Takumar 105 vs 135

Fergarcialarraburu · 03-03-2014, 07:30 AM

Hello, Could you tell me the differences between these three lenses?
Which has better optical quality?

Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 105 mm 2.8
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 mm 2.5
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 mm 3.5

Thank you

johnyates · 03-03-2014, 01:03 PM

By reputation:

Originally posted by Fergarcialarraburu

Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 mm 2.5

tim60 · 03-03-2014, 01:32 PM

I have the SMC version of the 135/2.5 and the STak versions of the other two.

I got the 135/3.5 first and thought it was really good. A bit slow for convention speaker shots but very sharp and a great feel.

Then I got the 105/2.8. This overcame the speed problem without loss of other desirable attributes. An improvement. Desirable as a longer portrait lens. Fast give opportunity to get a softer finish, whilst also capable of sharp.

Then I got the 135/2.5. This gave the speed and reach benefits of both the others. Enables shallower DOF effects but also capable of sharp images.

The first 2 have 49mm filters and so are quite compact. The 135/2.5 has 58mm filter, so is quite large in comparison.

Summary, I like all three (have 2 135/3.5 - bought 1 with other stuff I did not want, but sold for a net profit and need to sell the spare, when I get around to it). I will keep both a 135/3.5 and 135/2.5 - not exact substitutes for each other, and the 105/2.8 is different - perspective.

Can I add a question - would getting a 120/2.8 provide something usefully different than these three offer?

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-03-2014, 03:44 PM

I am flagging this for the moderators to move the thread to the lens forum. The intention of this forum is to show samples of A SINGLE LENS per thread

Parallax · 03-03-2014, 03:48 PM

Moved to the proper forum.

**Just1MoreDave** · 03-03-2014, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by tim60

Can I add a question - would getting a 120/2.8 provide something usefully different than these three offer?

A slightly shorter minimum focus distance than the 135s - 1.2m vs. 1.5m. It is still 49mm and lighter than the 135/2.5. The Takumar and K versions have 6 blades, while the latest Takumar version of the 135/2.5 and the K have 8.

The 120mm is rare enough that I decided to just buy it and see for myself, since most people haven't tried one. I ended up with the M version, which I like a lot. Physically it is like the M135/3.5, 8 blades, a hood, but just a bit better in everything. I like the focal length on APS-C. A set of shots is here: Single in August 2013 - a set on Flickr

tim60 · 03-03-2014, 06:39 PM

Dave, thanks. I have bid on a few SMC Tak 120 but not got them. It is one of the two I want that I have not got. I will need to wait a bit after another large acquisition last week. It does seem that many people like it. Your pictures were very nice.

hoanpham · 03-04-2014, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by tim60

Can I add a question - would getting a 120/2.8 provide something usefully different than these three offer?

The 120mm is in between, a very good lens. Using 120/2.8 in replace of 100/2.8 and 135/3.5, but cannot replace 135/2.5. 135/3.5 stay home mostly, unless size and weight matter.
I have smc tak and K, but not M.

magkelly · 03-04-2014, 03:13 PM

Super-Takumar 105 mm 2.8, this is one of the best portrait lenses I own. I have one that I think is near mint. I've almost offered it up for sale several times because I have a Viv 100mm that is also excellent and the original Tak 135MM 3.5mm now, and don't really need it given I have those and I know I can get $150 or more for it with caps, case and all but in the end I never do sell it. It's one of the gems of my collection and I know it, grin. I like 135mm lenses, have several, but for me and what I do the 100-105mm range really hits the real sweet spot.

cali92rs · 03-04-2014, 04:06 PM

I have the SMC Tak 135 f3.5, I find it very mediocre. Maybe it's just my copy though.

pinholecam · 03-05-2014, 12:14 AM

I have both versions of the S.Takumar 135/2.5 and the S.Takumar 135/3.5.

S.Takumar 135/3.5 is slim, light, portable. But f3.5 really limits the DOF control options as well as being 1 stop slower which means bumping up ISO sooner when not outdoors.
I use it the least, usually when 135mm is an 'after thought' to what I am doing or as a outdoor lens.

S.Takumar 135/2.5 (either versions) are very good lenses. Fast, sharp, contrasty (esp. later SMC version), very typical 'SMC' lens drawing style.
I'd almost always take this lens even though its bigger and heavier, than the S.Tak 135/3.5

03-03-2014, 07:30 AM	#1
Fergarcialarraburu New Member Join Date: Mar 2014 Posts: 5	Takumar 105 vs 135 Hello, Could you tell me the differences between these three lenses? Which has better optical quality? Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 105 mm 2.8 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 mm 2.5 Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 mm 3.5 Thank you

