This is a slightly faster version of the non-SMC 135mm telephoto lens.
This lens has no "A" setting and thus does not support aperture automation (Tv and P modes).
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: No |
Price (U.S. Dollars): N/A
| Rating: 5
Pros:
good paper weight JMHO
Cons:
soft, soft JMHO flare
i didn't have this for long. i got it before i knew there were 2 versions of the 2.5. this is not coated and you can rest your head at night on the images i got from it at f2.5. it did sharpen up somewhat at f8+ but i had gotten for it's wide aperture. it's a nice looking lens if your are a collector.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $40.00
| Rating: 6
Pros:
Fast
Cons:
Soft, non coated
I also didnt know there were 2 versions of this lens. It's terrible with a flash, or with the light source in front or 90 degrees to either side. The pictures come out very soft almost foggy. Pictures are pretty nice when light source is behind camera. Good in low light. In my opinion, its a very fast lens at f2.5, and delivers better quality than a cheap zoom.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $50.00
| Rating: 9
Pros:
Cheap, sharp, fast, good focal length for portraits.
Cons:
Gets bad reviews from people looking for a magic lens
First, let me say that this lens is the most under-rated lens for the Pentax mount. Because of the SMC 135mm f/2.5 many people act like this Takumar lens is worthless junk. On the contrary, this lens is a stellar performer ... if the photographer using it knows how to work within the design limitations.
"Design limitations?"
This lens lacks optical coating (or just has poor coating). What does that mean in practical terms? Use a lens hood all the time ... even if you don't think you need one.
Lenses that lack anti-reflection and ultraviolet coatings tend to be more vulnerable to reflection and refraction resulting in poor color fidelity and increased flare and ghost images/halos.
Add a lens hood and avoid pointing the lens DIRECTLY at a light source and you don't have to worry about the lack of optical coatings. Some of the greatest lenses ever made didn't have optical coatings ... and they still create amazing images today.
If you don't use a hood on an uncoated lens then don't expect the best results. Likewise, if you are using an uncoated lens (even one with a hood) you need to avoid shooting DIRECTLY into light if you want the best results.
I use uncoated lenses (the Pentax Takumar 135mm f/2.5 and the Jupiter-9 85mm f/2) all the time in the studio with flash and continuous lighting. I also use these uncoated lenses outside in daylight for location portraiture and the results are great.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $100.00
| Rating: 8
Pros:
Very fast and sharp
Cons:
Easy to get some purple fringes if you are not careful
I use it as a fast tele for portraits and detail shoots outdoors and its easy to accurately focus and get very sharp pictures. It also has a built in lens hood that you can extend at the same time you remove the cap
As JJJPhoto said, always use the hood and avoid focusing light sources directly to keep the fringe under control.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: No |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $85.00
| Rating: 2
Pros:
Solid Build, Color (if you like what it does)
Cons:
Far Focus, Diffusion, Coloration, Low Contrast
This lens suffers from soft images, flare and low contrast. Just what one would expect out of a non-coated lens.
While shading the lens helps the overall contrast, one must be careful not only of the stray light, but even the light of the subject will cause problems if there is too much contrast (bright subject on a dark background).
The distortions are typical of internal reflections. The main image is very sharp but there are softer secondary images on all subjects, especially if bright. Of course, if this is the effect you want, it is perfect.
The lens offers a warm coloration. This can be very pleasing, especially in high UV scenes.
This lens is marked for IR, but I have not tried it with such.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: No |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $25.00
| Rating: 5
Pros:
Fast, nice reach on a DSLR, build quality, decent at f8
Cons:
soft wide open, CA problems, lacking contrast
Mixed feelings about this one, on one side it's very bad wide open: soft images with CA problems and lack of contrast.
On the other hand, once you stop it down to f8 and have some sunlight available, it's a pretty decent portrait lens. It still lacks some contrast then, but that's easily fixed in post porcessing, and most of the CA is gone at f8
I'd rather recommend to get the SMC version or the 3.5 Pentax-M...better value for money it think.
Nonetheless, build quality is very good, and it is a nice focal length to have.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $40.00
| Rating: 7
Pros:
Fast, cheap
Cons:
no smc
The lens works well for the cost, if you're cheap you can be happy with this lens. I really like the way this takes portrait shots. I wouldn't pay more the $50 for it though, it is heavy, and manual focus. It works great when there is low light.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $50.00
| Rating: 7
Pros:
Fast, cheap telephoto prime
Cons:
No SMC coating
If value were part of my rating criteria I would rate this lens an 8.5 or 9. As far as this lens being soft wide open (which seems to be the consensus here and elsewhere), I have to respectfully disagree. I took a comparison shot with this and the new 50-135 DA* on my K10d and the sharpness is truly negligible when zoomed in (at F2.8). This may sound phoney, but try it for yourself. Focusing is smooth and build quality is very solid. When mated with a new B+W filter (which cost just as much as the lens!) results are more than acceptable.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: No |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $65.00
| Rating: 8
Pros:
Fast, inexpensive, decent quality
Cons:
Only fair at f2.5, although by f4 is okay.
