[tuan2195]

I'm having a hard time deciding between these two lens... I can get both for pretty cheap (compared to market price) still the Tamron is gonna put me back about $40 ($70 vs. $110)
And I'm going to use them mainly for portraits and flowers. I've already have a 135mm 3.5 Super-Takumar so is the 2.5 version gonna be much better?

So far this is what I've read:

Pros
Super Takumar (early 5-elements version)
- Shallower DOF
- Sharper (not sure because not many people said that the Tamron was sharp?)
- Cheaper
Tamron
- More conventional focal length (on an APS-C camera)
- Terrific bokeh (not many people mentioned the bokeh on the Takumar though?)
- Shorter focusing distance
- 49mm filter (I have a bunch of these, also screw on hood)
- 1:2 macro for flower shots

So far the Tamron seems superior but I wonder if it's worth the extra $40.
And also is there much difference between the normal and the SMC version of the f/3.5? Considering that I use a hood all the time and shoots digital.
Pleas let me know what you think. Thanks!

[sinkols]

I have the Tamron 90, 2.5, and I love it. It is an excellent lens and it is so easy to manuel focus with the k5. The focus point just pop out. It is one of my best lens and in that price I wouldn't hesitate for a moment.

[Jean Poitiers]

Does the Tamron come with the Adaptall-2 adapter ... and if so, is it a PK/M or PK/A ... ? Without the adapter, one cannot use the Tamron and it would be an extra cost ...

Plus for the Tak, you will need a M42 adapter ... J

[tuan2195]

I have the M42 adapter so that's no trouble for me. But the Adaptall-NEX adapter is going to cost me $15. But still, I have no trouble getting the lenses to work if I want to.

[Just1MoreDave]

The Super-Takumar is not as sharp as the Tamron. That usually helps with portraits and hurts with flowers. The Tamron is possibly too sharp for portraits for some tastes. It does work for me most of the time, and I have a Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9 that I'll use when I want to deemphasize sharpness. Its other characteristics really work for portraits. The wide open sharpness really aids manual focus. I like the 90mm focal length better for portraits too. I would choose the Tamron and see if the sharpness works for you.

Bokeh, I don't know. I think even the 49mm filter version has 9 blades, and the Super-Takumar only has 6.

I ended up selling a lot of my 135mm lenses because they were great lenses but harder to use on APS-C. Minimum focus distance is 5 feet, few have KA mounts, and the best ones are costly.

The Super-Takumar 135/2.5 has one review problem: everyone knows there's the more awesome six-element formula out there. I thought it was a pretty good lens in its own right. My impression is that it was a bit sharper than the 135/3.5, much better than the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 and looked great on the camera.

[monochrome]

The focus point just pop out

I had the BB1 version - that lens had thje most obvious snap into focus I've ever seen in a lens and it was VERY sharp. I should never have sold it - I would buy it back if given the chance. I have the K135/2.5, which is a fine lens but not a Macro and not quite as sharp.

[civiletti]

Wide open, the Tamron would not be "too sharp" for portraits. It gets very sharp from f5.6 to f11.

[tuan2195]

A lens can never be too sharp! And also we have post processing.
Seems like the Tamron is the winner here. Still, additional experience are always welcome.
And also, to not buy the Super Takumar 135mm 2.5 for $70 is quite a waste... So if anybody is interested please PM.

[slip]

Does the Tamron 90mm f2.5 macro have the 1:1 adapter? Not sure if it can focus to infinity with it mounted, though
I would jump all over it as it is a great price...
It is a lot nicer to soften a shot then to sharpen

Good luck with your decision

Randy

[tuan2195]

I don't think so - still I don't think there's anything special about that tube so I can just use a generic one?
And also does anybody has experience with normal Super Takumar vs SMC ones? Provided that I use a hood all the time.

[tuan2195]

Damn. I was a little bit too slow. I lost it.
Now there's one that cost $150 but it's the 52BB version and I don't know if it's worth spending that much cash on.

[ChatMechant]

I have the 52BB version and it is my favorite lens.

[tuan2195]

OK. Let's bring another beast into the competition since I've lost the Tamron SP 90mm. What do you guys think of the Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Close-Focusing?

[slip]

I don't think so - still I don't think there's anything special about that tube so I can just use a generic one?
And also does anybody has experience with normal Super Takumar vs SMC ones? Provided that I use a hood all the time.

Yeah a plastic tube would do but I figured the real one would add value to the lens.
IMHO though

Randy

[wingman]

Hi All,
I just picked this lens up. Tamron SP Tele Macro Lens 1:2.5 90MM 27° BBAR MC F49 This was the description on the lens. Anyone know anything about this lens? Any info would be greatly appreciated.