Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-27-2017, 07:49 PM - 6 Likes   #1
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,732
The poor old much maligned Takumar Bayonet group.

Got into a discussion on another thread where this was a little off topic so thought I would start one here.
I have been using exclusively old manual lenses on my K01 and my recently acquired K1 and I have found that the least coated lenses tend to be my favourites. Of course this is usually based on the age of the lens with the exception of the Tak Bayonet group which are considered to be not SMC coated but do have some sort of coating.
So I have a Tak Bayonet 135 2.5 and a 28mm 2.8 and both of them perform best of bunch in my aged family of lenses.
I know that the reviews often quote flare issues but I don't experience great problems or anything worse than the more coated lenses. But then, having some experience of older lenses I am careful to never clip the highlights and know none of them will perform that well with the sun actually in the image.

So I set these tests up with some of my 135s to try and show what I am finding in the field.
The idea of the lenscap one is anyone can replicate it - the camera was at about 50x the focal length of the lens (ie 6-7 metres) and the caps on the side are about 500mm forward and back of the centre one. This is to show if I have missed focus which is very easy to do. The wisteria bud one is with the sun at about 10 oclock from the subject to encourage flaring without actually letting the sun on the front element. I think perhaps a light cloud passed across the background of this test as the shots progressed explain the change in the blue.
As you can see the 1958 Takumar 135 3.5 is a great little performer as well as the Tak bayonet.

Has anyone else found they are favouring the oldest and least coated lenses?

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-1  Photo     
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-1  Photo   
09-27-2017, 07:58 PM   #2
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,385
It seems you've found a use for all those 135's! The Tak bayonet 2.5 seems the sharpest of the lot?
09-27-2017, 08:04 PM   #3
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,732
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
It seems you've found a use for all those 135's! The Tak bayonet 2.5 seems the sharpest of the lot?
Yeah that is just a few of them - can't resist them - their engineering is just so great. And at the current prices it would be rude not to get them!! I have a couple of other presets (49mm filter) - they are lovely little things. But I think that Tak Bayonet is going to be my workhorse.
09-27-2017, 09:32 PM   #4
Veteran Member
ripper2860's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 890
Surprising results. The Tak bayonet's maligned reputation appears to be undeserved!

09-27-2017, 10:19 PM   #5
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,732
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ripper2860 Quote
Surprising results. The Tak bayonet's maligned reputation appears to be undeserved!
If you read the reviews on it you can see people are quite polarised on it. Maybe there is a lot of sample variation - cheapness at the time might have meant minimal quality control.
09-28-2017, 01:05 AM   #6
Pentaxian
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,594
shhhh, if this gets out, the resale value on the Bayonets is gonna go through the roof...

lol
nice work!
09-28-2017, 01:27 AM   #7
Pentaxian
Dartmoor Dave's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Dartmoor, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,831
I came to the same conclusion when I compared the Takumar Bayonet 28mm/2.8 with the second version M 28mm/2.8, which is optically identical except for the coating. For use on a DSLR, I thought the bayonet Tak had a more naturalistic colour rendering and contrast characteristics that made for a more "workable" raw file. I'd go for the M or A version for film though.

I don't know if I've still got the comparison shots, but they might still be on an old external HD. I'll have a look later.

09-28-2017, 04:02 AM   #8
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,732
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Dartmoor Dave Quote
I came to the same conclusion when I compared the Takumar Bayonet 28mm/2.8 with the second version M 28mm/2.8, which is optically identical except for the coating. For use on a DSLR, I thought the bayonet Tak had a more naturalistic colour rendering and contrast characteristics that made for a more "workable" raw file. I'd go for the M or A version for film though.

I don't know if I've still got the comparison shots, but they might still be on an old external HD. I'll have a look later.
I found the Bayonet 28 to be the equal or better of the A28 2.8 and better than the 2 X M28 3.5s I have and heaps ahead of the disliked M28 2.8. (I think my M22 2.8 is the earlier formula).
09-28-2017, 04:26 AM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
macman24054's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Axton, VA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 461
I also find my 135 2.5 bayonet to be the sharpest of my old manual focus lenses. Even at 2.5 when you nail the focus it is tack sharp. Why it is considered to be such a dog is beyond me.
09-28-2017, 04:42 AM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: North Syracuse, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 16,457
QuoteOriginally posted by macman24054 Quote
I also find my 135 2.5 bayonet to be the sharpest of my old manual focus lenses. Even at 2.5 when you nail the focus it is tack sharp. Why it is considered to be such a dog is beyond me.
The A 135/2.8 has the same reputation (at least in the past), and the same optical formula.
09-28-2017, 05:10 AM   #11
Pentaxian
bdery's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec city, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9,342
I have owned the 28 and 135 F2.8 Takumar Bayonet lenses. I really liked them. The 28 had beautiful colours and decent resolution. The 135 had a dreamy rendering, not soft but a bit like an old-fashioned portrait. I liked them, but have since upgraded to still better glass (and with AF to booth).
09-28-2017, 01:55 PM - 1 Like   #12
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,286
I used to have a Takumar Bayonet 135 as part of my small collection of 135's from back in Ye Olde Film Days of Yore --

