[ZombieArmy]

I know this is a pretty "panned" lens due to the lack of SMC, but what I've seen from this lens the rendering is really beautiful. It almost reminds me of the K 135 2.5 in a way (at a fraction of the cost).
This will be my first Takumar so I'm excited to feel the "tank like" build quality that everyone raves about. My copy will have a bit of brassing but the glass looks good, and at 40 dollars (with shipping) I can't really complain.

What has your experiences been with this lens?

[hjoseph7]

I hope that is not the Bayonet mount. I purchased that version for about $50 on eBay, but after a few outings with it it is now being used as a Book-end. I have since purchased the Takumar 135mm f2.5 (6 element) version which I'm infinitely much happier with...

[jatrax]

It does not get a lot of love to be sure but when I had it I got good results from it. Always (always) use the lens hood and never shoot towards the sun. In good conditions it delivers, but in situations where better coatings make a difference the weaknesses start to show.

Also, most don't consider the bayonet versions real Takumars. They are well made but not up to the Takumar standard.

Enjoy!

[ZombieArmy]

It does not get a lot of love to be sure but when I had it I got good results from it. Always (always) use the lens hood and never shoot towards the sun. In good conditions it delivers, but in situations where better coatings make a difference the weaknesses start to show.

Oh yah, I'm aware of the downfalls. I guess I wanted a challenge.

But the images look great from what I've seen, exactly the kind of look I want.

[todd]

I love this lens. Got mine for $40 too... Excited to use it on FF...

[ZombieArmy]

I love this lens. Got mine for $40 too... Excited to use it on FF...

I just love the way this lens renders the subject, it just pops

Even more excited now, great photos.

[todd]

I just love the way this lens renders the subject, it just pops

I agree! It has a slightly vintage rendering to it that I like too which gives it versatility in that direction...

Tsuken, another regular "Single In" challenge member is a fan of this lens too and has singled with it a couple times now... Here and here are his flickr albums... (He's using it this month in fact)... Edit: oh here is his album with all his photos with this lens...

[fwcetus]

I know this is a pretty "panned" lens due to the lack of SMC, but what I've seen from this lens the rendering is really beautiful. It almost reminds me of the K 135 2.5 in a way (at a fraction of the cost). This will be my first Takumar so I'm excited to feel the "tank like" build quality that everyone raves about. My copy will have a bit of brassing but the glass looks good, and at 40 dollars (with shipping) I can't really complain. What has your experiences been with this lens?

Well, first, the name "Takumar [Bayonet]" is unfortunate. Originally the "Takumar" name was used by Pentax in honor of Takuma Kajiwara, a painter, and the brother of Kumao Kajiwara, who founded Asahi Optical. The name was applied to some of the best lenses in the world for several decades, at least until 1975, when Pentax introduced the K-mount lenses and bodies and started using SMC "Pentax" instead of "SMC Takumar" for its lenses of that era.

As far as I know, the "Takumar" name then went unused for a few years until the early 1980's when Pentax (rather unfortunately, I think) started applying the names of "Takumar [Bayonet]", then "Takumar-A", and then "Takumar-F" to some non-SMC "budget" lenses and TC's. [Quite a downgrade for Takuma Kajiwara, methinks.]

So, while the K-mount "Takumar" lenses are indeed Pentax-branded lenses, they're not really in the same league as were the screwmount "Takumar" jewels. To be specific, they will not show "the 'tank like' build quality that everyone raves about" (sorry). Nonetheless they ~are~ Pentax lenses, so I suppose perhaps "they're no slouches, either", and some probably did provide a fairly high "bang-for-the-buck ratio".

I myself am familiar with only two "Takumar bayonet" lenses, the Takumar [Bayonet] 135/"2.5" (which might have been the first, or at least one of the first, of the several "Takumar bayonet" lenses) and the Takumar-A 2X TC (which I don't think I ever used) (?). My thoughts on the 135 are:

1. It certainly had one of Pentax's most colorful exteriors for that time.

2. The built-in sliding hood was a convenient (and helpful) feature.

3. It flared a bit too easily (not surprisingly), but it did have decent contrast and color if the light didn't overpower it.

