Which 135.... M or Takamar?

whitedogone · 07-01-2008, 05:37 PM

I saw a couple of 135's local. One is a M 3.5 and the other is a Takamar 2.5. I can get either for the same price. Which one would be the better lens? WDO

jsherman999 · 07-01-2008, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by whitedogone

I saw a couple of 135's local. One is a M 3.5 and the other is a Takamar 2.5. I can get either for the same price. Which one would be the better lens? WDO

If the Takumar is the Takumar Bayonette version, go with the M 135.

Here's the version you don't want.

(I say "don't want", but it's actually not a bad lens, just not quite as good as the Multicoated M or the Super Tak m42 mount.)

If it's the m42 (screw) mount, you may want to go with the takumar if it's in good shape, but you'll need an adapter.

The M 135 f/3.5 is an excellent lens, though, not really a step down from the tak, it's just 1.3 stops slower.

.

whitedogone · 07-01-2008, 06:25 PM

The Takumar was a K mount

k100d · 07-01-2008, 06:46 PM

the plain Takumar K-Mount series were like a budget lens line without the Super Multi Coated (SMC) coating on the optics. try to avoid those lenses.

Mike Cash · 07-02-2008, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by whitedogone

The Takumar was a K mount

I have one. Give it a pass unless you just like to collect quirky lenses with not-so-great quality.

Entropy · 07-02-2008, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by k100d

the plain Takumar K-Mount series were like a budget lens line without the Super Multi Coated (SMC) coating on the optics. try to avoid those lenses.

It's actually a decent lens, but the SMC 3.5 is probably a far better option.

07-01-2008, 05:37 PM	#1
whitedogone Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Illinois Posts: 62	Which 135.... M or Takamar? I saw a couple of 135's local. One is a M 3.5 and the other is a Takamar 2.5. I can get either for the same price. Which one would be the better lens? WDO

07-01-2008, 06:16 PM	#2
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by whitedogone I saw a couple of 135's local. One is a M 3.5 and the other is a Takamar 2.5. I can get either for the same price. Which one would be the better lens? WDO If the Takumar is the Takumar Bayonette version, go with the M 135. Here's the version you don't want. (I say "don't want", but it's actually not a bad lens, just not quite as good as the Multicoated M or the Super Tak m42 mount.) If it's the m42 (screw) mount, you may want to go with the takumar if it's in good shape, but you'll need an adapter. The M 135 f/3.5 is an excellent lens, though, not really a step down from the tak, it's just 1.3 stops slower. . Last edited by jsherman999; 07-01-2008 at 06:26 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Chinon 135 & Chinar 135 , Good Bad or Ugly	seacapt	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	02-26-2010 09:03 PM
shoot out DA50-135 v.s. A50 A85 A100 A*135	Douglas_of_Sweden	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	42	12-11-2008 10:44 AM

07-01-2008, 06:25 PM	#3
whitedogone Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Illinois Posts: 62 Original Poster	The Takumar was a K mount

07-01-2008, 06:46 PM	#4
k100d Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,911	the plain Takumar K-Mount series were like a budget lens line without the Super Multi Coated (SMC) coating on the optics. try to avoid those lenses.

07-02-2008, 02:24 AM	#5
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by whitedogone The Takumar was a K mount I have one. Give it a pass unless you just like to collect quirky lenses with not-so-great quality.

07-02-2008, 06:52 AM	#6
Entropy Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Owego, NY Posts: 976	Originally posted by k100d the plain Takumar K-Mount series were like a budget lens line without the Super Multi Coated (SMC) coating on the optics. try to avoid those lenses. It's actually a decent lens, but the SMC 3.5 is probably a far better option.