[pathdoc]

I'm looking to expand my collection, so I'm gathering my thoughts in the forum and seeing what advice/random thoughts others come up with.

Looking at various Takumars in the forum review section, and limiting the discussion to only those variants available as SMC or Super autos, I note:

28mm is available in f/3.5. Nothing faster. I notice that other makers made even wider lenses with faster apertures (e.g. the database lists a Promaster 24mm f/2.8 in M42), and there are a few 28mm screwmounts with 2.8 apertures so it certainly wasn't impossible. Granted, having the extra few millimetres implicit in the K mount probably made this an easier "ask". No doubt the Asahi engineers had their reasons, and it'd be interesting to know what those were.

35mm is available as f/2 and f/3.5 variants.

85mm is available as f/1.8 and f/1.9 variants (I'm not even considering rarities like the quartz and ultra-achromat)

135mm is available as f/2.5 and f/3.5 variants.

Aside from those who desire or require the wider aperture for "speed", is there any particular reason to prefer the faster over the slower? i.e. if I decided I could live with the stop or so that one loses on the slower variants of the 35 and 135, am I necessarily ending up with an "inferior" lens? Obviously the SMC variant seems to be preferable to the earlier "Super", but even then I see that some people have a preference for the earlier variants if you shoot them right. That being said, I have an off-brand 135mm f/2.8 lens which is very washed out in even the slightest bit of bright sunlight, though it performs well in overcast and near-sunset light, so I think I know what to expect from the non-SMC lenses - if I bought anything else in M42 in this focal length, it would be an SMC.

The two 85mm Takumars are so close in aperture terms as to be indistinguishable and both have approximately equivalent ratings - it seems the 1.8 is the successor, a fraction newer and may be a fraction "better", but the 1.9 seems to be able to hold its own based on the reviews it's received - this one seems almost a matter of "pick either one, there is no practical difference".

I have already decided, based on what I've read here, that there is no point in buying a 55mm f/1.8 if I already have the f/2.0 - the speed boost is not significant, and they are otherwise identical. It would be f/1.4 in this lens or nothing. There seems not to have been an attempt to create an f/1.2 here - possibly because the physical lens parameters do not allow it. Does anyone know if there's a non-Asahi f/1.2 screwmount lens in existence?

I'm not interested in the 100mm and 105mm as I find this a somewhat awkward focal length to use (YMMV).

Finally, are there any third-party makers of M42 lenses that should cause me to steer clear?

[tonezime]

I have 85/1.8 and 85/1.9. I don't see a difference between them; I'm probably going to keep whichever is in better condition.

I also have 35/3.5 and a Mir-24M 35/2. The Mir-24M has a look I really enjoy (https://www.flickr.com/photos/130740124@N07/18301706882), but I rarely or never find myself choosing it over the Takumar 35/3.5 just for the extra speed. They have different handling and rendering and I choose between them based on that.

Generally speaking, when there are 2.8 and 3.5 variants of a given Pentax lens, it seems like the 3.5 gets the better reviews -- I assume this is because of the need for fewer engineering compromises necessary to get the desired aperture in a given size. This is the case with K 24mm and 28mm lenses, for example.

YMMV -- I've only been doing this for a year or so. Who know how my tastes will change.

[interested_observer]

I have both a AutoTak 85/f1.8 and a Contax Zeiss 85/2.8 Sonnar. They are both stunning. I actually picked up the Zeiss because I did not want to be sticking my fingers in to the camera to remove the K adapter in the dark. The Zeiss using the Leitax.com remount kit can be done in either a K mount or an M42.

You can go the same way with the Contax Zeiss 28/2.8 Distagon. It is the poor man's 31Ltd. I was looking for a Pentax 28 and stumbled across this. I had to convert it and that was the end.

[Dlanor Sekao]

Just a thought....
I have nearly All the Takumar variations from 24mm on up to 200mm in nearly every configuration. I don't have the 85mm lenses but just about everything else.
I would suggest the SMC (Super Multi Coated) Takumars rather than the Super Takumars due largely to a bit better resistance to Flair and CA.
Also consider the required hood as part of your lens purchase.

I love the 8 Bladed version of the 135mm 2.5 over all others and it is a really nice lens. However it doesn't offer some magical power that makes you take better pics , but it is simply one fantastic lens that pretty much smokes every 135mm lens I have ever tried ! Get the latest 6 element / 8 blade SMC version with a number ending in 12 ( XXXX12 ) on the back of the A/M selector switch......You may never try another 135mm lens again !

