010 Location: California Posts: 153 | | Lens Review Date: April 27, 2012 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Solid build, fast | | Cons: | Flare, step down metering | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-x
| |
I used to have the super takumar version. I got this lens 2 years ago and sold it shortly after. It has typical super takumar quality. I didn't use it a lot due to flare issues. If this lens get shaded well then you can get really nice images. Maybe I should use it more often. I did hear high feedback from the person who bought it from me at Utah. Below is a sample picture.
 | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2010 Location: California Posts: 981 | | Lens Review Date: November 29, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $200.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Great IQ, size and handling. | | Cons: | A bit soft wide open | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 9
| |
Nov.29/2011
I just received this lens, and instead of waiting to use it more, I want to reflect how I feel the first day after using the lens for few hours (checking the photos from the back of the camera, not the computer). This lens seems very soft wide open, or I am not good a focusing. Strange, because I get the beep and light confirmation from my K5. Some shots are very sharp, in the 5.6 and 8 at a sunny day. At a sunny day, outdoors, I have not gotten a good sharp photo wide opens. Of course, I will change this (or add to) this review later on, when I have really tested and learned some more. I got this lens thinking that it was going to be the same as my K135mmf2.5, but it looks more like the Takumar (bayonet) 135mm f2.5. Well, maybe not so much. But I am a bit dissapointed, the k135/25 is dangerously sharp, way different from this one. Good thing, I have not noticed CA, on purple fringing at all, even shooting almost against light (that may be the hood, it is rather large). I like the hood, it can be screwed, but for storage, it can fit by small friction. The cap goes on top of the hood. This copy I got is pristine and everything seems to be fine, so I do not think the softness has to do with any mechanical problem. More later, including pics, I may have to change my 8 to 10, or maybe to 7. Who knows.
----------------------------------
Nov. 29/2011 Here are some photos I took today, a beautiful sunny day (see them below):
----------------------------------
Jan 28/2012. I am upgrading my evaluation to 9, this lens is really good. The only reason I do not give it 10 is because it is definitely soft at f2.5. Not a bad soft, it is good for portraits, however, I use it mostly for other things that require sharp edges. Once you stop it down to f2.8, it really improves a lot, and by f4, it is just like my Pentax SMC 135/25. I also found out that my copy is Model 1, which apparently has 5 elements in 4 groups. Model 2 has 6 elements in 6 groups. I have not tried one, but I guess that would get the 10 from me if it is true that it is the same formula as the Pentax SMC 135/2.5.
F5.6:
SMCTak135-2.5-f5.6-Sunny12-32-2067 by Palenquero, on Flickr
F16:
SMCTak135-2.5-f16-Sunny12-33-2066 by Palenquero, on Flickr
F4:
SMCTak135-2.5-f4-Sunny12-35-2071 by Palenquero, on Flickr
WIDE OPEN EARLY IN THE MORNING AT DAWN - NO SUN YET
SMCTak135-2.5-DawnLeaveNoSun1-2011 by Palenquero, on Flickr
F16:
SMCTak135-2.5-f16-SunnyAt11-32am-2050 by Palenquero, on Flickr
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: April, 2010 Location: New Mexico Posts: 145 | | Lens Review Date: October 10, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $175.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Fast, Sharp, smooth | | Cons: | none so far | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I know I might seem real positive, I think I got lucky. I own almost 1 of every takumar and this is the best condition lens I have got. I found a bran new one un opened 40 some years old and perfect. Original case, caps hood, and everything. I know others said the first variant is not that sharp but mine is. I checked it against my other 2 135s 3.5 takumars. and seems good. soon I will have the actual line counts in. But mine seems good so far but you never know until the results are in. Now all i need is that extremely 15mm hmmm  | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: October, 2010 Location: Baltimore Posts: 2,080 | | Lens Review Date: December 23, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $60.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Excellent IQ and Build | | Cons: | Very Long Focusing Throw | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I have the Super-Multi-Coated Model 2 version and this is a great lens!!! Super IQ, Bokeh and by f4 this lens is just plain sharp, sharper and sharpest.
It's a little weighty which I really like and the build is second to none. The most difficult part I had initially was focusing. The focus ring travels probably close to 250 degrees from closeup to infinity, that's a long travel but with practice you'll never notice and if you get real good, you can very very precisely focus this lens. I've used it manual mode as well as Av, I found in Av I needed to add +1.7 to the metered exposure but it was a consistent +1.7, manual was usually right on the money.
It came with the original Cap/Base and in good to very good condition, found this through Craigslist. It's very strong 9!!!
