Portrait lens for a cheap price!

Scintilla · 08-29-2018, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by SunnyG.

It's Carl Zeiss Jena, from west Germany.

Minor historical note -- Carl Zeiss Jena is actually what was left of the company in East Germany (where the city of Jena is) after WWII. At one point they lost the rights to use the Carl Zeiss trademarks in the Western bloc and had to label their lenses for that market "aus Jena" instead (and replace model names like "Planar" and "Tessar" with "P" and "T").

While CZJ was making all those M42 lenses, the West Germany Carl Zeiss operation (where the city of Oberkochen is) was making lenses for the Hasselblad and Contax (and Rollei?) systems instead; that company is the Zeiss that still survives today.

**kernos** · 08-29-2018, 10:32 AM

Perhaps check out the Helios 77M-4 50mm. I have it and use it on extension, but lots of Russian portrait artists use it to great effect on APS-C. Actually any lens on your camera is worth more than any lens that you don't have.

stevebrot · 08-29-2018, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by Scintilla

that company is the Zeiss that still survives today.

Except for the part of Zeiss that continues to operate in the former DDR. It is all very confusing and probably best to not try and trace where the "real" Zeiss was during the cold war period* or even in this present day.** The Jena lenses stand on their own reputations which is pretty darned good in terms of optics and perhaps not so good for build.

Steve

* At various times, Jena lenses were used on Oberkochen product, but that was then and this is now.

** Purists might claim that Kyocera-made, Cosina-made, and Sony-made lenses with Zeiss branding don't pass muster.

SunnyG. · 08-29-2018, 02:15 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Scintilla

Minor historical note -- Carl Zeiss Jena is actually what was left of the company in East Germany (where the city of Jena is) after WWII. At one point they lost the rights to use the Carl Zeiss trademarks in the Western bloc and had to label their lenses for that market "aus Jena" instead (and replace model names like "Planar" and "Tessar" with "P" and "T").

While CZJ was making all those M42 lenses, the West Germany Carl Zeiss operation (where the city of Oberkochen is) was making lenses for the Hasselblad and Contax (and Rollei?) systems instead; that company is the Zeiss that still survives today.

Lol I wanted to write "East" I wrote West. My bad! & I know this, I have extensively researched on this topic. But thank you for making the effort. It was really nice of you!

---------- Post added 08-29-18 at 02:18 PM ----------

Originally posted by kernos

Perhaps check out the Helios 77M-4 50mm. I have it and use it on extension, but lots of Russian portrait artists use it to great effect on APS-C. Actually any lens on your camera is worth more than any lens that you don't have.

And also the Zenitar M. Which is really sharp and contrasty! And pricey as well! I would like to have one of those!

---------- Post added 08-29-18 at 02:19 PM ----------

Originally posted by stevebrot

Except for the part of Zeiss that continues to operate in the former DDR. It is all very confusing and probably best to not try and trace where the "real" Zeiss was during the cold war period* or even in this present day.** The Jena lenses stand on their own reputations which is pretty darned good in terms of optics and perhaps not so good for build.

Steve

* At various times, Jena lenses were used on Oberkochen product, but that was then and this is now.

** Purists might claim that Kyocera-made, Cosina-made, and Sony-made lenses with Zeiss branding don't pass muster.

I'd say the cosina made lenses are awesome no matter what!

HoutHans · 08-29-2018, 10:46 PM

If you're still looking, why not try a 100/2.8 or 4 macro? They may be overly sharp and 'clinical', but they will offer 100+ focal length and thin dof. Just a thought.

**beachgardener** · 08-30-2018, 01:28 AM

I think I'm going to have to try out the DA 50

SunnyG. · 08-30-2018, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

The 135 Pentax Takumar Bayonet f2.8 is supposed to outperform the Takumar Bayonet f2.5. I have the f2.5 version and it is OK but it doesn't blow me away. The lack of multicoatings on the glass is one factor, the relatively simple optical design is another.

So you are saying the tak bayonet 2.8 is better than the tak 2.5 and k 2.5?

---------- Post added 08-30-18 at 04:36 AM ----------

Originally posted by HoutHans

If you're still looking, why not try a 100/2.8 or 4 macro? They may be overly sharp and 'clinical', but they will offer 100+ focal length and thin dof. Just a thought.