As far as a 55mm 2.0 goes.....its a nice lens but I think the 1.8 is a bit better and really hard to beat , but if you go with the 50mm 1.4 as you said......you cant go wrong there either.

You can do a lot of damage with a 28mm , 35mm , 50/55mm , and a 135mm in ANY aperture configuration......and its not needed to have the fast ones or the highest rated versions.....they are All Good !

All the Takumar 28mm lenses I have tried have not been anything really exceptional for landscape photography..... Very Good ....YES.....but nothing to write home about compared to some of the SMC-K lenses....But for only a M42 mount are also hard to beat......YMMV

---

Last edited by Dlanor Sekao; 07-12-2015 at 12:00 AM.

[pathdoc]

Just a thought....
I have nearly All the Takumar variations from 24mm on up to 200mm in nearly every configuration. I don't have the 85mm lenses but just about everything else.

Quite a few thoughts, and very useful ones too. Thank you.

---------- Post added 12-07-15 at 06:35 ----------

There's a Tomioka 55mm 1.2 in m42 seen branded as Porst, Cosinon, Revuenon, etc.

Excellent.

---------- Post added 12-07-15 at 06:37 ----------

I have 85/1.8 and 85/1.9. I don't see a difference between them; I'm probably going to keep whichever is in better condition.

Generally speaking, when there are 2.8 and 3.5 variants of a given Pentax lens, it seems like the 3.5 gets the better reviews -- I assume this is because of the need for fewer engineering compromises necessary to get the desired aperture in a given size. This is the case with K 24mm and 28mm lenses, for example.

This makes sense. Shall bear it in mind.

[TaoMaas]

Aside from those who desire or require the wider aperture for "speed", is there any particular reason to prefer the faster over the slower?

I don't know how true it is, but back when those Takumars were being made, I remember reading that Pentax was trying to follow Leica's example in that, just because a lens was a bit slower, that didn't mean it was a worse lens. The slower f-stop was done as a way to offer a wider range of prices without compromising image quality.

[ChatMechant]

The Super 28 3.5 is very good. Sharp stopped to 5.6, good flare resistance. I compared it to my FA31 and DA 18-135 @ 28. Obviously the FA31 was the benchmark but we're talking a $35 lens vs a $850 lens. The Tak wasn't bad at all in comparison.
The one that has been really fun is the macro-tak 50 f4. Such a good lens.
I really want to try one of the 85's and the 17/4 fisheye.

[Lowell Goudge]

I have the SMC tak 35/2, the super tak 85/1.9 and both SMC tak and super tak 135/3.5

All are fine lenses. The 35/2 is an excellent performer with the coatings, this is something the 85/1.9 suffers from just a little, especially at night. Use the 85/1.9 without a filter because every filter I have tried makes a complete mess with flair. For the 135's any version is good, but I actually prefer my tell-lentar 135/2.8 preset. While the depth of field is the same at any aperture, the preset lenses have a different rendering of the out of focus areas, which seem to add a more three dimensional effect.

The bottom line is that from 35mm and up, virtually all lens designs are relatively simple and as long as you take care of pointing the lens into a light source, you should be OK. For any lens you get, throw away (perhaps set aside is a better term) the standard hood. Use the longest hood possible without vignetting, the improvement in contrast is remarkable

[magkelly]

There's a Tomioka 55mm 1.2 in m42 seen branded as Porst, Cosinon, Revuenon, etc.

Also as Chinon, and supposedly it's a great lens, but that's only if you can afford it. It's a bit rare and pricey...

[Dartmoor Dave]

I own the SMC Takumar 35mm/3.5 and the first version Super Takumar 35mm/2.0 (with the 67mm filter ring). They both have dramatically different characters, but I'm not sure I'd want to nominate one of them as best. The 2.0 is useful in low light, although it's far from its sharpest wide open, and it's a big heavy beast to carry around all day. The 3.5 gives much punchier colours, with higher edge contrast that gives it a feeling of being sharper at first glance, while the 2.0 has a more natural colour rendering with less edge contrast but better micro-contrast. The 2.0 gives less of an impression of obvious sharpness than the 3.5, but at identical apertures at 100% view the 2.0 actually resolves more detail than the 3.5 (at least with my copies).

