Takumar 135mm f2.5

jimH · 10-03-2009, 02:53 PM

I have a Takumar 135mm f2.5 lens that I have used on my 35mm cameras infrequently. I have tried it several times on my K10 and I am highly disappointed in the image quality and contrast of the resulting photos. Invariably the images are hazy and low contrast, however in focus.

Has anyone else had experience with this lens. It isn't a SMC lens and possibly that is the reason it's image quality is so poor. For now it stays with my daughter and my ME Super and the Pentax SMC M-28-50 zoom. The reason I'm saddling her with it is because it does seem to work OK on a film camera, and secondly she's not likely to use it very much. I've read elsewhere that it might be one of the poorest lenses that carries the Pentax name. Is that correct?

SteveM · 10-03-2009, 03:51 PM

Is it a bayonet mount? If so it is not one of the better Pentax lenses (budget lens that carried the Takumar name after the Takumars had stopped production). With that said, there are a few threads here where people have enjoyed using it.....perhaps there is also something wrong with it?

Spotmatic · 10-03-2009, 04:12 PM

It is a 4 element lens and not very good. Sound like your is fine for what it is.

krypticide · 10-03-2009, 04:55 PM

Almost bought one of these before realizing the difference between the Takumar and smc versions.

Nick Siebers · 10-03-2009, 05:35 PM

With the Takumar Bayonet 135mm - use the hood, don't shoot into the sun, and have low expectations. You will occasionally be pleasently surprised. Advice for your daughter, I guess.

raymeedc · 10-03-2009, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by krypticide

Almost bought one of these before realizing the difference between the Takumar and smc versions.

So did I, a number of years ago. Fortunately I gained the necessary knowledge before it was too late, & picked up the SMC version. Pentax should never have tarnished the venerable M42 Takumar name with the lesser bayonet versions. It's confusing to newbies, & borders on willful deception.

**Lowell Goudge** · 10-03-2009, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by raymeedc

So did I, a number of years ago. Fortunately I gained the necessary knowledge before it was too late, & picked up the SMC version. Pentax should never have tarnished the venerable M42 Takumar name with the lesser bayonet versions. It's confusing to newbies, & borders on willful deception.

I would agree with you except that they did this almost 40 years ago, before many newbees were born. I doubt that they considered way back then the confusion it would cause now

Blue · 10-03-2009, 06:02 PM

It is a Tak in name only. It is probably coated but not smc. There are actually 2 version of this lens, both have 4 elements in 4 groups. The other is f2.8. The 2.5 version has a built in hood and the f2.8 version doesn't. I think the built in hood is not adequate. All of the f2.5 Taks had either 4-5 or 6-6 optical formulae.

Blue · 10-03-2009, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I would agree with you except that they did this almost 40 years ago, before many newbees were born. I doubt that they considered way back then the confusion it would cause now

Only 30 years ago . . . the first bayonet f2.5 was released in 1980.

However, if you ever tried to collect taks, the 135mm m42 models and versions will drive one batty until figured out.

raymeedc · 10-03-2009, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

I would agree with you except that they did this almost 40 years ago, before many newbees were born. I doubt that they considered way back then the confusion it would cause now

I was referring to the willful deception they undoubtedly had in mind when they were initially released to a large segment of their unknowing customers that had until that time associated Takumars with high quality glass.

Blue · 10-03-2009, 07:13 PM

I wouldn't be surprised if these are CPC with Takumar stuck on them.

jimH · 10-04-2009, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by smc

Is it a bayonet mount? If so it is not one of the better Pentax lenses (budget lens that carried the Takumar name after the Takumars had stopped production). With that said, there are a few threads here where people have enjoyed using it.....perhaps there is also something wrong with it?

Yes it is a bayonet mount purchased new some time after I bought my ME Super. It has seen very little use and is in almost pristine condition. It has the pull out lens hood and is really a very good looking lens from the outside. However the IQ isn't so hot.

aerodave · 10-04-2009, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Only 20 years ago . . . the first bayonet f2.5 was released in 1980.

You realize that 1980 was 30 years ago, right? I know...where does the time go?

Blue · 10-04-2009, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by aerodave

You realize that 1980 was 30 years ago, right? I know...where does the time go?

Yes, I meant 30 in response to the 40 years. I have been typing too fast lately. The last version of the bayonet Tak went out of production 21 years ago. As far as where the time goes, I'm still wrapping my mind around the idea that a k1000 I bought in 1985 is "vintage."

10-03-2009, 02:53 PM	#1
jimH Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Central Nebraska - USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,720	Takumar 135mm f2.5 I have a Takumar 135mm f2.5 lens that I have used on my 35mm cameras infrequently. I have tried it several times on my K10 and I am highly disappointed in the image quality and contrast of the resulting photos. Invariably the images are hazy and low contrast, however in focus. Has anyone else had experience with this lens. It isn't a SMC lens and possibly that is the reason it's image quality is so poor. For now it stays with my daughter and my ME Super and the Pentax SMC M-28-50 zoom. The reason I'm saddling her with it is because it does seem to work OK on a film camera, and secondly she's not likely to use it very much. I've read elsewhere that it might be one of the poorest lenses that carries the Pentax name. Is that correct?

