This slower, but popular version of a 135mm screwmount lens came in 3 variants with the same different optical designs. Refer the separate entry for the initial Takumar/Auto-Takumar versions which had a different optical design and no auto-diaphragm.
Variants:
1963: Super-Takumar 1:3.5/135 (early) - fine knurls on aperture ring
1971: Super-Takumar 1:3.5/135 (late) - coarse knurls on aperture ring
Weight
Diam x Length
Filter Size
Min. Focus
Max. Magnification
320g (early), 343g (late)
59.5mm x 87.5mm
49 mm
150 cm
0.11x
Diagonal FOV (APS-C)
Horizontal FOV (APS-C)
Min. Aperture
Max. Aperture
12 degrees
10 degrees
f/22
f/3.5
Diagonal FOV (24x36)
Horizontal FOV (24x36)
Diaphragm
Optical Construction
18 degrees
15 degrees
Automatic
4 elements in 4 groups
1973: Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:3.5/135 - first photo
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): N/A
| Rating: 6
Pros:
Great IQ, great bokeh, quite sharp
Cons:
Heavy, manual, non SMC
I have the Super Takumar edition passed on to me with my father's Spotmatic.
This edition has a different lens grip with long knurls and no rubber cover. The lens hood is a screw on design which reverses over the lens barrel for storage staying in place by friction, not bayonet. With the narrow filter size (Pentax Standard for the time 49mm thread) it seems to make the hood into quite a long narrow tube even though it is only 50mm long.
Regarding IQ, it has all been said in the K Mount M135 review as the optics are the same, allowing for the fact that this edition does flare more easily due to the lack of SMC coating. I never use it without the lens hood and avoid pointing into sun or suns reflective surfaces unless that flaring is what I am looking for. Six aperture blades quite heavily curved on their inside edge which contributes to the great bokeh in this lens. 3.5-22 aperture range.
It is heavy so I only put it in my kit if I decide ahead of time that I want to make use of its distinctive characteristics. The DA50-200 covers the same territory more efficiently and is lighter to carry. The torque this lens puts on the tripod mount is not a threat to the camera structure due to its small size. I find that the lens is far easier to focus when on a tripod due to its 200mm (SLR) angle of view. Focusing manually is fine as the focus ring has a long throw (340degrees) making very fine adjustments possible.
These lenses are relatively easy to come by and are just fun to have if you enjoy precision optics for the technology as much as for their optical performance.
Registered: December, 2006
Posts: 137
Location: Chicago, IL
Lens Review Date: January 16, 2007
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: No |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $10.00
| Rating: 4
Pros:
Cons:
M42 mount
S/N series 1740000 Good for a starving artist, if the artist had a Pentax.
You want to use this lens with your subject in bright daylight. Otherwise, shade or dim light will show off its lack of contrast and softness. Best used for big things not too far away on sunny days, stopped down a few stops,, in my opinion.
Registered: September, 2007
Posts: 30
Location: Sydney
Lens Review Date: September 20, 2007
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): N/A
| Rating: 10
Pros:
Sharp wide open, nice Flat field, easy to use.
Cons:
Very few, Lens Hood is long.
Well I have owned one of the Super Multi Coated f3.5 versions of these lenses for many years and Overall, it is a really Nice lens to use.
As noted it is easy to focus, superb in fact and in my Opinion, has excellent colour rendition and Contrast.
I have found it to be beautifully Sharp even wide open and is one of my favourite lenses.
It has a nice 'Balance', when mounted on an Older 35mm Pentax and is easy to use at Longer exposure times or slower films.
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $12.00
| Rating: 7
Pros:
Tack sharp and smooth well damped focus.
Cons:
Lack of sharp contrast.
All in all a nice lens to play with. Very sharp focus but it is a little lacking in contrast and color saturation...I bump the saturation and contrast 2 stops when using this and then a little more in PP. Some photos using this lens.
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: No |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $32.00
| Rating: 3
Pros:
Good color
Cons:
Not sharp!!
My Takumar was purchased from ebay and is in very good condition for it's age.I already had a 135mm super albinar and was looking forward to the improved output this lens might provide.I was very surprised to find the CHEAP Albinar lens"made in korea" is much sharper than the Takumar.If i had it to do over again i'd be lookin for something else!!
Registered: June, 2007
Posts: 2786
Location: Sydney, Australia
Lens Review Date: May 21, 2008
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $75.00
| Rating: 10
Pros:
Build quality, colour/contrast rendition, sharp, image quality, awesome value for money
Cons:
LOOONG focus ring rotation
This is another wow lens ... Mine is the Super Takumar variant and it is beuatiful indeed.