I didn't think of those! But now that you have said. I will look into them as well!

**UncleVanya** · 08-30-2018, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by SunnyG.

So you are saying the tak bayonet 2.8 is better than the tak 2.5 and k 2.5?

2.5 K > 2.8 tak > 2.5 Tak

stevebrot · 08-30-2018, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

2.5 K > 2.8 tak > 2.5 Tak

Edit: I was totally mistaken. See below...

~~Translation:~~ Nope...my amazingly bad misinterpretation!

~~Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.8 Takumar Bayonet > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Tak (5 element)~~

Note: While not the same lenses as UncleVanya was talking about, it would be good to lay out the actual order of reputation:

Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Takumar (5 element) >> 2.8 Takumar Bayonet (4 element)

The S-M-C Tak (6 element, product code 43812) is optically the same as the Pentax-K 135/2.5.

Steve

(...where do I go for my lashing? )

**UncleVanya** · 08-30-2018, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Translation:

Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.8 Takumar Bayonet > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Tak (5 element)

The S-M-C Tak (6 element, product code 43812) is optically the same as the Pentax-K 135/2.5.

Steve

We aren't talking about the same lenses. I'm talking about the takumar bayonet which has two distinctly different offerings f/2.5 and f/2.8 but both are 4 element lenses:

Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
Takumar 135mm F2.8 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

The K 2.5 is the same 6 element as the one you mentioned:
SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

In my haste (I think I was on my phone) I didn't specify that the Takumar I was talking about was the Bayonet model not the screw mount versions.

Pentax really should have been better about naming that set of bayonet lenses... lol.

EDIT: I'm unclear why the f/2.8 Takumar Bayonet gets more love than the f2.5 version. I have never directly compared them. However others have reportedly done so and consistently (or at least consistently in what I have read) decided the f/2.8 version was better in these two 4 element lenses. I am stumped as to what is actually different between them.

stevebrot · 08-30-2018, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by UncleVanya

We aren't talking about the same lenses. I'm talking about the takumar bayonet which has two distinctly different offerings f/2.5 and f/2.8 but both are 4 element lenses:

Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
Takumar 135mm F2.8 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

The K 2.5 is the same 6 element as the one you mentioned:
SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

In my haste (I think I was on my phone) I didn't specify that the Takumar I was talking about was the Bayonet model not the screw mount versions.

Pentax really should have been better about naming that set of bayonet lenses... lol.

EDIT: I'm unclear why the f/2.8 Takumar Bayonet gets more love than the f2.5 version. I have never directly compared them. However others have reportedly done so and consistently (or at least consistently in what I have read) decided the f/2.8 version was better in these two 4 element lenses. I am stumped as to what is actually different between them.

Ooops! My bad! I was basing my "interpretation" on SunnyG's comment and did not click back to see your original comments. Thank you for being explicit in referring to the Takumar Bayonet lenses by their true names. I sort of wish there was some way to automate a flag that those lenses are not K-mount versions of the M42 Takumars.

I will edit my comment and will do penance...

Steve

**UncleVanya** · 08-30-2018, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Ooops! My bad! I was basing my "interpretation" on SunnyG's comment and did not click back to see your original comments. Thank you for being explicit in referring to the Takumar Bayonet lenses by their true names. I sort of which there was some way to automate a flag that those lenses are not K-mount versions of the M42 Takumars.

I will edit my comment and will do penance...

Steve

Just keep posting! LOL

**RKKS08** · 08-30-2018, 11:05 PM

Comparison Takumar [Bayonet] 2.8/135mm <-> 2.5/135mm

There was a comparison of several Pentax 135mm lenses from 2008 by Thomas Ziska (in German).
It seems his site Testberichte -Münsterländer Fotowelt is abandoned since 2012, but the test is still available for download as a PDF:

Testberichte - Meine Homepage

Look at the link PENTAX - Der grosse 135mm Vergleichstest.
Despite being in German, the table on page 25 should be more or less self explaining.

EDIT: I own the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.8/135mm since many years, and found it to be very sharp - and wayyy better in every respect than the Porst 2.8/135 (made by Cosina?) I had used back in the 1980s.

**GUB** · 08-31-2018, 12:51 AM

And I have the Tak Bayonet 135 2.5 and consider it sharper wide open than all my other M and older series Asahi 135s.