4. It was small and light (especially compared to the K 135/2.5).

5. It was a nice match in size and weight for the M bodies of its time.

5. It likely was not an "f/2.5" lens but was actually an f/2.8 lens. [I think it's really rather difficult, on a 135mm lens, to somehow mathemagically "squeeze" an f/2.5 aperture into the space bordered by 52mm filter threads.]

6. I suspect that it may have been an optical twin of the later Takumar Bayonet 135/2.8. (?)

Here's how the "big and little" Pentax K-mount 135/2.5's compare (and that's my silhouette reflected in the Takumar [Bayonet] objective) -

And here's a "family portrait" of a few K-mount 135's -

[fwcetus]

I love this lens. Got mine for $40 too... Excited to use it on FF...

Nice pix (all three), todd - nice colors and bokeh.

[Aberrator]

That Vivitar looks interesting. Is it as decent as it's bulky?

[rawr]

I haven't used my bayonet 135 2.5 for a while, but I remember that under the right light images from it had sharpness and real 'pop'. It's a keeper.

[todd]

until the early 1980's when Pentax (rather unfortunately, I think) started applying the names of "Takumar [Bayonet]",

They must have went gangbusters at that time making these because this lens in particular seems to be more readily available than just about any other, at least from what I come across when keeping my eye out for scores on craigslist and ebay and such...

[fwcetus]

That Vivitar looks interesting. Is it as decent as it's bulky?

I'm assuming you're referring to the Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 (a Komine lens). Well, it's a very interesting lens with mostly excellent qualities.

To get the bad out of the way first, probably nobody would be shocked if I said that it (being a lens designed when "digital" merely meant fingers and toes) sometimes does show some significant CA when the lighting is harsh (or if you've got tree branches in front of a bright sky).

On the positive side, it is reasonably sharp even wide open (even towards the corners) and very sharp closed down a bit; it generally shows lovely bokeh as well; its color saturation is very good; and it focuses pretty closely for a 135.

It may have been one of the earliest VS1 designs, and there are some (earlier) copies of it that likely have only single-coated glass, while other (later and, I think, more common) copies (marked with the usual VS1 blue "VMC" label are multicoated.

It is quite heavy (and solid), and its focus feel is like that of an M42 Takumar (in other words, lovely) -- it certainly feels more like a Takumar than that other big lens next to it above, the A* 135/1.8.

Some discussions of it are at -

Vivitar Series 1 Close Focus 135mm f2.3 Lens Reviews - Vivitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Making Not Taking: Vivitar Series 1 135mm f/2.3

Vivitar 135mm f/2.3 Series 1 - Dyxum - Page 1

Vivitar Series 1 135/f2.3 vs K135/f2.5

New Lens! - Series 1 Vivitar 135/2.3 - FM Forums

It is a very similar lens to the VS1 200/3, but it usually seems to sell for a higher price than does its larger sibling.

Of the five lenses in that photo above, the only two I still have are the VS1 135/2.3 and the K 135/2.5 (I actually have two of the latter).

[hjoseph7]

Wait a minute the K-mount is a whole different lens from the Bayonet-mount. The K-mount is a very good lens according to reviews.

[fwcetus]

Wait a minute the K-mount is a whole different lens from the Bayonet-mount. The K-mount is a very good lens according to reviews.

Both the SMC Pentax ("K") 135/2.5 and the Takumar [Bayonet] 135/"2.5" are K-mount lenses. But both lenses are ~also~ bayonet-mount lenses. [The K mount is Pentax's version of a bayonet mount (i.e., an insert-and-twist mount).]

The "K" (the larger SMC version) is a highly regarded repackaging of the S-M-C Takumar screwmount 135/2.5. The non-SMC "Takumar [Bayonet]" (despite its unfortunate name) has nothing to do with the screwmount Takumar lenses, and is a less expensive (but no less interesting) K-mount lens.

If a lens is called "Takumar" (without "Bayonet", "A", or "F" after the name), it is a screwmount lens.

I assume that the somewhat odd name of "Takumar [Bayonet]" was an attempt by Pentax to recycle the highly revered screwmount name of "Takumar" but to point out that it's a K-mount (a type of bayonet mount) lens instead of a screwmount lens. (?)

Confusing? Anyway, you are correct that the two lenses are indeed different, but the terminology/nomenclature ~is~ important for understanding and discussing.