Photos from this lens | | | | | Senior Member Registered: October, 2010 Location: capital city, the land of eh (Ottawa, Canada) Posts: 298 | | Lens Review Date: December 3, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | nice bokeh, reasonably sharp w/o, strong construction, price | | Cons: | no auto stopdown (m42) on Pentax DSLR | |
This review is for the second model.
This is one of my favourite lenses - it is quite sharp wide open and has an OK bokeh. The DOF is very thin allowing for some creative shooting. This is one of my favourite lenses, and I find the 135mm zoom quite nice for walking around and photographing nature on an APS-C sensor cam. The weight and size is also not too bad coupled with a K-X. This older lens is a great bargain. Grab it if you can.
  | | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2010 Location: Copenhagen Posts: 2 | | Lens Review Date: November 1, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $100.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | sharpness, bokeh, build quality, color rendering | | Cons: | none really | |
I have the late version and it's really a great lens - it is in fact my noumber one lens, when I sit home and wonder what lens(es) to use.
It's sharp, but not at f/2.5. Once stopped down it is. Very sharp. And it gives wonderfull details and handles light (including strong sunlight) beautyfully.
I use Olympus cameras and therefor get the same as 270mm on a FF. So I use the lens for shooting deers and small details from a distance.
My prise was very very low - and the lens is really worth much more. In short: buy it!
It beats the rest of the 135mm's I have: Soligor, Carl Zeiss, Olympus (OM), Takumar f/3,5, Jupiter 11A, Jupiter 37A and Helios.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: March, 2008 Location: CT / NY Posts: 816 | | Lens Review Date: January 29, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Nice Takumar Construction | | Cons: | Metering Issues with K10D | |
My first Tak... loved the focus feeling and the construction. It does give the yellowish cast and I can see the yellow coatings on it.
At first, I was confused about MAN / AUTO settings and how to use it. After searching around, got it to work.
When using a tripod and stepping it down, this lens is GREAT!
I am having problems with it wide open @ K10D, but i cant tell if it is the lens or the body. Hmm... i shouldve tested on the DL... then i'll be able to pinpoint the culprit. In any case, it is very odd that once I have it wide open, the metering is all screwed up!
It takes some adjusting to use it wide open.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: April, 2008 Location: San Mateo, California Posts: 741 | | Lens Review Date: August 13, 2008 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $75.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Sharp, fast, Takumar build quality | | Cons: | Slightly lacking in contrast, lots of chromatic aberration | |
Very nice lens.
Mine is the older non-SMC version, so in bright conditions it is not as contrasty as I might like, but that's fixable with a hood and some postprocessing. The lens I have is almost 40 years old and it looks and feels brand new. One of my favorites. They just don't make 'em like this anymore.
Watch your fingers -- images can be very sharp. But it's VERY susceptible to chromatic aberration in high-contrast situations.
EDIT: I'm revising my score down to 7 because I've been fighting, and losing, the battle with chromatic aberration lately.
| | | | | New Member Registered: August, 2007 Location: Seattle WA USA | | Lens Review Date: August 22, 2007 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $70.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Incredibly sharp! | | Cons: | Absolutely none. | |
The 6 lens/6 element version of the SMC Tak 135/2.5 is the highest-performing M42 lens at this focal length. It outperforms the legendary Carl Zeiss 135/2.5 in terms of resolution and contrast. A truly incredible lens. If you really want to see how good a picture your camera can take, throw one of these on it and prepare yourself to be amazed at the detail you'll see.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: Queen creek, az Posts: 78 | | Lens Review Date: March 25, 2007 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $20.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | sharp, fast, good contrast, and cheap. | | Cons: | uses an adapter | |
Mine is my second sharpest lens after my 50mm 1.7 and it is the non-smc version. I believe it has less elements than the newer version. Great contrast and good color. A great buy for 20.00.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: West Chester, PA Posts: 1,227 | | Lens Review Date: January 10, 2007 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Smooth bokeh, fast aperture, great build, low CA | | Cons: | Big/heavy, long focus throw, not very close focus | |
This is one of the best lenses I own. It isn't as razor-sharp as some lenses, but the benefit is an incredibly smooth bokeh with a fine transition from sharp to blurred. The fast f/2.5 aperture provides a bright, clear view through the viewfinder and allows easy hand-holding capabilities.
It is heavy, has 58mm threads (same as the 31mm Limited), and has a screw-on metal hood. The focus is smooth and long, but because of that it can sometimes be difficult to quickly change focus points. It only focuses down to about 6/7 feet, which is a bit longer than competing 135s.
| | |
;)
;)
;)