The colours and sharpness this lens produces is amazing ... it is very sharp at f/3.5 ... and it just keeps getting sharper when stopping down. It has a nice weight to it ... and aperture ring snicks nicely through the entire range. Focus ring is nicely damped (although it does take quite a bit to focus from one end of the range to the other).
For the price I purchased this lens ... the image quality is amazing it is close to the quality of my Super Tak 85mm f/1.9 it is that good.
I highly recommend this lens ... another lens I will not part with.
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $45.00
| Rating: 9
Pros:
Good contrast, good flare resistance, low CA
Cons:
M42, not automatic, could be faster
I have the 6 blade SMC version. Bought it used off of eBay for $45 shipped, Buy It Now.
This is a fantastic lens, and I'm amazed that the average rating is so low. It's amazing how sharp it is. It blows the 18-250mm out of the water (my only telephoto reference). It's also much faster. I just used it at an indoor volleyball event, and the images are coming out with much better contrast and color, making ISO 1600 very bearable to use on my K10D.
It may be just a tad bit soft wide open with just a slight bit of CA, but not enough to really affect the IQ.
Though it is manual focus, the long throw makes it easy to make fine tune adjustments (compared to FA series) and it's easier to spot when things are in focus for some reason, with the regular focusing screen.
Highly recommend it, especially for the price. Now, the only thing I'm curious is whether the f/2.5 version is better.
Registered: September, 2008
Posts: 59
Location: hawaii
Lens Review Date: January 21, 2009
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): N/A
| Rating: 9
Pros:
crisp, sharp, natural colors, cheap and findable, long focus throw
Cons:
heavy, if you're used to the DA's
yah, i know many of the above reviews have rated this an 8, but my copy really had the most beautiful renderings, crisp and contrasty, no CA, and edge to edge clarity. even in dim lighting, hand held, i usually get a fine shot.
not that i consider it a downside, but the colors are true to life - there aren't the special coatings that give newer pentax lenses that color pop. but for nature photography, or if you want normal colors before post porcessing, this lens is a real winner. one of my favorites, even if i do grumble about how long it takes to change to a normal k-mount from this lens's M42 threads.
Registered: January, 2009
Posts: 429
Location: Kuala Lumpur Malaysia
Lens Review Date: February 19, 2009
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $62.00
| Rating: 8
Pros:
Tack sharp, smooth focusing
Cons:
M42 screw mount
The version that I have is by Honeywell (from USA), not from Japan.
Min. focus point is 5 feet. Easy to focus
I recommend this lens to be used in bright daylight. Otherwise, shade or dim light will reveal its lack of contrast and softness.
I rate it at 8/10 as to me the closest it gets to match current lens is the Tamron SP 90mm (of which I would rate at 10/10 ).
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $50.00
| Rating: 8
Pros:
sharp, cheap, great build quality
Cons:
slow aperture, only for daylight
135 is about the longest I need in a lens and the Super version I have does a great job. I must admit I don't use this as often as my other Takumar lenses as I always wish I had the 2.5 version but in daylight, the extra stop doesn't really matter. I took this lens to a Safari Amusement Park in Japan and I was pleasantly surprised with the results. I'll be shooting an outdoor music festival in a few months and I will definitely take this lens.
Registered: June, 2009
Posts: 362
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Lens Review Date: September 10, 2009
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $35.00
| Rating: 10
Pros:
Great image quality, build quality, contrast and color saturation, microcontrast and overall rendering.
Cons:
Bokeh can be slightly busy at times, f/3.5 max aperture, minimum focus distance is quite far.
I've got 2 lenses that fit into this review. This review covers both the Auto Takumar 135mm f/3.5 and my Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5. From what I've read, they are the same optically (aside from the coating), and their overall look is the very nearly the same in all of the A/B tests I have done.
Both the Auto and Super Takumar versions are sharp enough for my uses wide open, with detail picking up steadily until f/11 on my Canon 40D (10mp, APS-C sized sensor). I normally use these for picking people out of a crowd, so I like being able to shoot wide-open and not think about IQ. Sometimes the extra stop of light would be nice when shooting near dusk or into the evening, but with LiveView and a tripod, it's easy to make dark lenses work.
My Super Takumar definitely has more inherit contrast, even giving it's hood to the Auto Takumar, so I use them appropriately. I have yet to see results on film, so I can't speak to their quality there.
Overall, a nice lightweight and compact telephoto that is easy to carry in a vest pocket and get some real reach on a crop sensor cam. Highly recommended if you can think about your shot before you take it, and don't expect the camera to do all the work for you.
