[cyberjunkie]

Well, I like to try different lenses, and one of my favorite focal is 85mm. I love vintage "portrait" lenses, sharp enough and with some glow wide open. I mostly use FF, but I've used digital APS-C cameras for quite some time. My take is that 85mm and 135mm lenses are usable on both formats. On FF 85mm's are more intimate, and in my opinion a bit short for my own taste, to be used for portrait. Sometimes I use a 100 or a 135... which translates as 85 on APS-C (same field of view).
It happens that I really dislike selling my lenses, so kind of unwillingly I've become a collector
I own most of the primes that have been mentioned. Un/fortunately my Tak 1.8/85mm is the old Auto Takumar version, which has a different optical layout. The SMC Takumar has a more "modern" project and is said to be sharper. Never tried it, but people swear that's a great portrait lens. From what I understand I would probably prefer my Auto, cause it should have more glow. Actually it's one of my favorite short teles, it has such a beautiful rendition!
I guess that at that price you can't go wrong with the SMC version.
The Pancolar is also an f/1.8 lens, it handles haze/contrast better (it's MC), has a very nice rendering, but it's not as sharp as I expected. It's a nice lens, but it's not among my most loved ones. Could be my example, though. I bought it after a botched conversion attempt. I had it re-converted to PK, but now I can't stop down the diaphragm past 5.6. The problem should not affect the optics, but you can never be sure about what happened to an old lens, even if it looks nice.
At the price you mentioned, it's even cheaper than the Tak. Together with the rare Pancolar 1.4/50mm it is believed to be the best Zeiss Jena lens, so my personal experience could be misleading.
At more or less the same price I found a nice old Helios 40 1.5/85mm (original "silver" version) in very good condition. It was a nice find. The lenses you found are even more valuable, and not so common, so in your place I'd definitely go for one of them.
I'm sure you'd enjoy either one... and if you ever decide to go full frame, even more so!
I suggest to do a Flickr search, looking for pictures shot with the two lenses you are considering. Keep in mind that that the SMC Takumar is optically identical to the SMC Pentax with the same specs (first generation bayonet mount).

Regarding the Takumar Bayonet in PK mount, I am not surprised that the f/2.8 135mm is said to work well. Most 135mm's of the same vintage did.
Though from my own experience I'm kind of wary about the various Takumar Bayonet lenses. They have no SMC coating (which is the most valuable characteristics of consumer Pentax objectives), and the 2.5/135mm I owned long ago was inferior to the M 3.5/135mm and the K 2.5/135mm. The latter is the only one I still own. Considering I almost never sell lenses, it says it all

Edit:
Re-reading the description that the OP gave of his ideal lens, one immediately came to my mind: the Leitz Canada Summicron 2/90mm.
I spent more or less the same money... converting it to PK Fortunately I already had it from Leica M times, so the expense was compatible with my current limited resources. I suggest anybody who owns one to give it a go on digital FF. You can easily unscrew it from the Viso helicoid and return the lens head to the original one, to be used on an old Leica.
The conversion process is explained in an old post of mine

---

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 08-31-2018 at 05:01 AM.

[SunnyG.]

