D FA 100mm 2.8 macro vs Pentax Asahi Takumar 135mm 2.5

Lautrec · 11-03-2013, 09:53 AM

I am looking at getting a telephoto lens form my pentax k-5 IIS. Are these lenses as good as another (image quality, color rendition or is one noticeably better?). I can get a used Asahi Takumar 135mm 2.5 for $95 or I can get a used Pentax 100mm 2.8 macro for $395. If you think the 100mm is noticeably better -- is the WR worth an extra $200?

Thank you in advance.

**boriscleto** · 11-03-2013, 11:41 AM

If it's a D FA vs a Takumar there is a lot more than just WR for that $200. Like autofocus, modern coatings, macro...

The next question is what Takumar is it? The M42 or the Takumar Bayonet. The bayonet version is not even SMC and probably isn't worth $95.

**jatrax** · 11-03-2013, 12:06 PM

There are quite a number of Pentax 100mm macros so you need to be more specific. If the macro is really the WR version that is an excellent price, that lens goes for $650 - 700 new.

As Boiscleto says the Takumar could be M42 or bayonet. The M42 version is quite good but requires an M42-K mount adapter and will be all manual. If it's the bayonet version, it's an OK lens but not worth $95 and will also be all manual.

Apapukas · 11-03-2013, 12:23 PM - **1 Like**

D FA 100 macro is a fantastic lens! I find its color rendition superior (slightly) to even DA 70mm Ltd.

**Eric Auer** · 11-03-2013, 12:45 PM - **1 Like**

Pentax K-5 IIs, Sears 135mm 1:2.8

If you shop around, Less than $25.

Lautrec · 11-03-2013, 12:55 PM

Thanks all for the replies - the Takumar is a bayonet -- so I will scratch that. And I wasn't clear on the D FA 100mm 2.8 macro. I can get one without weather resistance for $395 or I could get one with WR for $595. Is the weather sealing worth that much. And I will definitely be looking for that sears lens!!

**boriscleto** · 11-03-2013, 01:03 PM

Optically the FA 100, D FA 100, and D FA 100 WR are all identical. The WR has an aluminum lens barrel rather than plastic and it is WR, if you don't need WR it probably isn't worth the extra $200.

Zav · 11-03-2013, 01:03 PM

The WR..it's up to you if you will need it or not. If you need, then yes it is worth it, otherwise, no.
WR or not, the optical quality will be better than the 135 2.5.

Lautrec · 11-03-2013, 01:37 PM

Thanks so much for replies -- I will forgo weather sealing for now and save the $200

Kendigitize · 11-03-2013, 01:49 PM - **1 Like**

I have an SMC Pentax A-135 2.8 that I love and is really sharp. I also have a SMC Pentax-m 100mm 2.8 (non macro though) that is a little sharper than the A-135.

**boriscleto** · 11-03-2013, 03:14 PM - **3 Likes**

The A 135/2.8 is a nice sharp lens, and a good deal if you can find it for less than $200.

@f/2.8

@f/4

@f/5.6

**pentaxman** · 11-04-2013, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Lautrec

I am looking at getting a telephoto lens form my pentax k-5 IIS. Are these lenses as good as another (image quality, color rendition or is one noticeably better?). I can get a used Asahi Takumar 135mm 2.5 for $95 or I can get a used Pentax 100mm 2.8 macro for $395. If you think the 100mm is noticeably better -- is the WR worth an extra $200?

Thank you in advance.

The Takumar 135 F2.5 is a non-SMC lens and it is only 4 elements in 4 groups. It is a mediocre lens at best. I would not pay $50 for one.

The Pentax K 135 F2.5 is 6 elements and is rightfully a very well regarded lens.
SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

Comparing the two is like comparing a Fiat to a Ferrari.

sterretje · 11-05-2013, 10:17 AM - **1 Like**

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/86625-lba-s...-wr-macro.html might be of interest to decide between the DFA100and the DFA100WR. Plenty of pics.

Eder · 02-20-2014, 04:27 PM

does anyone knows if filter is special or is normal. Cuz i read on a page that filter is non-rotating for this lens, is this true or not
Pentax SMC-D FA 100mm f/2.8 macro - Review / Test Report

Can i use a std 49mm fitler or must be non rotating?

pinholecam · 02-20-2014, 07:37 PM - **1 Like**

My experience with 100mm and 135mm lenses are that they are one of those things that fall into a sweet spot in optical design such that most of them are good, fast and sharp.

The Takumar 135/2.5 k-mount is often considered the worst of the Pentax 135mm.
Usable of course, but the others are much better.

K135/2.5 (similar to ver2 of the S.Takumar 135/2.5 M42 )

S.Takumar 135/2.5 v1 M42

The old lenses are MF, well built in metal and nicely damped for MF.
Beautiful rendering, colors and sharp.

The new DFA 100 macro WR has no aperture ring, and the nice thing is that it has rounded aperture blades for rounded OOF highlights.
Sharp of course.

I'd suggest getting the DFA100 macro WR, since its more convenient and no slouch against the 135mm lenses.

11-03-2013, 09:53 AM	#1
Lautrec New Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 10	D FA 100mm 2.8 macro vs Pentax Asahi Takumar 135mm 2.5 I am looking at getting a telephoto lens form my pentax k-5 IIS. Are these lenses as good as another (image quality, color rendition or is one noticeably better?). I can get a used Asahi Takumar 135mm 2.5 for $95 or I can get a used Pentax 100mm 2.8 macro for $395. If you think the 100mm is noticeably better -- is the WR worth an extra $200? Thank you in advance.