03-03-2014, 03:48 PM	#5
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Moved to the proper forum. Last edited by Parallax; 03-03-2014 at 05:30 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Takumar 135 f2.5 M42 - first vs second version	yusuf	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	09-01-2013 11:20 AM
Extreme Corner Performance Shootout - FA 43mm vs DA18-135 vs DA*50-135	chesebert	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	4	05-22-2012 09:38 AM
For Sale - Sold: K20D w/Katz Eye, SMC Takumar 135/2.5 (Ver 2), Super Takumar 105/2.8	kenafein	Sold Items	16	04-02-2012 11:41 AM
Takumar 135 2.5 vs Super Tak 135 3.5, both bayonet mount, which is better?	chongmic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	7	04-09-2011 11:55 PM

03-03-2014, 01:03 PM	#2
johnyates Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Saskatoon, SK Photos: Albums Posts: 1,345	By reputation: Originally posted by Fergarcialarraburu Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 mm 2.5

03-03-2014, 01:32 PM	#3
tim60 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 8,743	I have the SMC version of the 135/2.5 and the STak versions of the other two. I got the 135/3.5 first and thought it was really good. A bit slow for convention speaker shots but very sharp and a great feel. Then I got the 105/2.8. This overcame the speed problem without loss of other desirable attributes. An improvement. Desirable as a longer portrait lens. Fast give opportunity to get a softer finish, whilst also capable of sharp. Then I got the 135/2.5. This gave the speed and reach benefits of both the others. Enables shallower DOF effects but also capable of sharp images. The first 2 have 49mm filters and so are quite compact. The 135/2.5 has 58mm filter, so is quite large in comparison. Summary, I like all three (have 2 135/3.5 - bought 1 with other stuff I did not want, but sold for a net profit and need to sell the spare, when I get around to it). I will keep both a 135/3.5 and 135/2.5 - not exact substitutes for each other, and the 105/2.8 is different - perspective. Can I add a question - would getting a 120/2.8 provide something usefully different than these three offer?

03-03-2014, 03:44 PM	#4
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	I am flagging this for the moderators to move the thread to the lens forum. The intention of this forum is to show samples of A SINGLE LENS per thread

03-03-2014, 04:11 PM	#6
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by tim60 Can I add a question - would getting a 120/2.8 provide something usefully different than these three offer? A slightly shorter minimum focus distance than the 135s - 1.2m vs. 1.5m. It is still 49mm and lighter than the 135/2.5. The Takumar and K versions have 6 blades, while the latest Takumar version of the 135/2.5 and the K have 8. The 120mm is rare enough that I decided to just buy it and see for myself, since most people haven't tried one. I ended up with the M version, which I like a lot. Physically it is like the M135/3.5, 8 blades, a hood, but just a bit better in everything. I like the focal length on APS-C. A set of shots is here: Single in August 2013 - a set on Flickr

03-03-2014, 06:39 PM	#7
tim60 Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 8,743	Dave, thanks. I have bid on a few SMC Tak 120 but not got them. It is one of the two I want that I have not got. I will need to wait a bit after another large acquisition last week. It does seem that many people like it. Your pictures were very nice.

03-04-2014, 02:01 PM	#8
hoanpham Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Strand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,366	Originally posted by tim60 Can I add a question - would getting a 120/2.8 provide something usefully different than these three offer? The 120mm is in between, a very good lens. Using 120/2.8 in replace of 100/2.8 and 135/3.5, but cannot replace 135/2.5. 135/3.5 stay home mostly, unless size and weight matter. I have smc tak and K, but not M.

03-04-2014, 03:13 PM	#9
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	Super-Takumar 105 mm 2.8, this is one of the best portrait lenses I own. I have one that I think is near mint. I've almost offered it up for sale several times because I have a Viv 100mm that is also excellent and the original Tak 135MM 3.5mm now, and don't really need it given I have those and I know I can get $150 or more for it with caps, case and all but in the end I never do sell it. It's one of the gems of my collection and I know it, grin. I like 135mm lenses, have several, but for me and what I do the 100-105mm range really hits the real sweet spot.

03-04-2014, 04:06 PM	#10
cali92rs Veteran Member Join Date: May 2011 Location: Long Beach, CA Posts: 3,354	I have the SMC Tak 135 f3.5, I find it very mediocre. Maybe it's just my copy though.

03-05-2014, 12:14 AM	#11
pinholecam Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: North Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,706	I have both versions of the S.Takumar 135/2.5 and the S.Takumar 135/3.5. S.Takumar 135/3.5 is slim, light, portable. But f3.5 really limits the DOF control options as well as being 1 stop slower which means bumping up ISO sooner when not outdoors. I use it the least, usually when 135mm is an 'after thought' to what I am doing or as a outdoor lens. S.Takumar 135/2.5 (either versions) are very good lenses. Fast, sharp, contrasty (esp. later SMC version), very typical 'SMC' lens drawing style. I'd almost always take this lens even though its bigger and heavier, than the S.Tak 135/3.5