Well, I like to try different lenses, and one of my favorite focal is 85mm. I love vintage "portrait" lenses, sharp enough and with some glow wide open. I mostly use FF, but I've used digital APS-C cameras for quite some time. My take is that 85mm and 135mm lenses are usable on both formats. On FF 85mm's are more intimate, and in my opinion a bit short for my own taste, to be used for portrait. Sometimes I use a 100 or a 135... which translates as 85 on APS-C (same field of view).
It happens that I really dislike selling my lenses, so kind of unwillingly I've become a collector
I own most of the primes that have been mentioned. Un/fortunately my Tak 1.8/85mm is the old Auto Takumar version, which has a different optical layout. The SMC Takumar has a more "modern" project and is said to be sharper. Never tried it, but people swear that's a great portrait lens. From what I understand I would probably prefer my Auto, cause it should have more glow. Actually it's one of my favorite short teles, it has such a beautiful rendition!
I guess that at that price you can't go wrong with the SMC version.
The Pancolar is also an f/1.8 lens, it handles haze/contrast better (it's MC), has a very nice rendering, but it's not as sharp as I expected. It's a nice lens, but it's not among my most loved ones. Could be my example, though. I bought it after a botched conversion attempt. I had it re-converted to PK, but now I can't stop down the diaphragm past 5.6. The problem should not affect the optics, but you can never be sure about what happened to an old lens, even if it looks nice.
At the price you mentioned, it's even cheaper than the Tak. Together with the rare Pancolar 1.4/50mm it is believed to be the best Zeiss Jena lens, so my personal experience could be misleading.
At more or less the same price I found a nice old Helios 40 1.5/85mm (original "silver" version) in very good condition. It was a nice find. The lenses you found are even more valuable, and not so common, so in your place I'd definitely go for one of them.
I'm sure you'd enjoy either one... and if you ever decide to go full frame, even more so!
I suggest to do a Flickr search, looking for pictures shot with the two lenses you are considering. Keep in mind that that the SMC Takumar is optically identical to the SMC Pentax with the same specs (first generation bayonet mount).

Regarding the Takumar Bayonet in PK mount, I am not surprised that the f/2.8 135mm is said to work well. Most 135mm's of the same vintage did.
Though from my own experience I'm kind of wary about the various Takumar Bayonet lenses. They have no SMC coating (which is the most valuable characteristics of consumer Pentax objectives), and the 2.5/135mm I owned long ago was inferior to the M 3.5/135mm and the K 2.5/135mm. The latter is the only one I still own. Considering I almost never sell lenses, it says it all

Edit:
Re-reading the description that the OP gave of his ideal lens, one immediately came to my mind: the Leitz Canada Summicron 2/90mm.
I spent more or less the same money... converting it to PK Fortunately I already had it from Leica M times, so the expense was compatible with my current limited resources. I suggest anybody who owns one to give it a go on digital FF. You can easily unscrew it from the Viso helicoid and return the lens head to the original one, to be used on an old Leica.
The conversion process is explained in an old post of mine

That Leica is a legend! It's a dream to own it! 85mm Helios requires expert level experience! So many great lenses to choose from!

[kernos]

Together with the rare Pancolar 1.4/50mm it is believed to be the best Zeiss Jena lens, so my personal experience could be misleading.

Did you mean the Pancolor 1.4/55mm?

[UncleVanya]

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 ----------


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

Because flare isn't the only factor?
But what I said was the K 2.5 135 was better than the Takumar Bayonet 2.8 135 which was better than the Takumar Bayonet 2.5 135. So what I said aligns with what you are saying. However after reading the extensive test linked above from the german site (reading is generous - I skimmed the table on page 25!) it appears that in that objective test the K 2.5 ranked lower than the A 2.8 or the Takumar Bayonet 2.5 or even the M 3.5... but I can't read German in detail so I have no idea what the full detailed valuation scheme was. I suspect many would still prefer the K 2.5 over the M 3.5 for the wide open bokeh.

It does point out that there is a significant difference between the Takumar Bayonet 2.5 and 2.8 however.

[cyberjunkie]

Did you mean the Pancolor 1.4/55mm?

Of course
Sorry for the typo


@UncleVanya:
I will check that link, though any test done with a single example of each lens should be taken as relative, not absolute. Especially if vintage lenses are involved.
That is why I like the test published by LensRentals. Their graphics show that even brand new lenses show a substantial difference one from another.
If we don't consider test numbers, but subjective ratings based on personal experience, you're absolutely right when you say that some people, myself included, are influenced by OOF rendering. A faster lens has an edge on that regard. Always. Even more so if it's mainly used for portraits.
The brilliance of the colors and a good contrast of the picture also play an important role. If we don't process the image first, and we don't pixel peep at 100% and over, I believe that sharpness isn't one of the characteristics that influence the most our judgement.
So subjective evaluation doesn't always match test numbers.
One of the reasons I like so much vintage 135mm lenses is that very few are really disappointing.
Since I own the K-1 I've extensively used a number of cheap 135mm's that enjoy very little reputation. I did events and concerts, mostly wide open, and I found that some were much better than I expected. Especially three different 2.8/135mm: one Enna and two made by Sun (Soligor and Porst).