11-03-2013, 01:49 PM - 1 Like	#10
Kendigitize Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 324	I have an SMC Pentax A-135 2.8 that I love and is really sharp. I also have a SMC Pentax-m 100mm 2.8 (non macro though) that is a little sharper than the A-135. Last edited by Kendigitize; 02-15-2014 at 09:42 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax D FA MACRO 1:2.8 100mm WR	jasonfoxfire	Sold Items	2	07-21-2013 10:13 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax smc Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro Lens	tpowell	Sold Items	2	03-18-2012 12:00 PM
For Sale - Sold: DA* 16-50mm/2.8; FA* 28-70mm/2.8; D FA 100mm/2.8 Macro WR	luke0622	Sold Items	6	08-02-2010 06:34 AM
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro vs smcP-D FA 100mm f/2.8 Macro	Trub	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	04-20-2007 11:58 PM

11-03-2013, 11:41 AM	#2
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	If it's a D FA vs a Takumar there is a lot more than just WR for that $200. Like autofocus, modern coatings, macro... The next question is what Takumar is it? The M42 or the Takumar Bayonet. The bayonet version is not even SMC and probably isn't worth $95.

11-03-2013, 12:06 PM	#3
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	There are quite a number of Pentax 100mm macros so you need to be more specific. If the macro is really the WR version that is an excellent price, that lens goes for $650 - 700 new. As Boiscleto says the Takumar could be M42 or bayonet. The M42 version is quite good but requires an M42-K mount adapter and will be all manual. If it's the bayonet version, it's an OK lens but not worth $95 and will also be all manual.

11-03-2013, 12:23 PM - 1 Like	#4
Apapukas Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Lietuva, Vilnius Posts: 627	D FA 100 macro is a fantastic lens! I find its color rendition superior (slightly) to even DA 70mm Ltd.

11-03-2013, 12:45 PM - 1 Like	#5
Eric Auer Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,211	Pentax K-5 IIs, Sears 135mm 1:2.8 If you shop around, Less than $25.

11-03-2013, 12:55 PM	#6
Lautrec New Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 10 Original Poster	Thanks all for the replies - the Takumar is a bayonet -- so I will scratch that. And I wasn't clear on the D FA 100mm 2.8 macro. I can get one without weather resistance for $395 or I could get one with WR for $595. Is the weather sealing worth that much. And I will definitely be looking for that sears lens!!

11-03-2013, 01:03 PM	#7
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Optically the FA 100, D FA 100, and D FA 100 WR are all identical. The WR has an aluminum lens barrel rather than plastic and it is WR, if you don't need WR it probably isn't worth the extra $200.

11-03-2013, 01:03 PM	#8
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	The WR..it's up to you if you will need it or not. If you need, then yes it is worth it, otherwise, no. WR or not, the optical quality will be better than the 135 2.5.

11-03-2013, 01:37 PM	#9
Lautrec New Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 10 Original Poster	Thanks so much for replies -- I will forgo weather sealing for now and save the $200

11-03-2013, 03:14 PM - 3 Likes	#11
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	The A 135/2.8 is a nice sharp lens, and a good deal if you can find it for less than $200. @f/2.8 @f/4 @f/5.6

11-04-2013, 10:39 PM	#12
pentaxman Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Washington Photos: Gallery Posts: 250	Originally posted by Lautrec I am looking at getting a telephoto lens form my pentax k-5 IIS. Are these lenses as good as another (image quality, color rendition or is one noticeably better?). I can get a used Asahi Takumar 135mm 2.5 for $95 or I can get a used Pentax 100mm 2.8 macro for $395. If you think the 100mm is noticeably better -- is the WR worth an extra $200? Thank you in advance. The Takumar 135 F2.5 is a non-SMC lens and it is only 4 elements in 4 groups. It is a mediocre lens at best. I would not pay $50 for one. The Pentax K 135 F2.5 is 6 elements and is rightfully a very well regarded lens. SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Comparing the two is like comparing a Fiat to a Ferrari.

11-05-2013, 10:17 AM - 1 Like	#13
sterretje Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Roodepoort, South Africa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,561	https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/86625-lba-s...-wr-macro.html might be of interest to decide between the DFA100and the DFA100WR. Plenty of pics.

02-20-2014, 04:27 PM	#14
Eder Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Posts: 95	does anyone knows if filter is special or is normal. Cuz i read on a page that filter is non-rotating for this lens, is this true or not Pentax SMC-D FA 100mm f/2.8 macro - Review / Test Report Can i use a std 49mm fitler or must be non rotating?

02-20-2014, 07:37 PM - 1 Like	#15
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	My experience with 100mm and 135mm lenses are that they are one of those things that fall into a sweet spot in optical design such that most of them are good, fast and sharp. The Takumar 135/2.5 k-mount is often considered the worst of the Pentax 135mm. Usable of course, but the others are much better. K135/2.5 (similar to ver2 of the S.Takumar 135/2.5 M42 ) S.Takumar 135/2.5 v1 M42 The old lenses are MF, well built in metal and nicely damped for MF. Beautiful rendering, colors and sharp. The new DFA 100 macro WR has no aperture ring, and the nice thing is that it has rounded aperture blades for rounded OOF highlights. Sharp of course. I'd suggest getting the DFA100 macro WR, since its more convenient and no slouch against the 135mm lenses.