Originally posted by steamloco76 
Mine was the SMC-F version.
I was so dissatisfied with that lens after having great luck with the F 24-50/4. The 24-50 was good enough that I quit carrying my A 28, 35 and 50mm primes. As for the K and KA mount Takumars, I had two and quickly gave up on both. The Takumar 70-210/4 and 135/2.5. Both were okay in the middle apertures but flare was a real issue.
I think I remember you talking about that SMC-F 28-80 before. Sounds like a candidate for the trash can...
I had a Takumar-A 70-200 f4 and it wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. The SMC-A 70-210mm f4 ran circles around it.
I also had the Takumar 135 2.5. It's basically the same lens as the SMC-A 135 2.8, but with less coatings and the iris opens a bit more. In fact I had them at the same time and the Takumar performed pretty much identically, but I liked the colors a bit better. And the SMC-A actually had worse flare than the Takumar, I think it wasn't a good copy. I sold both, but later missed having a 135mm prime and I bought the Takumar 135 2.8 (K mount, came after the Takumar 135 2.5 and had better multi-coatings, just not SMC). That one is a keeper! I find that despite not being SMC it performs quite decently against harsh light, and in the center it's sharp as a tack even wide open. I find the rendering and colors very similar to my SMC-M 50mm f1.7, which is to say I like it a lot! M lenses have the perfect balance - to me - of saturation and contrast and color warmth (slightly on the warm side in their rendering, but very naturally looking so, just a very pleasing look IMHO).
Similar Threads 