Don't let a slower maximum aperture put you off any of the Takumars. My favourite lens by far is my Super Takumar 20mm/4.5. Yes, it's slow, but I'm willing to forgive it anything because of the magic it works with colour and light.

[Jonathan Mac]

The 35mm f/2 came in two versions - an older and a newer. I had the newer SMC one (with a 49mm thread) and while it was lovely to use, it was barely acceptably sharp in the centre wide open and never acceptably sharp at the edges, even stopped down to f/8. That was on APS-C so I image even worse if you wanted to use it on FF.

The f/3.5 version on the other hand is harder to use because it's so small and slow, which makes it difficult to focus. However, the results from it are excellent, very sharp even wide open and with great contrast and colours.

[pathdoc]

The ones I have right now are being used on apsc and film currently. Film as yet undeveloped. We shall see.

[Wild Mark]

The 35mm f/2 came in two versions - an older and a newer. I had the newer SMC one (with a 49mm thread) and while it was lovely to use, it was barely acceptably sharp in the centre wide open and never acceptably sharp at the edges, even stopped down to f/8. That was on APS-C so I image even worse if you wanted to use it on FF.

The f/3.5 version on the other hand is harder to use because it's so small and slow, which makes it difficult to focus. However, the results from it are excellent, very sharp even wide open and with great contrast and colours.

There has been much debate about the f3.5 versus the f2

I have tried each lens and have come to a simple conclusion. The f2 speed is of benefit for more accurate focusing and as such is a lens more designed for close focusing rather than the slower version (utility lens perhaps more suited to landscape - at least on FF).

As for the f2 version I don't shot wide open as its sharpness is not the best. But stopped down it is as sharp if not sharper than the f3.5 version. So why have the f2 version over the f3.5?

- More accurate near range focusing (f3.5 is harder to focus)
- Low light capabilities (although not the nest for sharpness)

Otherwise I would stick with the f3.5 version.

In regards to the 135/2.5 version 2 - yes, it is a stunning lens. Well worth acquiring. I also really really like the Auto Takumar 135mm f3.5. When shot correctly it produces stunning colours on digital (not sure why - just stunning).

The SMC 85/1.9 and SMC 85/1.8 are really hard to tell apart. Word is the 1.9 gives better OoF but the 1.8 is sharper ........ truly, not much in it. Stunning lenses and as such very expensive.

Try the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 eight element. You will like, and yes, it is marginally better than latter models.

I would steer clear of the 28mm and instead go for the SMC 24/3.5 - awesome lens.

[Mothballs]

I've actually been disappointed by my SMC Takumar 55/1.8 (AND my Zeiss Pancolar 50/1.8)

Test charts say it should by all means keep up with my M50/1.7 but the contrast of the 1.7 basically makes the Tak look blurry and soft in comparison. Line resolution is there, but contrast is not. Very ho-hum moment.



That said, the Super-Takumar 85mm 1.9 is still my favorite lens, lack of contrast be damned...

[manntax]

The 35mm f/2 came in two versions - an older and a newer. I had the newer SMC one (with a 49mm thread) and while it was lovely to use, it was barely acceptably sharp in the centre wide open and never acceptably sharp at the edges, even stopped down to f/8. That was on APS-C so I image even worse if you wanted to use it on FF. The f/3.5 version on the other hand is harder to use because it's so small and slow, which makes it difficult to focus. However, the results from it are excellent, very sharp even wide open and with great contrast and colours.

It was really funny to read it as it happens I've recently acquired this lens (SMC Takumar 35 f2 ) to supplement my collection and I can assure you it is very sharp (relatively ) from wide open. I know what am saying for simple fact that I own not only this lens, but also 35mm f3.5 version as well as Flektogon 35mm f2.4 and SMC-FA 35mm f2 AF lens. - From all these FA 35mm f2 is most contrasty and sharpest wide open - no question about it, then both SMC Takumar and Flektogon comes in - head in head with 35mm f3.5 on similar aperture settings from f3.5 But from these 3 Flektogon and SMC Takumar 35 f2 are better when stopped down to f5.6 or more.

But to not let my word go unsupported - here are few snaps from around the house with the SMC Takumar 35mm f2 - all wide open. To me it is more than adequately sharp - with amazing rendering and colours thrown in for free :P

All the photos below were taken at aperture F2.0 - wide open , with S-M-C Takumar 35mm f2.0 :