Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-25-2010, 08:27 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
FWIW, not having used either of the Takumar bayonets, I'd be inclined to skip the f/2.8 simply because there are clearly better alternatives that cost no more at that maximum aperture. But the f/2.5 version always holds a slight fascination for me since it's the cheapest/easiest way to squeeze out almost another half stop over the f/2.8 (around a full stop over the M135/3.5). Someday I may pick one up just to see, even though I know it's not likely to handle stage lights well, is bigger and heavier than I would like, and really, f/3.5 is "usually" good enough for me at 135mm.

06-25-2010, 10:16 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
FWIW, not having used either of the Takumar bayonets, I'd be inclined to skip the f/2.8 simply because there are clearly better alternatives that cost no more at that maximum aperture. But the f/2.5 version always holds a slight fascination for me since it's the cheapest/easiest way to squeeze out almost another half stop over the f/2.8 (around a full stop over the M135/3.5). Someday I may pick one up just to see, even though I know it's not likely to handle stage lights well, is bigger and heavier than I would like, and really, f/3.5 is "usually" good enough for me at 135mm.
Marc

this is quite a surprise from someone so devoted to the compact light weight M135F3.5 .

If you said SMC-pentax 135F2.5 (k mount) I could understand, or even an SMC Tak 135F2.5, but the 135F2.5 bayonet???

It would have to be a pretty good deal to get one, I only paid $35 for an SMC tak 135F3.5 and just over 100 for the $K135F2.5 (although that was a couple of years ago, and it's value has certainly gone up
06-25-2010, 11:11 AM   #18
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,650
QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
It amazes me how people can accuse me of never having used a lens immediately after I said "I don't think it was my "Made in Japan" copy either."

Was that supposed to contradict what I had said? Because according to the reviews, it has the lowest rating of any 135mm manual focus lens in the Pentax line up yet on average costs more than the superior 135mm 3.5 Super Takumar.

OK, fine, this lens isn't the worst lens in the world. Having said that, why the hell would anyone get this lens when there are plenty of other 135mm lens in the Pentax line up that are so much better and cheaper?

I guess this lens could function for portraits, I mean the softness and inability to render red would work well for facial blemishes.
I did not intend that comment for you, but I replied to comments like "you should not buy it, I hear it's bad"

Actually, you and me agree that for the same price, the M135 is a better purchase. We also agree that it's not the best nor the worst lens ever. Pentax made many worse lens, for instance the AF kit lenses of the F and FA lines.

I also suspect that there was a great variability in quality with that lens. For instance even though I have lenses that are better with colours, the Tak bayonet was still very neutral and accurate, but you seem to have experienced differently.

For the record, there are issues with using m42 lenses, too. I for one am not interested in all the fuss.
06-25-2010, 11:19 AM   #19
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by bdery Quote
For the record, there are issues with using m42 lenses, too. I for one am not interested in all the fuss.
I used to think that the M42 lenses were a bother, and I started out with only 2, that were faster than anything I could get at the same price and quality in bayonet mount. BUT, having used them a bit, I am finding that I continually look for more M42 lenses, actually liking some of the really old presets more than the newer lenses. but the point is, they are no real bother,

They are no worse than K mount non A lenses, you just have to think a little differently. It helps now that I have built an M42 kit, sure there are some holes in it but everythingn I won below 100mm in M42 is F2.5 or faster, and f2 or fster. I can still stop down quite a bit and have just as bright a viewfinder for focusing as every kit lens out there from the AF and digital era.

In fact, you can put an entire M42 kit together for the cost of 1 or 2 DA* lenses for example. Sure you give up a little, but for a hobbiest, they are great,

06-25-2010, 03:39 PM   #20
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
Guess which is the M and which is the Tak?

QuoteOriginally posted by hangu Quote
No, the Tak Bayonet was THAT bad. I don't care what the apologists say. That lens was genuinely a POS and a complete dog in the Pentax line up. It had little contrast, horrible color rendering (couldn't render red if its life depended on it) and was soft as a pillow. I don't think it was my "Made in Japan" copy either as most other people echoed the same sentiment. There was just no reason to get that lens when the S-Tak 135 3.5 can be had for $40 and is vastly superior in every respect.
Well, I went back and tested both one right after the other on my K20, full manual mode, tripod etc. here they are @ 100%. One is the M f/3.5 and the other is the Takumar Bayonet f/2.8 (they didn't have a Tak f/3.5, but the Pentax M f/3.5 is supposed to be very similar so that's the comparison here) and I don't see that much difference. You tell me which one is the "POS...a complete dog in the Pentax line up." Oh, and disregard the bottom of each, I was shooting through a window and picked up a bit of the window ledge,
Brian

06-25-2010, 04:07 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NYC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,071
You need to put them through more challenging conditions. Any lens will do well shooting inside through a window. Plus most of the colors in here are green and yellow which are the least challenging colors to render. I know for sure that my Tak Bayonet had a problem with deep reds and saturated blues. It also could not deal with any type of sunlight from the side or front.