SunnyG. · 08-31-2018, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Edit: I was totally mistaken. See below...

~~Translation:~~ Nope...my amazingly bad misinterpretation!

~~Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.8 Takumar Bayonet > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Tak (5 element)~~

Note: While not the same lenses as UncleVanya was talking about, it would be good to lay out the actual order of reputation:

Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Takumar (5 element) >> 2.8 Takumar Bayonet (4 element)

The S-M-C Tak (6 element, product code 43812) is optically the same as the Pentax-K 135/2.5.

Steve

(...where do I go for my lashing? )

Exactly I was thinking the same thing! How can a SMC lens be worse than a non smc lens. Was confused!

---------- Post added 08-31-18 at 03:59 AM ----------

Originally posted by UncleVanya

We aren't talking about the same lenses. I'm talking about the takumar bayonet which has two distinctly different offerings f/2.5 and f/2.8 but both are 4 element lenses:

Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
Takumar 135mm F2.8 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

The K 2.5 is the same 6 element as the one you mentioned:
SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

In my haste (I think I was on my phone) I didn't specify that the Takumar I was talking about was the Bayonet model not the screw mount versions.

Pentax really should have been better about naming that set of bayonet lenses... lol.

EDIT: I'm unclear why the f/2.8 Takumar Bayonet gets more love than the f2.5 version. I have never directly compared them. However others have reportedly done so and consistently (or at least consistently in what I have read) decided the f/2.8 version was better in these two 4 element lenses. I am stumped as to what is actually different between them.

But how can a non SMC lens be better than than a SMC lens??? It would flare more! Wouldn't it?

08-30-2018, 10:35 AM	#24
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by UncleVanya 2.5 K > 2.8 tak > 2.5 Tak Edit: I was totally mistaken. See below... ~~Translation:~~ Nope...my amazingly bad misinterpretation! ~~Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.8 Takumar Bayonet > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Tak (5 element)~~ Note: While not the same lenses as UncleVanya was talking about, it would be good to lay out the actual order of reputation: Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Takumar (5 element) >> 2.8 Takumar Bayonet (4 element) The S-M-C Tak (6 element, product code 43812) is optically the same as the Pentax-K 135/2.5. Steve (...where do I go for my lashing? ) Last edited by stevebrot; 08-30-2018 at 02:22 PM.

08-30-2018, 02:15 PM	#26
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by UncleVanya We aren't talking about the same lenses. I'm talking about the takumar bayonet which has two distinctly different offerings f/2.5 and f/2.8 but both are 4 element lenses: Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Takumar 135mm F2.8 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database The K 2.5 is the same 6 element as the one you mentioned: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database In my haste (I think I was on my phone) I didn't specify that the Takumar I was talking about was the Bayonet model not the screw mount versions. Pentax really should have been better about naming that set of bayonet lenses... lol. EDIT: I'm unclear why the f/2.8 Takumar Bayonet gets more love than the f2.5 version. I have never directly compared them. However others have reportedly done so and consistently (or at least consistently in what I have read) decided the f/2.8 version was better in these two 4 element lenses. I am stumped as to what is actually different between them. Ooops! My bad! I was basing my "interpretation" on SunnyG's comment and did not click back to see your original comments. Thank you for being explicit in referring to the Takumar Bayonet lenses by their true names. I sort of wish there was some way to automate a flag that those lenses are not K-mount versions of the M42 Takumars. I will edit my comment and will do penance... Steve Last edited by stevebrot; 08-30-2018 at 04:05 PM.

08-30-2018, 11:05 PM	#28
RKKS08 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241	Comparison Takumar [Bayonet] 2.8/135mm <-> 2.5/135mm There was a comparison of several Pentax 135mm lenses from 2008 by Thomas Ziska (in German). It seems his site Testberichte -Münsterländer Fotowelt is abandoned since 2012, but the test is still available for download as a PDF: Testberichte - Meine Homepage Look at the link *PENTAX - Der grosse 135mm Vergleichstest. Despite being in German, the table on page 25 should be more or less self explaining. EDIT: I own the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.8/135mm since many years, and found it to be very sharp - and wayyy better in every respect than the Porst 2.8/135 (made by Cosina?) I had used back in the 1980s. Last edited by RKKS08; 08-30-2018 at 11:38 PM. Reason: Typing*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Landscape Cheap isn't always Cheap	gildedfool	Post Your Photos!	11	12-04-2014 09:46 AM
For Sale - Sold: [US] 2 Cheap ME Supers, 1 Cheap ME - Pentax film bodies	Just1MoreDave	Sold Items	2	02-21-2010 02:11 PM
Forget the cheap DA normal lens, where's our cheap DA portrait lens?	EricT	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	10-04-2009 02:01 PM
Cheap manual lens on cheap extension tube with cheap flash! Also cats.	pasipasi	Post Your Photos!	12	08-28-2008 04:43 PM

