[aaacb]

Having replaced the Takumar bayonet 135/2.5 with a SMC 135/3.5, I thought I'd test at home the three 135mm lenses I have: K 135/3.5, K 135/2.5, M 135/3.5; didn't get to include the Takumar in this comparison. It's cold out, and one morning walk has been enough for today

Not much difference that I see. I suspect a mix of so-and-so experimental setup and copy variance for lenses this old. I'm also impressed how sharp the $50 M lens is, I've always been.

One shot in the center wide open, at f8, and one on the edge at f8 (I don't really shoot wide open and with detail far from the center, but that's just me). Plus a f3.5 shot from the faster lens to match the others. Manual exposure and focus check in live view for all images. K1ii camera, 2s timer
These are heavy crops, you can zoom all the way in flickr if interested

Center shots wide open

M 135 f3.5 at f3.5 (noticed on the computer that this is a little mis-focused, judging by the overall purple halos)



K 135 f3.5 at f3.5




K 135 f2.5 at f2.5



K 135 f2.5 at f3.5




Center shots stopped down

M 135 f3.5 at f8



K 135 f3.5 at f8


K 135 f2.5 at f8



Edge photos, right side. I refocused to avoid issues with field curvature, or my tripod or focus ring moving while I repositioned

M 135 f3.5 at f8


K 135 f3.5 at f8



K 135 f2.5 at f8

---

Last edited by aaacb; 01-21-2022 at 01:46 PM.

[cowlitzJim]

Thanks for the demo.
I've owned several copies of the 3.5 and appreciated them. Great tiny tele on Micro43 bodies. My most recent copy is quite good wide open so perhaps I'm finally done letting them go!

[MSL]

I have the K135/3.5, which I loved as soon as I got it, although at the time the closest lens I had to compare was an A70-210/4 which is about twice the size and weight, and seemed like a much darker lens in comparison. I'm hoping to pick up a K135/2.5 this weekend. So aside from image quality, I'm interested in how you think they compare in terms of handling, and why you might choose to use one over the other (aside from shooting at f2.5 which rules out the slower lenses).


The one thing that seems different in the images is that the K135/2.5 images seem brighter and a little warmer. The differences aren't huge though.

[aaacb]

how you think they compare in terms of handling, and why you might choose to use one over the other

The K 135/2.5 is noticeably larger, at least with my bags it doesn't go in the same pocket/compartment as the M. The plus of that being it looks cool with all glass and such a thin "exterior" I pick based on the other lenses I am bringing, I'm vain enough to want to use an all-M or all-K kit (wide/normal/tele, these being the teles). A practical consideration, if I'm shooting long exposures my filters are 49mm so that means the M trio. The K 135/3.5 is a recent purchase that arrived yesterday, haven't yet used it

K135/2.5 images seem brighter and a little warmer.

That is certainly not controlled in my little coffee break test. The room was getting natural light from clouds moving in and out. The floor is wood, so that changes the light color depending on how the sun is hitting it. I had auto white balance set.

[GUB]

Having replaced the takumar bayonet 135/2.5 with a SMC 135/3.5,

Can you clarify whether this is the SMC Pentax 135 2.5 or the Tak Bayonet 135 2.5?
If it is the Tak Bayonet it shouldn't be refered to as "K 135 2.5".
SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database
And for what it is worth my copy of the Tak Bayonet is better than my very mediocre M 135 3.5.

[aaacb]

SMC Pentax 135 2.5 or the Tak Bayonet 135 2.5

This is the SMC Pentax 135 2.5, I've sold the Tak Bay and it's not in this test. I'll update my post too. And yes, it was a nice lens, though not better than my copy of the m 135/3.5. Again, really wondering about copy variations with such old lenses

[GUB]

Again, really wondering about copy variations with such old lenses

I think this may very much explain the Tak Bayonet and people's highly polarised view of it. It was after all the "cheap" option and quality control could have been an area to make savings.
But interesting about your comment of the M maybe missed focus - that would exactly describe my best results for it.

[Lowell Goudge]

I might just be able to ass a super tak, an SMC tak, a tele lentar preset, and a sigma 135 macro to the mix

[GUB]

There is no shortage of 135s out there to test - !!! But the issue is would we show anything apart from copy variation.
Sharpness is secondary for me when I choose which one to reach for. Except I won't reach for my M series.
Subject isolation Weltblick 1.8 - officially my "blurryest " lens
A niche position for the Viv series 1 2.3 perhaps better iq and more character-full than the Weltblick.
In closeup the Viv 2.8 close focusing has a place. This lens is incredible in that it expands from 84mm (mount to filter edge) at infinity to 150mm long when max closeup (1:2).
Can't beat the light weight Tak Bayonet for trekking and out there rough environment.
And a simple soft spot for the little original tak 46mm filter - a jewel of a lens that more than pulls it's weight iq wise.
The FA 2.8 , looking like something the bulls have dropped in my paddock, doesn't appear to have anything extra. And as I almost exclusively manual focus the AF is not normally a plus.
But probably if I was under pressure with a need for consistent result I would reach for it.

[Gene D]

This is the SMC Pentax 135 2.5, I've sold the Tak Bay and it's not in this test. I'll update my post too. And yes, it was a nice lens, though not better than my copy of the m 135/3.5. Again, really wondering about copy variations with such old lenses

I currently am using the SMC K 135 f2.5. I don't have the 3.5 and have not compared them but where I see this lens shine is when I shooting wide-open, street or nature although its also very sharp closed down. It really gives a great, smooth bokeh when shooting street scenes or even landscapes, and especially portraits. So for tests like the one shown I am not sure that these aspects stand out but would say its worth seeing if shooting some street scenes wide-open can give you some space between the lenses.

I find it is somewhat heavy but as you probably note the quality and the feel of the K's is awesome and to me it's worth the extra effort to work with a bit, keeping a steady hand. I also notice that a hood really makes a difference to avoid fringing. I recently shot it on my KP at a Genesis concert and the pictures are amazing--crisp, great color and contrast. For a lens that's almost as old as the band, I was amazed. But I hope you enjoy these, just giving the f2.5 a thumbs up from my vantage.

[glasbak]

You do not mention the camera used, I found out that the differences between the M and K 135mm lenses is in the corner performance of 35mm, on APS-C this difference is not very obvious.