[SunnyG.]

Because flare isn't the only factor?
But what I said was the K 2.5 135 was better than the Takumar Bayonet 2.8 135 which was better than the Takumar Bayonet 2.5 135. So what I said aligns with what you are saying. However after reading the extensive test linked above from the german site (reading is generous - I skimmed the table on page 25!) it appears that in that objective test the K 2.5 ranked lower than the A 2.8 or the Takumar Bayonet 2.5 or even the M 3.5... but I can't read German in detail so I have no idea what the full detailed valuation scheme was. I suspect many would still prefer the K 2.5 over the M 3.5 for the wide open bokeh.

It does point out that there is a significant difference between the Takumar Bayonet 2.5 and 2.8 however.

Well it's not only the flare I'm talking about. The bayonet taks don't even have SMC coating. Pentax is known for their superior coating. Without the coating, it'll also affect contrast, wouldn't it? I think the only to ascertain this is if someone takes the time to test these lenses. A side project may be? The lenses are cheap.

[ZombieArmy]

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.

The Takumar Bayonet f 2.5 is a wild beast. Gives you wonderful pictures full of character one time and 0 contrast awful pictures the next

Still love it though, it's cheap enough and common enough where I'd recommend it for everyone.







---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 10:16 PM ----------

Well it's not only the flare I'm talking about. The bayonet taks don't even have SMC coating. Pentax is known for their superior coating. Without the coating, it'll also affect contrast, wouldn't it? I think the only to ascertain this is if someone takes the time to test these lenses. A side project may be? The lenses are cheap.

Yes the Bayonet tak has worse contrast than most of its 135 brethren. That however was more of a big deal back in the day of film when adjusting such things was difficult.

Nowadays it's pretty easy to adjust some sliders and remove that downside. The lens itself is more than acceptably sharp.

[SunnyG.]

The Takumar Bayonet f 2.5 is a wild beast. Gives you wonderful pictures full of character one time and 0 contrast awful pictures the next

Still love it though, it's cheap enough and common enough where I'd recommend it for everyone.







---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 10:16 PM ----------



Yes the Bayonet tak has worse contrast than most of its 135 brethren. That however was more of a big deal back in the day of film when adjusting such things was difficult.

Nowadays it's pretty easy to adjust some sliders and remove that downside. The lens itself is more than acceptably sharp.

Yes but that means a lot more time in pp!

[RKKS08]

Some explanations for non-German speaking members in regard to the test from 2008, to which I linked in post #28.

The test included the following lenses "name elements/groups" "I" means integrated lens-shade:
SMC-F 2.8/135 8/7 I
SMC-A 2.8/135 4/4 I
SMC-K 2.5/135 6/6 -
SMC-M 3.5/135 5/5 I
Takumar 2.5/135 [Bayonet] 4/4 I
Takumar 2.8/135 [Bayonet] 4/4 I
and as a reference:
Auto Revuenon 2.8/135 ?/? I
SMC-DA 4-5.8/55-300 @135 12/8

Why this selection?
The SMC-F 135 is optically identical to the SMC-FA version, so only one of them was tested.
The SMC-K 3.5/135 was not made available at the time of the test.
The SMC-A* 1.8/135 was neglected as it is in another price category, and fairly seldom.
The Revuenon was choosen as an example for the many other 135mm lenses of this time. It was sold in big numbers and can be bought easily quite cheap.
The SMC-DA 55-300 was choosen as a zoom reference (whereas the SMC-DA* 2.8/50-135 is located in another price category).

The test (2008!) was done only with the 10MP sensor of the K200D (= K10D and K-m/K2000).
The tester was confident results would not be much different with higher resolution sensors, as he had before made a single test of the 55-300 with a K20D (14MP) with identical results as now with the K200D.