08-29-2018, 08:49 AM	#16
Scintilla Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2013 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 347	Originally posted by SunnyG. It's Carl Zeiss Jena, from west Germany. Minor historical note -- Carl Zeiss Jena is actually what was left of the company in East Germany (where the city of Jena is) after WWII. At one point they lost the rights to use the Carl Zeiss trademarks in the Western bloc and had to label their lenses for that market "aus Jena" instead (and replace model names like "Planar" and "Tessar" with "P" and "T"). While CZJ was making all those M42 lenses, the West Germany Carl Zeiss operation (where the city of Oberkochen is) was making lenses for the Hasselblad and Contax (and Rollei?) systems instead; that company is the Zeiss that still survives today.

08-29-2018, 10:32 AM	#17
kernos Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 456	Perhaps check out the Helios 77M-4 50mm. I have it and use it on extension, but lots of Russian portrait artists use it to great effect on APS-C. Actually any lens on your camera is worth more than any lens that you don't have.

08-29-2018, 11:02 AM	#18
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Scintilla that company is the Zeiss that still survives today. Except for the part of Zeiss that continues to operate in the former DDR. It is all very confusing and probably best to not try and trace where the "real" Zeiss was during the cold war period* or even in this present day.** The Jena lenses stand on their own reputations which is pretty darned good in terms of optics and perhaps not so good for build. Steve * At various times, Jena lenses were used on Oberkochen product, but that was then and this is now. ** Purists might claim that Kyocera-made, Cosina-made, and Sony-made lenses with Zeiss branding don't pass muster.

08-29-2018, 02:15 PM - 1 Like	#19
SunnyG. Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 428 Original Poster	Originally posted by Scintilla Minor historical note -- Carl Zeiss Jena is actually what was left of the company in East Germany (where the city of Jena is) after WWII. At one point they lost the rights to use the Carl Zeiss trademarks in the Western bloc and had to label their lenses for that market "aus Jena" instead (and replace model names like "Planar" and "Tessar" with "P" and "T"). While CZJ was making all those M42 lenses, the West Germany Carl Zeiss operation (where the city of Oberkochen is) was making lenses for the Hasselblad and Contax (and Rollei?) systems instead; that company is the Zeiss that still survives today. Lol I wanted to write "East" I wrote West. My bad! & I know this, I have extensively researched on this topic. But thank you for making the effort. It was really nice of you! ---------- Post added 08-29-18 at 02:18 PM ---------- Originally posted by kernos Perhaps check out the Helios 77M-4 50mm. I have it and use it on extension, but lots of Russian portrait artists use it to great effect on APS-C. Actually any lens on your camera is worth more than any lens that you don't have. And also the Zenitar M. Which is really sharp and contrasty! And pricey as well! I would like to have one of those! ---------- Post added 08-29-18 at 02:19 PM ---------- Originally posted by stevebrot Except for the part of Zeiss that continues to operate in the former DDR. It is all very confusing and probably best to not try and trace where the "real" Zeiss was during the cold war period* or even in this present day.** The Jena lenses stand on their own reputations which is pretty darned good in terms of optics and perhaps not so good for build. Steve * At various times, Jena lenses were used on Oberkochen product, but that was then and this is now. ** Purists might claim that Kyocera-made, Cosina-made, and Sony-made lenses with Zeiss branding don't pass muster. I'd say the cosina made lenses are awesome no matter what!

08-29-2018, 10:46 PM	#20
HoutHans Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Appingedam Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,119	If you're still looking, why not try a 100/2.8 or 4 macro? They may be overly sharp and 'clinical', but they will offer 100+ focal length and thin dof. Just a thought.

