Takumar vs Pentax M 135mm

FHPhotographer · 06-24-2010, 07:40 PM

A local shop has a Takumar 135mm f/2.8 and a Pentax M 135mm f/3.5 either for <$100. He claims they are essentially the same IQ, and recommends going with the faster Takumar. This is way out of my expertise, so any opinions whether I'm getting the straight advice on the Takumar rather than Pentax M?
Brian

**Lowell Goudge** · 06-24-2010, 07:47 PM

Is the takumar a bayonet or screount. There were low cost takumars made in the 1980's that did not have multi coatings. I would avoid these, BUT some of the m42 taks are possibly superior to the m series lenses especially in build quality

epqwerty · 06-24-2010, 08:14 PM

If the takumar is a M42 mount and not the later K mount version. I would say get that one instead if you can use a M42 screwmount on your camera. From what I recall the Pentax M 135mm 3.5 is similar if not the exact same as a M42 screw mount version of the 135mm F3.5. However if the takumar is the later style which is k mount it should be not as good as the pentax M version. You only get less than 1/2 a stop difference which isn't going to be that much of a difference.

hangu · 06-24-2010, 09:04 PM

Frankly, I would not buy either for under ~$100. The S TAK 135 3.5 can be had for $40-50 in mint condition on Ebay.

FHPhotographer · 06-24-2010, 09:10 PM

Bayonet. I see quite a few f/3.5 around and about, but not many f/2.8. The f/2.8 is rated a little higher by the forum but only has two reviews while the f/3.5 has 19. My inclination is to go with the SMC to control flare as much as possible, but half a stop is modestly attractive. Frankly, I'd much rather have an "A" version but I haven't found one yet,
Brian

FHPhotographer · 06-24-2010, 09:14 PM

hangu, If the only difference is half a stop, you've got a point, but that was my question: is the Tak 3.5 the same as the M 3.5, and is the only difference between the 3.5s and the Tak 2.8 that half a stop, or is there anything else,
Brian

stevebrot · 06-24-2010, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by FHPhotographer

hangu, If the only difference is half a stop, you've got a point, but that was my question: is the Tak 3.5 the same as the M 3.5, and is the only difference between the 3.5s and the Tak 2.8 that half a stop, or is there anything else,
Brian

Avoid the Takumar Bayonet. Those lenses were so crummy that Pentax did not even offer them in their home market. Value is about $25 or less.

As for the S-Tak 135/3.5 vs. Pentax-M 135/3.5...completely different designs. The S-M-C Tak 135/2.5 and Pentax-K 135/2.5 are the classics in that focal length and are essentially the same lens.

Steve

P.S. All of these lenses are in the lens database on this site including the optical formulae.

Last edited by stevebrot; 06-24-2010 at 09:42 PM.

Marc Sabatella · 06-24-2010, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by FHPhotographer

Bayonet. I see quite a few f/3.5 around and about, but not many f/2.8.

You see quite a few Takumar Bayonet 135/3.5's? I don't think so. There's a 2.8 and a 2.5 - both reputed to be pretty bad on account of the coating - but not 3.5 in Takumar Bayonet. Maybe you've seen screwmount Takumar 3.5's, or K-mount 3.5's (K and M series).

DaniRo · 06-25-2010, 02:43 AM

I love my M 135 3.5 - the sharpness, the size, the feeling, the smoothness, that bokeh... :ugh:

Hangu is right, you can find it cheaper on E-bay, but we all know that this lens is worth $100. + you can play with that small jewlery before you buy it.

Mechan1k · 06-25-2010, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

You see quite a few Takumar Bayonet 135/3.5's? I don't think so. There's a 2.8 and a 2.5 - both reputed to be pretty bad on account of the coating - but not 3.5 in Takumar Bayonet. Maybe you've seen screwmount Takumar 3.5's, or K-mount 3.5's (K and M series).