General test results (numbers are in the table at page 25 of the PDF):

1) Distortion is negectable with the 55-300 being the only exception, which makes it (un-corrected) of limited value for architecture.

2) Vignetting fully open is visible with all lenses, much better at F4, and gone at F5.6; again the 55-300 is by far the worst.

3) Bokeh was tested for the main subject near the shortest possible distance, and again farer away. In these tests the SMC-K 2.5 really shined, for near distance closely followed by the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.5 and the SMC-F 2.8. At greater distance the difference was bigger. As to be expected, the 55-300 was last in both categories.

4) Purple fringing and other color shifts at contrasty lines, again tested at near and far object distance. All lenses suffer fully open from these errors. Best are the 55-300 and the SMC-M 3.5, but of course these do not offer F2.8. At near distance the SMC-K 2.5 is the best of the rest, at farer distance the SMC-M 2.8, SMC-F 2.8, and the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.8 take this place.

5) Sharpness/Resolution: Test with charts (near distance) and real life.

Outside scenery:
Fully open: Best is the SMC-F 2.8, closely followed by the SMC-A 2.8 and the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.8, these being only slightly softer in the corners. All others show significent loss of resolution in the corners, the Revuenon also in the center. The Takumar [Bayonet] 2.5 is much softer in all of the frame and shows much less contrast.

At F4: Same results as at F2.8, but now the difference between the lenses is much smaller, and the Revuenon catches up with the others. The Takumar [bayonet] 2.5 still is too soft.

At F5.6: Now all lenses are nearly at the same level, and sharp also in the corners. The 55-300 now seems to be sharper than the primes. Contrast of the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.5 still lower than of all other lenses.

Test charts:
Fully open:
Similiar results as for greater distance, but difference between the lenses is now much smaller. And the SMC-K 2.5 is now the weakest. Probably not so well corrected for distances near the shortest distance.

F4 and F5.6: Now all lenses except the zoom are about equal, but the 55-300 is sharp in center with significant loss of resolution near the corners.
My opinion (not in the test): as this is not true for the real life pictures, it is probably caused by stronger field curvation, which gets lesser pronounced at greater distance.

Personal remark about the repeatedly heard statement "lenses with SMC coating must clearly be better than others".
This should be true if otherwise it were the exact same lenses.
But in the case of the Takumar [Bayonet] 135mm lenses - and also the once kit lens Pentax-A 3.5-4.5/28-80mm - this is not so.

The optical construction of the Takumar [Bayonet] 135mm lenses is 4/4, that means 8 open glass surfaces.
The optical construction of the SMC-K 2.5/135mm is 8/7, that means 14 open glass surfaces.

The optical construction of the Pentax-A 3.5-4.5/28-80mm*) is 8/8, that means 16 open glass surfaces.
The optical construction of the SMC Pentax-A 3.5-4.5/28-80mm is 12/9, that means 18 open glass surfaces.

So you could also say the SMC-K needs the better coating, whereas the Takumar does not need it. It still is multi-coated, just not by the patented Pentax SMC coating, but just as most of the lenses of the competition. The same goes for the A 28-80.

I thought the comparison between the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.5 and 2.8 to be strange, as both are 4/4 designs and probably identical. Maybe one or more lens elements are bigger in diameter with the 2.5, or reduced by shims with the 2.8 (the 2.5 is 2mm longer, but the weight is the same). The tester was not the only one to see that difference in performing, so it seems to be real.
If you look at the charts, the main differences all seem to be related one way or another to contrast. And this could be caused by the coatings. One possibility is that Pentax improved the non-SMC coating all the time, and many of the 2.5 versions will be older, as the 2.5 was sold from 1980, the 2.8 from 1984. Who knows, Pentax would never tell us,

One last remark:
None of the tested lenses was brand new, and the tester had only one copy of each lens. So copy variation could always be an issue (but problems like de-centering would have been seen with test chart pictures). And I would certainly be interested if someone could repeat the test with a K-3.


*) Also sold as "Takumar-A" and "Profile-A", at least the latter made by Cosmicar in Taiwan

[stevebrot]

Some explanations for non-German speaking members in regard to the test from 2008, to which I linked in post #28.

