Super Tak 135mm F/2.8

Rmpjr7 · 06-30-2009, 05:10 PM

Hi everyone!

Is the SMC Takumar 28MM F/3.5 considered a good, bad or indifferent lens?

Can you tell me what a pristine copy of one of these is worth?

Thanks for your help.

Bob

Last edited by Rmpjr7; 07-13-2009 at 07:17 PM. Reason: wrong lens title

figmental1978 · 06-30-2009, 05:21 PM

I have the f/3.5 version and it's pretty good but I've heard the f/2.8 is much better and obviously faster. What it's worth....check ebay for a rough estimate but I wouldn't pay more than $100 for a pristine model.

Blue · 06-30-2009, 06:10 PM

The Super Tak 105mm f2.8 is another option to consider.

Rmpjr7 · 06-30-2009, 06:56 PM

My sister in law does estate sales and is sending me a Takumar 133MM F/2.8. I am interested in finding out whether it is a good lens or not.

Thanks.

Bob

Blue · 06-30-2009, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Rmpjr7

My sister in law does estate sales and is sending me a Takumar 133MM F/2.8. I am interested in finding out whether it is a good lens or not.

Thanks.

Bob

Well in that case, wait and find out for yourself.

wlank · 06-30-2009, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Rmpjr7

Hi everyone!

Is the Takumar 135MM F/2.8 considered a good, bad or indifferent lens?

Can you tell me what a pristine copy of one of these is worth?

Thanks for your help.

Bob

As far as I know it doesn't exist. There were 3 different Takumars which were f/2.5 and 6 various Taks which were f/3.5, but AFAIK there was never a f/2.8. It would be interesting for you to tell us what you actually receive.

Rmpjr7 · 06-30-2009, 08:20 PM

I will be sure to do that.

Thanks.

Bob

Blue · 06-30-2009, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by wlank

As far as I know it doesn't exist. There were 3 different Takumars which were f/2.5 and 6 various Taks which were f/3.5, but AFAIK there was never a f/2.8. It would be interesting for you to tell us what you actually receive.

I was guessing that it was a typo. I see people do that a lot with 2.5 & 2.8 lens. However, there is an actual Tak 135mm f2.8 but it is one of the bayonet low budget lenses.

Edit: By the fact in the original post he says, Takumar 135mm f2.8, I'm betting its the bayonet version.

Ron Redwood · 06-30-2009, 10:08 PM

The Super tak is coated and auto aperture. I think the Takumar (no Super)is not coated and not auto aperture (no pin) though the advantage of the pin really just applies to when used on an M42 body. I have the SMC Takumar (Super Multi-Coat which has the modern multicoat..less flare. It's my main M42 macro now as I have an auto bellows and a couple sets of tubes. VERY sharp. The Super Takumar can be had from $25-40 on ebay..the SMC Takumar,when you see one,is at least $15 more,while the old Taks are a bit less.

As the 105 was less common..it will tend to cost more. The Super Tak 200 mm is said to have a lot of aperture leaves and great bokeh. Not sure if that's so with the SMC version of the 200.

Damn Brit · 06-30-2009, 10:24 PM

Bob, for future reference, it does tend to piss people off if you use bold type for a whole post.

Blue · 06-30-2009, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Damn Brit

Bob, for future reference, it does tend to piss people off if you use bold type for a whole post.

All right you bl---y w--ker!

wlank · 07-01-2009, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Blue

I was guessing that it was a typo. I see people do that a lot with 2.5 & 2.8 lens. However, there is an actual Tak 135mm f2.8 but it is one of the bayonet low budget lenses.

Edit: By the fact in the original post he says, Takumar 135mm f2.8, I'm betting its the bayonet version.

I'm guessing you are right. I never think of those bayonet mount lenses as Taks, but they are. The "Super Tak 135mm F/2.8" in the thread title threw me off.