Registered: August, 2009
Posts: 19
Location: Lexington, KY
Lens Review Date: September 20, 2009
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $40.00
| Rating: 9
Pros:
Tiny & solid, sharp wide open, good flare resistance
Cons:
Slow f/3.5
This is for a "minty" Super Takumar on 1.5X crop digital.
First, the bad news: f/3.5. It wasn't even a fast 135mm when new.
All the rest is good news. The cheap 135mm lens was probably the single most common additional lens purchased by new SLR buyers in the 1970s, so it was important that it be both cheap and "enticing" -- it was the sales pitch for buying more glass later. This 135mm lens is perfectly tuned to those goals.
I have two other M42 135mm lenses, a Vivitar and a Soligor, both f/2.8. This Tak makes consistently better images. In comparison, the Vivitar is a little soft wide open, although it is really quite a good lens too, and I like it for macro work on tubes. The Soligor is one of the funkiest lenses I've ever used; very "dreamy" wide open, but with strong colors -- stopped down, it switches to muted colors but fairly sharp. This Tak is just a no-nonsense get-it-done moderate telephoto lens: it isn't special or quirky in any way, it just does exactly what it should do with no surprises.
It's a 10 for doing what it is designed to do, which drops to 9 because it's f/3.5.
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $35.00
| Rating: 9
Pros:
Image quality, sharpnes, build quality, 3d rendering
Cons:
A little slow at f/3.5
This is one lovely lens. I am surprised at the low rating here. I like it much more than I expected.
I have the S-M-C version of this lens (well actually I have 2) and it produces excellent sharp images with nice realistic colors and a nice overall color balance. Images are not super contrasty but adding contrast is of course easily done in pp if necessary. The bokeh is nice but can get a bit busy at smaller apertures.
What I like most about this lens though is that at the right dof you can really get that beautiful 3d rendering effect.
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $50.00
| Rating: 10
Pros:
Sharp
Cons:
A little slow
I tested two of these lenses in my local photo shop. I do not know why the guy who rated it a 3 was not as sharp as the others. This is the best 135 I own and very sharp. Almost as sharp as my Pentax SMC 50mm f1.2 K-mount.
I still need to do more photography with the lens but it was worth the purchase and I am extremely happy.
Registered: December, 2009
Posts: 140
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Lens Review Date: April 26, 2010
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: Yes |
Price (U.S. Dollars): $39.00
| Rating: 10
Pros:
Good colour, great sharpness, really nice to use, build quality, bargain
Cons:
M42
I have had this lense 2 months now and its spent most of that time on my camera. Mine is the SMC version and came with original case, cap and hood. While it may not be particularly fast it is significantly faster than my kit lense at same focal length.
Its sharpness is very similar to the A50 1.7 I have - which is really good. The focal length is surprisingly useful (even on my K-x - equivalent to 207mm) and great for photos of the children at the park etc. I quite like not having to get really close to my subjects.
Some commented on contrast but mine seems pretty good. Probably not as good a modern prime lense but still respectable and any short fall here is easily fixed in PP. I also have a Super Tak 200 f4 but this lense has the better contrast and colour in my view.
As for the focus, it feels so good to use, its almost sensual!
I can recommend the S-M-C/Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5: No |
Price (U.S. Dollars): N/A
| Rating: 3
Pros:
Beautifully made, a joy to focus
Cons:
Mine's in no way sharp, probably my least sharp lens
I bought this along with a CZJ 135mm/3.5 Sonnar, and was thus able to make an instant comparison: the Zeiss was miles sharper, at all apertures, and had much better colour and contrast to boot. I was shocked!
(Actually, my CZJ is the only vintage lens I've seen which approaches modern-day Pentax colour/contrast, but that's another story.)
Incidentally, my lens is, I think, a Mk.1 Super-Takumar, which has 5 elements in 4 groups - as opposed to the later Super-Taks and S-M-C Taks (and Pentax-K) which are 4/4.
(Note that the Pentax-M has a 5-element, 5-group formula.)
I'd be interested to know if there appears to be a correlation between Mk.1/Mk.2 and IQ. I believe you can distinguish between the versions as follows:
Mk.1 has finer knurled aperture ring, which has a "4" marked between "5.6" and "3.5".
I'm sorry to have to give such a negative review. Maybe I've just got myself a bad copy - or possibly it's suffered from a bad "repair" some time in it's life. Anyway, if I ever come across a cheap S-M-C version, I shall buy it and hopefully be able to submit something more positive!
;)