08-30-2018, 01:28 AM	#21
beachgardener Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,842	I think I'm going to have to try out the DA 50

08-30-2018, 04:25 AM	#22
SunnyG. Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 428 Original Poster	Originally posted by UncleVanya The 135 Pentax Takumar Bayonet f2.8 is supposed to outperform the Takumar Bayonet f2.5. I have the f2.5 version and it is OK but it doesn't blow me away. The lack of multicoatings on the glass is one factor, the relatively simple optical design is another. So you are saying the tak bayonet 2.8 is better than the tak 2.5 and k 2.5? ---------- Post added 08-30-18 at 04:36 AM ---------- Originally posted by HoutHans If you're still looking, why not try a 100/2.8 or 4 macro? They may be overly sharp and 'clinical', but they will offer 100+ focal length and thin dof. Just a thought. I didn't think of those! But now that you have said. I will look into them as well!

08-30-2018, 06:40 AM	#23
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,403	Originally posted by SunnyG. So you are saying the tak bayonet 2.8 is better than the tak 2.5 and k 2.5? 2.5 K > 2.8 tak > 2.5 Tak

08-30-2018, 12:15 PM	#25
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,403	Originally posted by stevebrot Translation: Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.8 Takumar Bayonet > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Tak (5 element) The S-M-C Tak (6 element, product code 43812) is optically the same as the Pentax-K 135/2.5. Steve We aren't talking about the same lenses. I'm talking about the takumar bayonet which has two distinctly different offerings f/2.5 and f/2.8 but both are 4 element lenses: Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Takumar 135mm F2.8 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database The K 2.5 is the same 6 element as the one you mentioned: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database In my haste (I think I was on my phone) I didn't specify that the Takumar I was talking about was the Bayonet model not the screw mount versions. Pentax really should have been better about naming that set of bayonet lenses... lol. EDIT: I'm unclear why the f/2.8 Takumar Bayonet gets more love than the f2.5 version. I have never directly compared them. However others have reportedly done so and consistently (or at least consistently in what I have read) decided the f/2.8 version was better in these two 4 element lenses. I am stumped as to what is actually different between them.

08-30-2018, 03:10 PM	#27
UncleVanya Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 28,403	Originally posted by stevebrot Ooops! My bad! I was basing my "interpretation" on SunnyG's comment and did not click back to see your original comments. Thank you for being explicit in referring to the Takumar Bayonet lenses by their true names. I sort of which there was some way to automate a flag that those lenses are not K-mount versions of the M42 Takumars. I will edit my comment and will do penance... Steve Just keep posting! LOL

08-31-2018, 12:51 AM	#29
GUB Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Wanganui Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,760	And I have the Tak Bayonet 135 2.5 and consider it sharper wide open than all my other M and older series Asahi 135s.

08-31-2018, 03:56 AM	#30
SunnyG. Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Posts: 428 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot Edit: I was totally mistaken. See below... ~~Translation:~~ Nope...my amazingly bad misinterpretation! ~~Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.8 Takumar Bayonet > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Tak (5 element)~~ Note: While not the same lenses as UncleVanya was talking about, it would be good to lay out the actual order of reputation: Pentax-K 2.5 (6 element) > 2.5 ST/S-M-C Takumar (5 element) >> 2.8 Takumar Bayonet (4 element) The S-M-C Tak (6 element, product code 43812) is optically the same as the Pentax-K 135/2.5. Steve (...where do I go for my lashing? ) Exactly I was thinking the same thing! How can a SMC lens be worse than a non smc lens. Was confused! ---------- Post added 08-31-18 at 03:59 AM ---------- Originally posted by UncleVanya We aren't talking about the same lenses. I'm talking about the takumar bayonet which has two distinctly different offerings f/2.5 and f/2.8 but both are 4 element lenses: Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Takumar 135mm F2.8 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database The K 2.5 is the same 6 element as the one you mentioned: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database In my haste (I think I was on my phone) I didn't specify that the Takumar I was talking about was the Bayonet model not the screw mount versions. Pentax really should have been better about naming that set of bayonet lenses... lol. EDIT: I'm unclear why the f/2.8 Takumar Bayonet gets more love than the f2.5 version. I have never directly compared them. However others have reportedly done so and consistently (or at least consistently in what I have read) decided the f/2.8 version was better in these two 4 element lenses. I am stumped as to what is actually different between them. But how can a non SMC lens be better than than a SMC lens??? It would flare more! Wouldn't it?