I think you misread what he typed. He mentioned that the lens he was looking at was the Bayonet version (which mentioned earlier that was an f/2.8) ... he also mentions that he has seen a lot of 135/3.5 variants ... but not many in the f/2.8

That's how i read it the first time round anyway.

ddhytz · 06-25-2010, 03:43 AM

Takumar 135/2.8 bayonet lens isn't that bad. Maybe some people had a bad copy. It's cheap because it does not have SMC coating, but a hood will help. I had one for a very short period of time. Some test shots here plus 100% crop.

hangu · 06-25-2010, 04:40 AM

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.

goddo31 · 06-25-2010, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by DaniRo

I love my M 135 3.5 - the sharpness, the size, the feeling, the smoothness, that bokeh... :ugh:

Hangu is right, you can find it cheaper on E-bay, but we all know that this lens is worth $100. + you can play with that small jewlery before you buy it.

+1. I bought the M 135 3.5 fairly recently, but IMO it's a great lens. Sharpness, colour and especially bokeh are very nice. I liken it to the M50 f/1.4 in some regards, which is also a very nice lens. I recommend you get it.

bdery · 06-25-2010, 05:30 AM

It amazes me how people can trash lenses they have never used, based on something they saw on the web somewhere. Why not look at the reviews here for starters?

The Takumar bayonet 135 mm f2.8 is not worth 100$, I think, but it's a fine lens. It lacks contrast below f4 however, which makes the M135 f3,5 a better choice for the same price. I have still shot many good portraits with it.

But seriously, commenting toroughly on a lens you've never use is like me saying I'm pretty sure Porches handle better than Mercedes roadsters. I don't really know anything about that, now do I?

:P

hangu · 06-25-2010, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by bdery

It amazes me how people can trash lenses they have never used, based on something they saw on the web somewhere. Why not look at the reviews here for starters?

But seriously, commenting toroughly on a lens you've never use is like me saying I'm pretty sure Porches handle better than Mercedes roadsters. I don't really know anything about that, now do I?

:P

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."

Originally posted by bdery

Why not look at the reviews here for starters?

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.

Quote:

The Takumar bayonet 135 mm f2.8 is not worth 100$, I think, but it's a fine lens. It lacks contrast below f4 however, which makes the M135 f3,5 a better choice for the same price. I have still shot many good portraits with it.

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.

06-24-2010, 07:40 PM	#1
FHPhotographer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fountain Hills, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,297	Takumar vs Pentax M 135mm A local shop has a Takumar 135mm f/2.8 and a Pentax M 135mm f/3.5 either for <$100. He claims they are essentially the same IQ, and recommends going with the faster Takumar. This is way out of my expertise, so any opinions whether I'm getting the straight advice on the Takumar rather than Pentax M? Brian

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax mount Takumar 135mm f/2.5	mike.hiran	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

06-24-2010, 07:47 PM	#2
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Is the takumar a bayonet or screount. There were low cost takumars made in the 1980's that did not have multi coatings. I would avoid these, BUT some of the m42 taks are possibly superior to the m series lenses especially in build quality

06-24-2010, 08:14 PM	#3
epqwerty Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Ontario Posts: 550	If the takumar is a M42 mount and not the later K mount version. I would say get that one instead if you can use a M42 screwmount on your camera. From what I recall the Pentax M 135mm 3.5 is similar if not the exact same as a M42 screw mount version of the 135mm F3.5. However if the takumar is the later style which is k mount it should be not as good as the pentax M version. You only get less than 1/2 a stop difference which isn't going to be that much of a difference.

06-24-2010, 09:04 PM	#4
hangu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NYC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,071	Frankly, I would not buy either for under ~$100. The S TAK 135 3.5 can be had for $40-50 in mint condition on Ebay.

06-24-2010, 09:10 PM	#5
FHPhotographer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fountain Hills, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,297 Original Poster	Bayonet. I see quite a few f/3.5 around and about, but not many f/2.8. The f/2.8 is rated a little higher by the forum but only has two reviews while the f/3.5 has 19. My inclination is to go with the SMC to control flare as much as possible, but half a stop is modestly attractive. Frankly, I'd much rather have an "A" version but I haven't found one yet, Brian

06-24-2010, 09:14 PM	#6
FHPhotographer Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Fountain Hills, AZ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,297 Original Poster	hangu, If the only difference is half a stop, you've got a point, but that was my question: is the Tak 3.5 the same as the M 3.5, and is the only difference between the 3.5s and the Tak 2.8 that half a stop, or is there anything else, Brian

06-24-2010, 09:37 PM	#7
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by FHPhotographer hangu, If the only difference is half a stop, you've got a point, but that was my question: is the Tak 3.5 the same as the M 3.5, and is the only difference between the 3.5s and the Tak 2.8 that half a stop, or is there anything else, Brian Avoid the Takumar Bayonet. Those lenses were so crummy that Pentax did not even offer them in their home market. Value is about $25 or less. As for the S-Tak 135/3.5 vs. Pentax-M 135/3.5...completely different designs. The S-M-C Tak 135/2.5 and Pentax-K 135/2.5 are the classics in that focal length and are essentially the same lens. Steve P.S. All of these lenses are in the lens database on this site including the optical formulae. Last edited by stevebrot; 06-24-2010 at 09:42 PM.