Rmpjr7 · 07-13-2009, 06:41 PM

Finally got the lens from my sister in law and it is actually a super multi coated Takumar 28mm f/3.5 When I first posted she was reading the front of the lens to me over the phone and she misread it!).

It is the second generation from what I have read, in that it goes to f/16. It can be set for manual or auto.

The glass looks pristine-I can't even see any dust and the aperture ring clicks properly and the focus ring is very smooth.

Is this lens a respected lens and what do you all think its value is given the apparent excellent condition?

Thanks for your help.

Bob

knyghtfall · 07-13-2009, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Rmpjr7

Is this lens a respected lens and what do you all think its value is given the apparent excellent condition?

Thanks for your help.

Bob

Lens reviews below, but am sure you can find more literature on this lens by searching in the Pentax SLR Lens Discussion subforum

Pentax Lens Review Database - 28mm F3.5

raymeedc · 07-13-2009, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Rmpjr7

Finally got the lens from my sister in law and it is actually a super multi coated Takumar 28mm f/3.5 When I first posted she was reading the front of the lens to me over the phone and she misread it!).

It is the second generation from what I have read, in that it goes to f/16. It can be set for manual or auto.

The glass looks pristine-I can't even see any dust and the aperture ring clicks properly and the focus ring is very smooth.

Is this lens a respected lens and what do you all think its value is given the apparent excellent condition?
Bob

Superb lens. Much respected by everyone.

06-30-2009, 05:10 PM	#1
Rmpjr7 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Nebraska Posts: 242	Super Tak 28mm F/3.5 Hi everyone! Is the SMC Takumar 28MM F/3.5 considered a good, bad or indifferent lens? Can you tell me what a pristine copy of one of these is worth? Thanks for your help. Bob Last edited by Rmpjr7; 07-13-2009 at 07:17 PM. Reason: wrong lens title

06-30-2009, 09:20 PM	#8
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by wlank As far as I know it doesn't exist. There were 3 different Takumars which were f/2.5 and 6 various Taks which were f/3.5, but AFAIK there was never a f/2.8. It would be interesting for you to tell us what you actually receive. I was guessing that it was a typo. I see people do that a lot with 2.5 & 2.8 lens. However, there is an actual Tak 135mm f2.8 but it is one of the bayonet low budget lenses. Edit: By the fact in the original post he says, Takumar 135mm f2.8, I'm betting its the bayonet version. Last edited by Blue; 06-30-2009 at 09:40 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K 24mm 2.8, M 28mm 3.8, SMC Tak 135mm 2.5, SMC Tak 135mm 3.5	jsherman999	Sold Items	19	12-14-2009 02:20 PM
For Sale - Sold: Super Tak 28/3.5, Auto Tak 105/2.8 and AOC M42 Extension tubes	pdxbmw	Sold Items	1	11-15-2009 08:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: SMC Tak 150mm/4, SMC Tak 135mm/3.5, Super Tak 55mm/2 and extras	pdxbmw	Sold Items	8	09-10-2009 10:54 AM
For Sale - Sold: m42 bellows, m42 adapter, 135/f3.5 Super Tak and 28/f3.5 Super Tak	geauxpez	Sold Items	12	12-10-2008 05:43 PM

06-30-2009, 05:21 PM	#2
figmental1978 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 789	I have the f/3.5 version and it's pretty good but I've heard the f/2.8 is much better and obviously faster. What it's worth....check ebay for a rough estimate but I wouldn't pay more than $100 for a pristine model.

06-30-2009, 06:10 PM	#3
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	The Super Tak 105mm f2.8 is another option to consider.

06-30-2009, 06:56 PM	#4
Rmpjr7 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Nebraska Posts: 242 Original Poster	My sister in law does estate sales and is sending me a Takumar 133MM F/2.8. I am interested in finding out whether it is a good lens or not. Thanks. Bob

06-30-2009, 06:59 PM	#5
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Rmpjr7 My sister in law does estate sales and is sending me a Takumar 133MM F/2.8. I am interested in finding out whether it is a good lens or not. Thanks. Bob Well in that case, wait and find out for yourself.