[A* 135/1.8, VS1 135/2.3, K 135/2.5, Takumar Bayonet 135/"2.5", K 135/3.5]


I found that the Takumar Bayonet 135 was a decent enough lens for build quality, resolution, and contrast, just as long as it didn't have to deal with any bright lights -- IMHO, its only serious drawback was its susceptibility to flare, either obvious geometrical flare markings or overall veiling flare. SMC does (at least sometimes) make a difference --

[K 135/2.5, Takumar Bayonet 135/"2.5"]


However, the lens must have had its "135/2.5" specs "determined" in the marketing department, since it really is a nominal 135/2.8 lens. 135mm / 2.5 = 54mm, while 135mm / 2.8 = 48mm. And the Takumar Bayonet 135's 52mm filter threads (unlike the K 135/2.5's, which measure 58mm) allow for probably only 49mm or 50mm (at the most) of clear front aperture. [Of course, this is not unlike the K200/"2.5" which, with its 77mm filter threads, is probably actually a 200/2.8 lens.]
09-28-2017, 03:15 PM - 1 Like   #13
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,732
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by fwcetus Quote
I used to have a Takumar Bayonet 135 as part of my small collection of 135's from back in Ye Olde Film Days of Yore --

[A* 135/1.8, VS1 135/2.3, K 135/2.5, Takumar Bayonet 135/"2.5", K 135/3.5]


I found that the Takumar Bayonet 135 was a decent enough lens for build quality, resolution, and contrast, just as long as it didn't have to deal with any bright lights -- IMHO, its only serious drawback was its susceptibility to flare, either obvious geometrical flare markings or overall veiling flare. SMC does (at least sometimes) make a difference --

[K 135/2.5, Takumar Bayonet 135/"2.5"]


However, the lens must have had its "135/2.5" specs "determined" in the marketing department, since it really is a nominal 135/2.8 lens. 135mm / 2.5 = 54mm, while 135mm / 2.8 = 48mm. And the Takumar Bayonet 135's 52mm filter threads (unlike the K 135/2.5's, which measure 58mm) allow for probably only 49mm or 50mm (at the most) of clear front aperture. [Of course, this is not unlike the K200/"2.5" which, with its 77mm filter threads, is probably actually a 200/2.8 lens.]
Good point. Or alternatively it isn't quite 135mm . If you look at the lenscap crops it doesn't have quite the reach of the others. 120mm would require 48mm of front glass.

EDIT - did a pixel count on those crops - Tak Bayonet is 94.5% of the Pentax M -- so if the M is actually 135mm then the Tak Bayonet is 128mm.

Last edited by GUB; 09-28-2017 at 04:28 PM.
09-28-2017, 04:47 PM   #14
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New England
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,286
QuoteOriginally posted by GUB Quote
Good point. Or alternatively it isn't quite 135mm . If you look at the lenscap crops it doesn't have quite the reach of the others. 120mm would require 48mm of front glass.
EDIT - did a pixel count on those crops - Tak Bayonet is 94.5% of the Pentax M -- so if the M is actually 135mm then the Tak Bayonet is 128mm.

Also a good point, GUB (and I admit that I've never really thought about that before). 128mm / 2.5 = 51mm, which is "almost" possible with 52mm filter threads.

[As a sort of off-topic aside, I don't surmise that, analogously, the K 200/"2.5" was under-rated for its FL -- back in the pre-digital age, I did have an overlapping period when I owned both the K 200/2.5 and the A 200/2.8 (both with the same optical diagrams, BTW) (also shared only with the K 135/2.5, BTW), and I never, in side-by-side testing, noticed any obvious difference in "reach" or FOV, so I do believe that the big K 200's "f/2.5" was an "engineering feat" carried out solely by imaginative marketing department "engineers"...]

09-29-2017, 02:57 PM   #15
GUB
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
GUB's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wanganui
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,732
Original Poster
So an attempt to encourage flaring to compare coatings.Easiest to use the 28s. No lenshood and the majority of the sky overexposed so that it is clipped.The sun is in the middle there behind light cloud. Would have done other lenses as well but the conditions were too changeable today. As you can see the clouds progressed a little from the A to the Tak B. But also note that the Tak B may be slightly darker thanks to less light making it through the poorer coatings. I would expect a difference between the two models and there is - but not a great one. Don't use these images as a test of sharpness as the lenses were just smacked to infinity to try and do things quickly. Oh and both at Iso 100 1/1250
Attached Images
 
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bayonet, experience, flower, focus, k-mount, lens, lenses, pentax lens, post, sample, slr lens, sun, tak, takumar, takumar bayonet, variation
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question Astrophotgraphy group shows new post with title, but it isn't there in the group. VoiceOfReason Site Suggestions and Help 2 07-24-2017 01:45 PM
Poor, poor Florida jeffkrol General Talk 8 04-01-2011 01:32 PM
Poor poor Huckabee jogiba General Talk 16 03-05-2011 09:16 AM
Poor, poor Rand Paul jeffkrol General Talk 18 10-19-2010 01:57 PM
When is a Pentax bayonet not a Pentax bayonet albrechtnamatdurer Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 06-28-2009 09:35 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:26 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top