There's a possibility of sample variation but if there are this many people complaining about it, do you really want to take a chance?
06-25-2010, 04:23 PM   #22
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 602
More sample shots from my Takumar bayonet 135/2.8. I am NOT recommending anyone to buy this lens. I am just trying to say this lens, at least my copy, is a fine lens.








Last edited by ddhytz; 06-25-2010 at 06:07 PM.
06-25-2010, 05:15 PM   #23
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by Lowell Goudge Quote
this is quite a surprise from someone so devoted to the compact light weight M135F3.5 .

If you said SMC-pentax 135F2.5 (k mount) I could understand, or even an SMC Tak 135F2.5, but the 135F2.5 bayonet???
Well, my rationale is that you are right about the size and weight - I really doubt I'd use it much for that reason alone, IQ aside. But it could be fun to have the option of f/2.5 available at that focal length. Just as I'm happy I have a cheap 50/1.7 even though I almost never use it (for different reasons - I simply prefer the focal lengths of my DA40 and DA70 most of the time in situations where others might reach for a 50). I'm not willing to pay $200 or more for a lens I'll essentially never use, but I might in a weak moment spend $20.

06-25-2010, 05:20 PM   #24
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by FHPhotographer Quote
I don't see that much difference.
I agree, although I'd say you didn't shoot under conditions that would have shown the weakness of the Takumar (it's coatings), plus shooting through a window pretty much put a limiter on them both. We're basically seeing the IQ of the window here, not the lenses.
06-25-2010, 06:47 PM   #25
Veteran Member
FHPhotographer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Fountain Hills, AZ
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,298
Original Poster
Bright red comparison, Takumar and M 135

QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
I agree, although I'd say you didn't shoot under conditions that would have shown the weakness of the Takumar (it's coatings), plus shooting through a window pretty much put a limiter on them both. We're basically seeing the IQ of the window here, not the lenses.
marc et al, well I thought I'd test them... so I got both lenses, took them out in the backyard five minutes ago, and shot the reddest thing around at 45 degrees off from the setting sun. No window glass, red subject, etc., I'm not saying the f/2.8 Takumar Bayonet is better than the M f/3.5, or that I'll even keep either, but here they are at 100% for general view. One caveat, I screwed the pooch on the second image focus, but I was looking for color and flare so didn't pay the attention I should have, but again, I don't see any difference,
Brian

06-25-2010, 07:24 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
but I might in a weak moment spend $20.
if you put it that way, even though I have the real deal, i probably wouldnt pass it up either
06-25-2010, 07:58 PM   #27
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 173
They are both great lenses, also M 135 fringes like crazy, never seen any other lens produce so much purple fringing. Got my M 135 for $20 on flea market last fall. Probably wouldn't pay $100 for it.
06-25-2010, 08:35 PM   #28
Senior Member
scorpioh's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 178
QuoteOriginally posted by VaSA Quote
They are both great lenses, also M 135 fringes like crazy, never seen any other lens produce so much purple fringing. Got my M 135 for $20 on flea market last fall. Probably wouldn't pay $100 for it.
It has this rather soft effect wide open. Good for portraits.
06-26-2010, 12:02 AM   #29
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by FHPhotographer Quote
marc et al, well I thought I'd test them... so I got both lenses, took them out in the backyard five minutes ago, and shot the reddest thing around at 45 degrees off from the setting sun. No window glass, red subject, etc., I'm not saying the f/2.8 Takumar Bayonet is better than the M f/3.5, or that I'll even keep either, but here they are at 100% for general view.
Very interesting. I guess maybe the light source has to be closer still in order for the flare to be the differentiator. As for the reds, well, I never believed for a moment that there would be a noticeable difference there.
06-26-2010, 12:03 AM   #30
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
QuoteOriginally posted by VaSA Quote
They are both great lenses, also M 135 fringes like crazy, never seen any other lens produce so much purple fringing.
I see this on rare occasion, but nowhere near as often as with the Tamron 70-300.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
135mm, k-mount, pentax, pentax lens, slr lens, takumar
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax mount Takumar 135mm f/2.5 vagrant10 Sold Items 4 10-20-2009 01:09 PM
Pentax K 45-125mm F4 vs Takumar A 28-80mm vs Takumar M 135mm F/3.5 YJD Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 10-29-2008 01:35 PM
Pentax SMC 135mm F/2.5 ( Not Takumar ) mer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 01-25-2008 06:24 AM
Pentax K-mount Takumar 135mm f2.8 repair mopar_man Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 2 08-23-2007 10:47 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:08 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top