Just ordered the Takumar 135mm f2.5 (K Mount)

**mgvh** · 07-25-2015, 08:54 PM

I wasn't expecting much from my Takumar Bayonet 135mm 2.5 given what some said, but I think it is a really fine lens. Faster than and as good or better than my DAL 55-300 at 135mm. HERE is my review on the PF review page. And here is a shot taken under challenging theater lighting circumstances.

pathdoc · 07-25-2015, 10:31 PM

The original Takumar lenses weren't SMC either. How does the Takumar bayonet compare to them in optical terms?

ZombieArmy · 07-31-2015, 02:54 PM

So I just got the lens and did some quick testing. My only issue, and something I KNEW going into it, the contrast is low and some CA (especially wide open).
But a minor touch up in post and it's perfect, don't even need to touch the colors at all to make it pop.

Only the first was shot at f2.5 the rest were stopped down a bit.

I think this lens gets a lot of bad rep for no good reason. For the price it's hard to beat.

**jatrax** · 07-31-2015, 03:13 PM

Looks like you got a keeper there!

But take a few shots toward the sun and you will see why some don't like it. Used carefully though it is an excellent piece of glass.

ZombieArmy · 07-31-2015, 03:35 PM

Here's actually an unedited test of the Takumar vs the Sears 135mm 2.8 non macro (Full size images)

Wide Open:

Takumar:
http://puu.sh/jkEeE/e41bf6531f.jpg

Sears:
http://puu.sh/jkEnR/9656d3f7ac.jpg

At F 5.6 and at minimum focus distances:

Takumar:
http://puu.sh/jkEsC/dddb32de51.jpg

Sears:
http://puu.sh/jkEH4/d80ef42133.jpg

My personal issue with the sears is that it's incredibly difficult to nail focus with (more difficult than any other lens I own, even my 200 M).
And the glow effect it gets has ruined so many good shots, especially when I have to shoot wide open. So glad I got the Tak :P

Dlanor Sekao · 07-31-2015, 05:06 PM

I use mine with quite remarkable results in low contrast scenes. I never ever shoot wide open so cant really comment on that aspect.
My copy is mint in box and I haven't used it for about a year. Its funny how so many lenses get dissed until a thread like this starts all over again.
I have several 135mm versions and this one was a keeper. Overall not the best by any stretch , but for what its limitations are shines far above several others.

ChristianRock · 07-31-2015, 06:51 PM

I had it and it was a very good lens. Then I got an smc-a 135 2.8 and sold the takumar, which I then realized was a mistake. The smc is pretty much just as bad in direct light if not worse. And it wasn't any sharper - wide open it seemed to handle reflections very poorly and was a bit softer it seems. So recently I sold it and last month got a takumar bayonet 135 2.8, the newer version, for 32 dollars on the auction site. It seems to have a bit more coating than the 2.5 from looking at the glass reflections. They are (the takumar bayonets) equally sharp I think. Great lenses

and yes the 135s seem to render so nicely!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New Mitakon Zhongyi F2.8 135mm or ASAHI TAKUMAR K (BAYONET) MOUNT 135MM F/2.5	OldNoob	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	11-27-2013 08:56 PM
Takumar 135mm 2.5 K mount version?	Abstract	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	01-23-2011 05:21 PM
Pentax K-mount Takumar 135mm f2.8 repair	mopar_man	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	08-23-2007 10:47 AM

07-25-2015, 08:54 PM	#16
mgvh Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: MD Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,029	I wasn't expecting much from my Takumar Bayonet 135mm 2.5 given what some said, but I think it is a really fine lens. Faster than and as good or better than my DAL 55-300 at 135mm. HERE is my review on the PF review page. And here is a shot taken under challenging theater lighting circumstances.

07-25-2015, 10:31 PM	#17
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	The original Takumar lenses weren't SMC either. How does the Takumar bayonet compare to them in optical terms?

07-31-2015, 02:54 PM	#18
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210 Original Poster	So I just got the lens and did some quick testing. My only issue, and something I KNEW going into it, the contrast is low and some CA (especially wide open). But a minor touch up in post and it's perfect, don't even need to touch the colors at all to make it pop. Only the first was shot at f2.5 the rest were stopped down a bit. I think this lens gets a lot of bad rep for no good reason. For the price it's hard to beat.

07-31-2015, 03:13 PM	#19
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Looks like you got a keeper there! But take a few shots toward the sun and you will see why some don't like it. Used carefully though it is an excellent piece of glass.

07-31-2015, 03:35 PM	#20
ZombieArmy Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2014 Location: Florida Posts: 3,210 Original Poster	Here's actually an unedited test of the Takumar vs the Sears 135mm 2.8 non macro (Full size images) Wide Open: Takumar: http://puu.sh/jkEeE/e41bf6531f.jpg Sears: http://puu.sh/jkEnR/9656d3f7ac.jpg At F 5.6 and at minimum focus distances: Takumar: http://puu.sh/jkEsC/dddb32de51.jpg Sears: http://puu.sh/jkEH4/d80ef42133.jpg My personal issue with the sears is that it's incredibly difficult to nail focus with (more difficult than any other lens I own, even my 200 M). And the glow effect it gets has ruined so many good shots, especially when I have to shoot wide open. So glad I got the Tak :P

07-31-2015, 05:06 PM	#21
Dlanor Sekao Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 1,457	I use mine with quite remarkable results in low contrast scenes. I never ever shoot wide open so cant really comment on that aspect. My copy is mint in box and I haven't used it for about a year. Its funny how so many lenses get dissed until a thread like this starts all over again. I have several 135mm versions and this one was a keeper. Overall not the best by any stretch , but for what its limitations are shines far above several others.

07-31-2015, 06:51 PM	#22
ChristianRock Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,910	I had it and it was a very good lens. Then I got an smc-a 135 2.8 and sold the takumar, which I then realized was a mistake. The smc is pretty much just as bad in direct light if not worse. And it wasn't any sharper - wide open it seemed to handle reflections very poorly and was a bit softer it seems. So recently I sold it and last month got a takumar bayonet 135 2.8, the newer version, for 32 dollars on the auction site. It seems to have a bit more coating than the 2.5 from looking at the glass reflections. They are (the takumar bayonets) equally sharp I think. Great lenses and yes the 135s seem to render so nicely!