Other writers have asserted that this lens is uncoated. NOT SO! It is coated, although not multicoated. Before the development of multicoating the purple coating familar to those of us of a certain age was what there was. Having used an uncoated lens, an ancient Retina I with a 3.5 Ektar, a four element Tessar formula, even single-coating makes a huge difference!
As such the f2.5 135mm Takumar is more vulnerable to flare than more modern optics, although the built-in lens hood helps considerably. Of course you can always see the flare through the viewfinder, can't you now, and rearrange things a little bit.
I've found the image quality more than adequate, and the extra speed is always nice.
Please remember that some of the finest lenses of the past were single-coated or even uncoated. Leica and Zeiss built many highly regarded single coated lenses.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $80.00
| Rating: 8
Pros:
F Stop. compact size Great Bokeh, colours
Cons:
Manual, slow to focus
I found this lens at a second hand dealer locally. What drew me to it was the F2.5 at wide open (my previous 135mm were F3.5 and F2.8 and M42 thread).
The lens is nice and sharp and has a lovely Bokeh wide open to add to the effect. The colours are also good, nice and vibrant, even when the K10D is set to neutral.
Although it is only a Takumer of the 80's, rather than the full on SMC, I find that this has not really been a problem.
Also, CA is okay. Although I have not used it in bright light/high contrast, the CA has not been relevent. Maybe when the Sun returns it might change, but so far so good.
With regards to focusing, it is a bit slow, and it seems to work better in this respect with the *istDS rather than the K10D.
On the whole a nice little lens to have in the kit bag and if you can find a nice cheap good example, buy one, as the wide aperature is addictive.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $60.00
| Rating: 7
Pros:
Great feel, looks nice, very sharp esp after f/4, good colors
Cons:
CA visible at all apertures, moderate coma wide-open
I would definitely recommend this lens if you're not expecting the same quality of lens that is in the SMC 135/2.5 -- which costs more than three times the price, as well.
The lens itself looks great and is very solid and feels a bit indestructible. It has very good resolution, but most people will say otherwise because they confuse resolution with clarity. There is coma at f/2.5 up to f/4, so it takes away from the sharpness people perceive; but the detail is still there. Past f/4, the coma goes away, and it gets very respectably sharp. However, chromatic aberration is visible at all apertures in high contrast areas, though it's never TOO bad.
To me, this lens is all about price/performance ratio. If you want to spend over $250 for one of the best 135mm lenses out there, then do it. I'm sure you'll be happy with it. However, if you aren't made of $250 bills and want a solid performer that will never cause a "missed shot", then grab this lens for $60-80.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $30.00
| Rating: 7
Pros:
fast, long, cheap, easy to find
Cons:
no A settings, non-SMC
For value, I'd give this lens a 10... but in pure optical terms, it's really about a 7. It has all the problems you'd expect from a single coated, decades old lens... contrast lacks, flare abounds, CA can be extreme. No A setting makes for more difficulty in metering and high speed sync is not available.
However, it is certainly NO dog... images are not necessarily too soft, even wide open. The rest of the problems are easily dealt with if you choose your shots/situations carefully. I would buy it again and I think it's worth at least double what I paid. I have a thread at my usual haunt with pics and crops if interested: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r216...ns-Crappy-lens
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $35.00
| Rating: 8
Pros:
Cheap, Fast, usable at low light
Cons:
poor coating, soft at f2.5
This lens is actually under rated from alot of user. It's pretty good for it's price, one cons is the poor coating on the lens. Built in Hood is must use at all time. At 2.5, it's a bit soft, but for outdoor, i mostly set it to f8, and i got a lot good pictures out of it, bohek is awesome good for this lens. the SMC version might be better, but this is good as well.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): N/A
| Rating: 8
Pros:
Cons:
I can't really put a full review of this lens here as I do not own it and never have.
But I wish to make a few comments.
Basically this lens is the same as the SMC-Pentax version except for the coating.
In some light-conditions it can give the same excellent result as the SMC-version.
When light comes in from the wrong angle however it can lose contrast, give flare etcetera. This can be suitable for dreamy portraits.
If one remembers that in the '50s and early 60's lenses did not have multicoating either, it is clear that a lens like this can be used to create a similar effect.
That said, it is easy. Learn what the lens can do and cannot do. If you need a flare-free lens that gives always crisp images go for an SMC-version. If you want to use the effect, or cannot afford (then) or find (now) the SMC version, this one is a good choise.