10-03-2009, 06:03 PM	#9
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,315	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I would agree with you except that they did this almost 40 years ago, before many newbees were born. I doubt that they considered way back then the confusion it would cause now Only 30 years ago . . . the first bayonet f2.5 was released in 1980. However, if you ever tried to collect taks, the 135mm m42 models and versions will drive one batty until figured out. Last edited by Blue; 10-04-2009 at 05:54 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Super Takumar 135mm & 200mm, Vivitar 135mm, SMC 28mm	MSM	Sold Items	24	06-13-2010 09:55 PM
For Sale - Sold: Takumar: Super Takumar 135mm f3.5 includes case, hood and caps	Peter Zack	Sold Items	7	05-17-2010 07:12 PM
For Sale - Sold: Hard Cases for Takumar 28mm/3.5 and Takumar 135mm/2.5	gabriel_bc	Sold Items	8	01-11-2010 10:17 AM
Pentax K 45-125mm F4 vs Takumar A 28-80mm vs Takumar M 135mm F/3.5	YJD	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	10-29-2008 01:35 PM
Sears 135mm f3.5 Macro vs Takumar 135mm f2.5	mrpackerguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	10-20-2008 01:36 PM

10-03-2009, 03:51 PM	#2
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Is it a bayonet mount? If so it is not one of the better Pentax lenses (budget lens that carried the Takumar name after the Takumars had stopped production). With that said, there are a few threads here where people have enjoyed using it.....perhaps there is also something wrong with it?

10-03-2009, 04:12 PM	#3
Spotmatic Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ft. Myers Florida Posts: 169	It is a 4 element lens and not very good. Sound like your is fine for what it is.

10-03-2009, 04:55 PM	#4
krypticide Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	Almost bought one of these before realizing the difference between the Takumar and smc versions.

10-03-2009, 05:35 PM	#5
Nick Siebers Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,165	With the Takumar Bayonet 135mm - use the hood, don't shoot into the sun, and have low expectations. You will occasionally be pleasently surprised. Advice for your daughter, I guess.

10-03-2009, 05:49 PM	#6
raymeedc Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 951	Originally posted by krypticide Almost bought one of these before realizing the difference between the Takumar and smc versions. So did I, a number of years ago. Fortunately I gained the necessary knowledge before it was too late, & picked up the SMC version. Pentax should never have tarnished the venerable M42 Takumar name with the lesser bayonet versions. It's confusing to newbies, & borders on willful deception.

10-03-2009, 05:57 PM	#7
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,145	Originally posted by raymeedc So did I, a number of years ago. Fortunately I gained the necessary knowledge before it was too late, & picked up the SMC version. Pentax should never have tarnished the venerable M42 Takumar name with the lesser bayonet versions. It's confusing to newbies, & borders on willful deception. I would agree with you except that they did this almost 40 years ago, before many newbees were born. I doubt that they considered way back then the confusion it would cause now

10-03-2009, 06:02 PM	#8
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,315	It is a Tak in name only. It is probably coated but not smc. There are actually 2 version of this lens, both have 4 elements in 4 groups. The other is f2.8. The 2.5 version has a built in hood and the f2.8 version doesn't. I think the built in hood is not adequate. All of the f2.5 Taks had either 4-5 or 6-6 optical formulae.

10-03-2009, 06:53 PM	#10
raymeedc Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 951	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge I would agree with you except that they did this almost 40 years ago, before many newbees were born. I doubt that they considered way back then the confusion it would cause now I was referring to the willful deception they undoubtedly had in mind when they were initially released to a large segment of their unknowing customers that had until that time associated Takumars with high quality glass.

10-03-2009, 07:13 PM	#11
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,315	I wouldn't be surprised if these are CPC with Takumar stuck on them.

10-04-2009, 03:24 PM	#12
jimH Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Central Nebraska - USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,720 Original Poster	Originally posted by smc Is it a bayonet mount? If so it is not one of the better Pentax lenses (budget lens that carried the Takumar name after the Takumars had stopped production). With that said, there are a few threads here where people have enjoyed using it.....perhaps there is also something wrong with it? Yes it is a bayonet mount purchased new some time after I bought my ME Super. It has seen very little use and is in almost pristine condition. It has the pull out lens hood and is really a very good looking lens from the outside. However the IQ isn't so hot.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-04-2009, 03:42 PM	#13
aerodave Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Dayton, OH Posts: 365	Originally posted by Blue Only 20 years ago . . . the first bayonet f2.5 was released in 1980. You realize that 1980 was 30 years ago, right? I know...where does the time go?

10-04-2009, 05:53 PM	#14
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,315	Originally posted by aerodave You realize that 1980 was 30 years ago, right? I know...where does the time go? Yes, I meant 30 in response to the 40 years. I have been typing too fast lately. The last version of the bayonet Tak went out of production 21 years ago. As far as where the time goes, I'm still wrapping my mind around the idea that a k1000 I bought in 1985 is "vintage."