06-30-2009, 08:13 PM	#6
wlank Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Santa Teresa, New Mexico Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,130	Originally posted by Rmpjr7 Hi everyone! Is the Takumar 135MM F/2.8 considered a good, bad or indifferent lens? Can you tell me what a pristine copy of one of these is worth? Thanks for your help. Bob As far as I know it doesn't exist. There were 3 different Takumars which were f/2.5 and 6 various Taks which were f/3.5, but AFAIK there was never a f/2.8. It would be interesting for you to tell us what you actually receive.

06-30-2009, 08:20 PM	#7
Rmpjr7 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Nebraska Posts: 242 Original Poster	I will be sure to do that. Thanks. Bob

06-30-2009, 10:08 PM	#9
Ron Redwood Inactive Account Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Santa Cruz Mountains Posts: 53	The Super tak is coated and auto aperture. I think the Takumar (no Super)is not coated and not auto aperture (no pin) though the advantage of the pin really just applies to when used on an M42 body. I have the SMC Takumar (Super Multi-Coat which has the modern multicoat..less flare. It's my main M42 macro now as I have an auto bellows and a couple sets of tubes. VERY sharp. The Super Takumar can be had from $25-40 on ebay..the SMC Takumar,when you see one,is at least $15 more,while the old Taks are a bit less. As the 105 was less common..it will tend to cost more. The Super Tak 200 mm is said to have a lot of aperture leaves and great bokeh. Not sure if that's so with the SMC version of the 200.

06-30-2009, 10:24 PM	#10
Damn Brit Guest	Bob, for future reference, it does tend to piss people off if you use bold type for a whole post.

06-30-2009, 10:32 PM	#11
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by Damn Brit Bob, for future reference, it does tend to piss people off if you use bold type for a whole post. All right you bl---y w--ker!

07-01-2009, 02:57 AM	#12
wlank Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Santa Teresa, New Mexico Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,130	Originally posted by Blue I was guessing that it was a typo. I see people do that a lot with 2.5 & 2.8 lens. However, there is an actual Tak 135mm f2.8 but it is one of the bayonet low budget lenses. Edit: By the fact in the original post he says, Takumar 135mm f2.8, I'm betting its the bayonet version. I'm guessing you are right. I never think of those bayonet mount lenses as Taks, but they are. The "Super Tak 135mm F/2.8" in the thread title threw me off.

07-13-2009, 06:41 PM	#13
Rmpjr7 Inactive Account Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Nebraska Posts: 242 Original Poster	Finally got the lens from my sister in law and it is actually a super multi coated Takumar 28mm f/3.5 When I first posted she was reading the front of the lens to me over the phone and she misread it!). It is the second generation from what I have read, in that it goes to f/16. It can be set for manual or auto. The glass looks pristine-I can't even see any dust and the aperture ring clicks properly and the focus ring is very smooth. Is this lens a respected lens and what do you all think its value is given the apparent excellent condition? Thanks for your help. Bob

07-13-2009, 07:57 PM	#14
knyghtfall Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 348	Originally posted by Rmpjr7 Is this lens a respected lens and what do you all think its value is given the apparent excellent condition? Thanks for your help. Bob Lens reviews below, but am sure you can find more literature on this lens by searching in the Pentax SLR Lens Discussion subforum Pentax Lens Review Database - 28mm F3.5

07-13-2009, 07:57 PM	#15
raymeedc Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 951	Originally posted by Rmpjr7 Finally got the lens from my sister in law and it is actually a super multi coated Takumar 28mm f/3.5 When I first posted she was reading the front of the lens to me over the phone and she misread it!). It is the second generation from what I have read, in that it goes to f/16. It can be set for manual or auto. The glass looks pristine-I can't even see any dust and the aperture ring clicks properly and the focus ring is very smooth. Is this lens a respected lens and what do you all think its value is given the apparent excellent condition? Bob Superb lens. Much respected by everyone.