The 2.5 version can be expected to be slightly better than the 2.8 version.
The 1.8 star and 2.5 (SMC) were top of the bill then whereas the 3.5 (both 3.5 K and M versions) and the more recent 2.8 (A, F and FA) version were clearly the cheaper (but still good) counterparts for the average user and for those that needed to travel lighter.
If you know how to use this lens it's a stellar performer.
I use it indoor and outdoor for portraits.
Outdoor for detail shoots and street photography.
Here some shots:
1.
2.
3.
Edit 12/31/2009
Mind you, there are two versions of this lense I found out recently.
A member of the Dutch Pentaxian forum had one, made in Taiwan, which
produced bad photos. Not sharp, no soft bokeh etcetera.
I don't say that all the Taiwan Taks are bad though.
Perhaps this was an exception.
Mine is the "made in Japan" version, which is outrageous!!!
(Serial nr. 544....)
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $40.00
| Rating: 8
Pros:
Uniform sharpness; No light falloff
Cons:
Manual Focus
My copy (Japan Serial # 543...) of this lens is surprisingly sharp. I did some quick tests versus the M 135 3.5 and the Takumar proved competitive in every respect. In its favor the M is more portable; the Takumar isn't cumbersome, however. Interestingly enough, the Tak seems longer by a small margin, in regard to focal length (Perhaps the M designers cheated a bit to keep size to a minimum?). Controlled tests should be conducted to verify this discrepancy. Contrast was not lacking at all in the Bayonet shots, when compared to Pentax M photos of the same subjects. The Takumar is great for "head and shoulders" portraits, as sharpness is respectable using larger apertures. It does sharpen up appreciably by f4, though it is plenty sharp wide open. This lens may never get "prickly" sharp, but it never gets really soft either. I'll give it a strong 8.5 for sharpness. Bokeh is neutral and not distracting under most circumstances. It rates a 7 for me, here. Well worth $100 for a good copy. My local shop was selling one for $40. A friend gave mine as a gift.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $100.00
| Rating: 8
Pros:
Sharpness when stopped down
Cons:
Flare in bright conditions
This is the first Pentax lens I've owned. Several reviews Ive read had said that'Pentax lenses had"punchy"or "bold"colours. Though this is not strictly speaking, a Pentax lens, the colour rendition is excellent. Indoors at up to f2.5 is fine. Outdoors, always stop down a little for best results. I can't compare to a genuine SMC 135mm, but I am very impressed with this lens, especially as I paid AUD$100 shipped from Canada to Aus for this one. Mine is marked"made in Taiwan". Apparently there are a couple of different versions of this lens. I can't verify if the "made in Japan"version is any better. If you want to venture into the Manual focus Pentax lens market and don't have a huge budget, this would be a good starting point. Then maybe a fast 50mm.....
Regards
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $110.00
| Rating: 10
Pros:
sharpness, good contrast n bokeh, solid build
Cons:
flared, non-smc
I got 2 copies of this pentax, one with SMC and this one . Exceptional for the price and non SMC, a very versatile and talented lens. Color, sharpness and contrast is very like with SMC one. It should be noted that I seem to have gotten a "perfect" copy of the lens.
I can recommend the Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): N/A
| Rating: 7
Pros:
Lighter than the REAL one, large aperture, well built
Cons:
Color rendering, flare, and pronounced PF at f2.5
Finally got one in a package. All in all, it is not bad.
There is a reason that it is not called Pentax SMC. There is a reason it is only about 1/5 of the price of the real one. There is a reason why it is so light while it has f2.5 as the largest aperture.
There are fewer glass elements inside than the SMC one. It does not share the optical formula as the real one or the original TAKUMAR ones. If you have the money, please use the real one. I think that the differences are particularly significant on color films and on digital cameras. It could be a better lens on B/K films.
Without SMC, color rendering suffers particularly at f2.5. Low contrast is an issue, which one can post process to mitigate the issue. Flare could be problematic if not careful. Try to avoid light. The mechanical quality is a little bit lower than the M, but not by much. The aperture mechanism is very different. But it feels solid in hand and resolution is not bad. If stop down by one or two levels, the image quality improves dramatically. However, color rendering is still different.
Better to avoid f2.5. It is very necessary to put on the shade. At f2.5, it is better to shoot close range. Image quality deteriorates quickly in long range.
On a separate topic: I think that it is a dumb decision to put TAKUMAR on an inferior lens. TAKUMAR represents a brilliant era in the Pentax history. I think that instead of "limited", Pentax should have used TAKUMAR to represent the best line of the Pentax lenses. Apparently, Pentax is more of an engineering oriented company. Marketing was not a forte.