Thank you for the interpretation. There is a saying that has been around since I first got into photography in around 1969, stating that "It is hard to make a bad 135mm lens." Most feature four or five elements in four or five groups with a maximum aperture of about f/2.8 and most are competent performers. Some, like the Pentax-K and other higher-end makes have a greater number of elements/groups, but strangely enough, the greater sophistication often does not buy much in terms of performance.


Steve

[stevebrot]

Yes actually I am in contact with the seller! 85mm tak in absolute mint condition for 250$ & the jena 80mm is around the same price! Also is mint condition. Only the mounts has some slight signs of use.

Sooooo...are you going to get either of these?


Steve

[SunnyG.]

The Takumar Bayonet f 2.5 is a wild beast. Gives you wonderful pictures full of character one time and 0 contrast awful pictures the next

Still love it though, it's cheap enough and common enough where I'd recommend it for everyone.







---------- Post added 09-01-18 at 10:16 PM ----------



Yes the Bayonet tak has worse contrast than most of its 135 brethren. That however was more of a big deal back in the day of film when adjusting such things was difficult.

Nowadays it's pretty easy to adjust some sliders and remove that downside. The lens itself is more than acceptably sharp.

Lovely pictures! They so look beautiful!

---------- Post added 09-02-18 at 01:41 PM ----------

Some explanations for non-German speaking members in regard to the test from 2008, to which I linked in post #28.

The test included the following lenses "name elements/groups" "I" means integrated lens-shade:
SMC-F 2.8/135 8/7 I
SMC-A 2.8/135 4/4 I
SMC-K 2.5/135 6/6 -
SMC-M 3.5/135 5/5 I
Takumar 2.5/135 [Bayonet] 4/4 I
Takumar 2.8/135 [Bayonet] 4/4 I
and as a reference:
Auto Revuenon 2.8/135 ?/? I
SMC-DA 4-5.8/55-300 @135 12/8

Why this selection?
The SMC-F 135 is optically identical to the SMC-FA version, so only one of them was tested.
The SMC-K 3.5/135 was not made available at the time of the test.
The SMC-A* 1.8/135 was neglected as it is in another price category, and fairly seldom.
The Revuenon was choosen as an example for the many other 135mm lenses of this time. It was sold in big numbers and can be bought easily quite cheap.
The SMC-DA 55-300 was choosen as a zoom reference (whereas the SMC-DA* 2.8/50-135 is located in another price category).

The test (2008!) was done only with the 10MP sensor of the K200D (= K10D and K-m/K2000).
The tester was confident results would not be much different with higher resolution sensors, as he had before made a single test of the 55-300 with a K20D (14MP) with identical results as now with the K200D.

General test results (numbers are in the table at page 25 of the PDF):

1) Distortion is negectable with the 55-300 being the only exception, which makes it (un-corrected) of limited value for architecture.

2) Vignetting fully open is visible with all lenses, much better at F4, and gone at F5.6; again the 55-300 is by far the worst.

3) Bokeh was tested for the main subject near the shortest possible distance, and again farer away. In these tests the SMC-K 2.5 really shined, for near distance closely followed by the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.5 and the SMC-F 2.8. At greater distance the difference was bigger. As to be expected, the 55-300 was last in both categories.

4) Purple fringing and other color shifts at contrasty lines, again tested at near and far object distance. All lenses suffer fully open from these errors. Best are the 55-300 and the SMC-M 3.5, but of course these do not offer F2.8. At near distance the SMC-K 2.5 is the best of the rest, at farer distance the SMC-M 2.8, SMC-F 2.8, and the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.8 take this place.

5) Sharpness/Resolution: Test with charts (near distance) and real life.

Outside scenery:
Fully open: Best is the SMC-F 2.8, closely followed by the SMC-A 2.8 and the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.8, these being only slightly softer in the corners. All others show significent loss of resolution in the corners, the Revuenon also in the center. The Takumar [Bayonet] 2.5 is much softer in all of the frame and shows much less contrast.

