SMC Super Takumar: 135/F3.5 vs 200/F4

Lares · 04-20-2016, 07:42 PM

hi guys!

I'm currently on a shopping spree for lenses and have to choose between a SMC Super Takumar 135/3.5 and SMC Super Takuma 200/4 and dont know which to go for. I'm currently working with a Pentax SL equipped with a kit lens and looking for a decent telephoto lens.

can i have bit of opinion on what will be a better buy?

thank you!

Racer X 69 · 04-20-2016, 07:46 PM

It's Takumar.

Racer X 69 · 04-20-2016, 07:52 PM

If it is telephoto that you are looking for then the 200 would be a better choice.

But.

The 135 will be useful for covering the focal lengths in between the 200 and the kit lens (assuming the kit lens is a 50).

Me?

I have both focal lengths in M lenses.

**kiwi_jono** · 04-20-2016, 08:07 PM

For telephoto the 200 is probably the best bet.
I have both lenses and like both (although have not used them since getting a Tamron 70 - 200 f2.8), although I like the 200 more than the 135.

The image quality for the 200 is pretty good and sharp enough wide open at f4. Definitely need a hood with it though (coatings are not up to modern standards) - the stand one that usually comes with the 200 is sufficient.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

tvdtvdtvd · 04-21-2016, 06:26 AM

I'll play devil's advocate on this one...

Do you want a portable, reasonably compact lens that gives you a bit of extra reach? Or do you want a cumbersome, situational lens
that will allow you to pull in a distant subject when you have some extra time to think about these things?

Both of these lenses are 'big' compared to their latter M-series decedents. Nonetheless, the 135/3.5, at 331g & 88mm long, is
>almost< a walkable, all day lens. The only thing that keeps it from really being an all day lens is that long focal length. The 200/4,
at 550g & 136mm long, is >almost< a 'big thing'. The 200/4 is less walkable, less all day, not just for it's appreciably larger size but
its greater FL makes it even more specialized and situational than the 135/3.5.

I'd go 135/3.5 first, unless you already know you need the specific attributes of the 200/4.

04-20-2016, 07:42 PM	#1
Lares New Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 2	SMC Super Takumar: 135/F3.5 vs 200/F4 hi guys! I'm currently on a shopping spree for lenses and have to choose between a SMC Super Takumar 135/3.5 and SMC Super Takuma 200/4 and dont know which to go for. I'm currently working with a Pentax SL equipped with a kit lens and looking for a decent telephoto lens. can i have bit of opinion on what will be a better buy? thank you!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
M 135 f3.5 "vs" M 200 f4 - best suited for Q?	vrolok	Pentax Q	19	08-28-2014 10:47 AM
For Sale - Sold: Takumar 135 f3.5, Super Takumar 150 f4, & 200 f4, SMC F 35-80 zoom	hnikesch	Sold Items	0	09-28-2013 10:22 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
For Sale - Sold: M 50/f1.4, Takumar 135/f2.5, Super Tak 28/f3.5, Tokina 80-200/f2.8, M 80-200/f	loudbay	Sold Items	11	03-07-2008 04:53 PM

04-20-2016, 07:46 PM	#2
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,068	It's Takumar.

04-20-2016, 07:52 PM	#3
Racer X 69 Moderator Man With A Camera Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: The Great Pacific Northwet, in the Land Between Canada and Mexico Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,068	If it is telephoto that you are looking for then the 200 would be a better choice. But. The 135 will be useful for covering the focal lengths in between the 200 and the kit lens (assuming the kit lens is a 50). Me? I have both focal lengths in M lenses.

04-21-2016, 06:26 AM	#5
tvdtvdtvd Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,665	I'll play devil's advocate on this one... Do you want a portable, reasonably compact lens that gives you a bit of extra reach? Or do you want a cumbersome, situational lens that will allow you to pull in a distant subject when you have some extra time to think about these things? Both of these lenses are 'big' compared to their latter M-series decedents. Nonetheless, the 135/3.5, at 331g & 88mm long, is >almost< a walkable, all day lens. The only thing that keeps it from really being an all day lens is that long focal length. The 200/4, at 550g & 136mm long, is >almost< a 'big thing'. The 200/4 is less walkable, less all day, not just for it's appreciably larger size but its greater FL makes it even more specialized and situational than the 135/3.5. I'd go 135/3.5 first, unless you already know you need the specific attributes of the 200/4.