06-24-2010, 11:22 PM	#8
Marc Sabatella Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Denver, CO Photos: Gallery Posts: 10,685	Originally posted by FHPhotographer Bayonet. I see quite a few f/3.5 around and about, but not many f/2.8. You see quite a few Takumar Bayonet 135/3.5's? I don't think so. There's a 2.8 and a 2.5 - both reputed to be pretty bad on account of the coating - but not 3.5 in Takumar Bayonet. Maybe you've seen screwmount Takumar 3.5's, or K-mount 3.5's (K and M series).

06-25-2010, 02:43 AM	#9
DaniRo Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Romania Posts: 102	I love my M 135 3.5 - the sharpness, the size, the feeling, the smoothness, that bokeh... :ugh: Hangu is right, you can find it cheaper on E-bay, but we all know that this lens is worth $100. + you can play with that small jewlery before you buy it.

06-25-2010, 02:54 AM	#10
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella You see quite a few Takumar Bayonet 135/3.5's? I don't think so. There's a 2.8 and a 2.5 - both reputed to be pretty bad on account of the coating - but not 3.5 in Takumar Bayonet. Maybe you've seen screwmount Takumar 3.5's, or K-mount 3.5's (K and M series). I think you misread what he typed. He mentioned that the lens he was looking at was the Bayonet version (which mentioned earlier that was an f/2.8) ... he also mentions that he has seen a lot of 135/3.5 variants ... but not many in the f/2.8 That's how i read it the first time round anyway.

06-25-2010, 03:43 AM	#11
ddhytz Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 602	Takumar 135/2.8 bayonet lens isn't that bad. Maybe some people had a bad copy. It's cheap because it does not have SMC coating, but a hood will help. I had one for a very short period of time. Some test shots here plus 100% crop.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-25-2010, 04:40 AM	#12
hangu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NYC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,071	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.

06-25-2010, 04:52 AM	#13
goddo31 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Perth, Western Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,576	Originally posted by DaniRo I love my M 135 3.5 - the sharpness, the size, the feeling, the smoothness, that bokeh... :ugh: Hangu is right, you can find it cheaper on E-bay, but we all know that this lens is worth $100. + you can play with that small jewlery before you buy it. +1. I bought the M 135 3.5 fairly recently, but IMO it's a great lens. Sharpness, colour and especially bokeh are very nice. I liken it to the M50 f/1.4 in some regards, which is also a very nice lens. I recommend you get it.

06-25-2010, 05:30 AM	#14
bdery Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 9,357	It amazes me how people can trash lenses they have never used, based on something they saw on the web somewhere. Why not look at the reviews here for starters? The Takumar bayonet 135 mm f2.8 is not worth 100$, I think, but it's a fine lens. It lacks contrast below f4 however, which makes the M135 f3,5 a better choice for the same price. I have still shot many good portraits with it. But seriously, commenting toroughly on a lens you've never use is like me saying I'm pretty sure Porches handle better than Mercedes roadsters. I don't really know anything about that, now do I? :P

06-25-2010, 06:44 AM	#15
hangu Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NYC Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,071	Originally posted by bdery It amazes me how people can trash lenses they have never used, based on something they saw on the web somewhere. Why not look at the reviews here for starters? But seriously, commenting toroughly on a lens you've never use is like me saying I'm pretty sure Porches handle better than Mercedes roadsters. I don't really know anything about that, now do I? :P 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." Originally posted by bdery Why not look at the reviews here for starters? 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. Quote: The Takumar bayonet 135 mm f2.8 is not worth 100$, I think, but it's a fine lens. It lacks contrast below f4 however, which makes the M135 f3,5 a better choice for the same price. I have still shot many good portraits with it. 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.