At F4: Same results as at F2.8, but now the difference between the lenses is much smaller, and the Revuenon catches up with the others. The Takumar [bayonet] 2.5 still is too soft.

At F5.6: Now all lenses are nearly at the same level, and sharp also in the corners. The 55-300 now seems to be sharper than the primes. Contrast of the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.5 still lower than of all other lenses.

Test charts:
Fully open:
Similiar results as for greater distance, but difference between the lenses is now much smaller. And the SMC-K 2.5 is now the weakest. Probably not so well corrected for distances near the shortest distance.

F4 and F5.6: Now all lenses except the zoom are about equal, but the 55-300 is sharp in center with significant loss of resolution near the corners.
My opinion (not in the test): as this is not true for the real life pictures, it is probably caused by stronger field curvation, which gets lesser pronounced at greater distance.

Personal remark about the repeatedly heard statement "lenses with SMC coating must clearly be better than others".
This should be true if otherwise it were the exact same lenses.
But in the case of the Takumar [Bayonet] 135mm lenses - and also the once kit lens Pentax-A 3.5-4.5/28-80mm - this is not so.

The optical construction of the Takumar [Bayonet] 135mm lenses is 4/4, that means 8 open glass surfaces.
The optical construction of the SMC-K 2.5/135mm is 8/7, that means 14 open glass surfaces.

The optical construction of the Pentax-A 3.5-4.5/28-80mm*) is 8/8, that means 16 open glass surfaces.
The optical construction of the SMC Pentax-A 3.5-4.5/28-80mm is 12/9, that means 18 open glass surfaces.

So you could also say the SMC-K needs the better coating, whereas the Takumar does not need it. It still is multi-coated, just not by the patented Pentax SMC coating, but just as most of the lenses of the competition. The same goes for the A 28-80.

I thought the comparison between the Takumar [Bayonet] 2.5 and 2.8 to be strange, as both are 4/4 designs and probably identical. Maybe one or more lens elements are bigger in diameter with the 2.5, or reduced by shims with the 2.8 (the 2.5 is 2mm longer, but the weight is the same). The tester was not the only one to see that difference in performing, so it seems to be real.
If you look at the charts, the main differences all seem to be related one way or another to contrast. And this could be caused by the coatings. One possibility is that Pentax improved the non-SMC coating all the time, and many of the 2.5 versions will be older, as the 2.5 was sold from 1980, the 2.8 from 1984. Who knows, Pentax would never tell us,

One last remark:
None of the tested lenses was brand new, and the tester had only one copy of each lens. So copy variation could always be an issue (but problems like de-centering would have been seen with test chart pictures). And I would certainly be interested if someone could repeat the test with a K-3.


*) Also sold as "Takumar-A" and "Profile-A", at least the latter made by Cosmicar in Taiwan

Thank you for the translation! This is interesting! Very interesting!

---------- Post added 09-02-18 at 01:45 PM ----------

Sooooo...are you going to get either of these?


Steve

I am thinking of getting the pancolar! Seems like a really wonderful lens! But the Takumar is so attractive too! I don't know what to do! I am confused!

[carabez]

I am thinking of getting the pancolar! Seems like a really wonderful lens! But the Takumar is so attractive too! I don't know what to do! I am confused!

Adding to your Confussion a bit of salt: I love the SMC 67 105mm f2.4 and SMC 67 165mm f2.8 for portrait. They have a little more "thread" in the focus ring.

[SunnyG.]

Adding to your Confussion a bit of salt: I love the SMC 67 105mm f2.4 and SMC 67 165mm f2.8 for portrait. They have a little more "thread" in the focus ring.

What's the crop factor for APS-C?

[carabez]

What's the crop factor for APS-C?

6x7cm format divide by 2 to get the 24x36mm format equivalent: 105 / 2 = 52mm fullframe ergo 52*1.5 = 78mm in Apsc.
6x7cm format divide by 2 to get the 24x36mm format equivalent: 165 / 2 = 82mm fullframe ergo 82*1.5 = 122mm in Apsc.