[builttospill]

One personal recommendation to stay away from is the Takumar (Bayonet) 135. This is an uncoated lens AFAIK and flares badly when pointed anywhere near strong light. I have one and I know.

Your lens is coated, just not multi-coated. It's not the best lens in the world but it's worth the price you paid for it. With proper exposure and extending the hood all the way most shots will turn out well.

To the OP congratulations on your new Pentax and enjoy using old lenses on your camera. There are lots to choose from and it sounds like you know where to look for reviews.

[Lowell Goudge]

One personal recommendation to stay away from is the Takumar (Bayonet) 135. This is an uncoated lens AFAIK and flares badly when pointed anywhere near strong light. I have one and I know.

I think you need to consider this in relitive terms.

the takumar bayonet 135/2.5 is perhaps the absolute worst 135 made by pentax, BUT, it is still probably average, when compared to many 3rd party 135's and definitely better than a lot of others. It gets compared too many times to the SMC K 135/2.5 which is perhaps one of the best 135's ever made.

[RKKS08]

To noblepa:
Quote: <<Also be careful of *some* (not all) Vivitar lenses. There is a shield that protects the aperture actuating lever. This is present on all k-mount lenses, but on some Vivitar lenses, it is longer than necessary and bumps up against the HSM power contacts on Pentax dslrs.>>

Not only Vivitar. Last year I returned a 28mm Sigma Mini Wide II for exactly the same reason. And it's not the HSM, but the power zoom contacts (I believe they are the same), so this applies also for AF cameras of the analog era. Obviously Sigma had not bought a license from Pentax and designed their K-mount by reverse engineering, not knowing what future modifications Pentax had in mind. Sigma changed that design only after the introduction of the Pentax SF series (which supported AF and powerzoom).

[RKKS08]

To Lowell Goudge:

There seem to be controversal opinions about that subject.
See

http://www.tzcobretti.de/testberichte.html
http://s215846244.online.de/wsb4627126001/Testberichte/Test%20135mm.pdf

It is unfortunately in German only, but there is a sheet at the end of the PDF which should be self explaining.
In short, they say the takumar bayonet 135/2.5 is indeed the worst, but the takumar bayonet 135/2.8 is way better, and in overall performance better than or equal to the K 135/2.5.
They also think Pentax must have improved the coating of the takumar bayonet during the production cycle without giving notice, as they found the flare resistance of the Tak 2.8 against the 2.5 WAY BETTER.

Please don't put the blame on me if you think this test is rubbish, I was not involved.

[Lowell Goudge]

To Lowell Goudge:

There seem to be controversal opinions about that subject.
See

Testberichte - Meine Homepage
http://s215846244.online.de/wsb4627126001/Testberichte/Test%20135mm.pdf

It is unfortunately in German only, but there is a sheet at the end of the PDF which should be self explaining.
In short, they say the takumar bayonet 135/2.5 is indeed the worst, but the takumar bayonet 135/2.8 is way better, and in overall performance better than or equal to the K 135/2.5.
They also think Pentax must have improved the coating of the takumar bayonet during the production cycle without giving notice, as they found the flare resistance of the Tak 2.8 against the 2.5 WAY BETTER.

Please don't put the blame on me if you think this test is rubbish, I was not involved.

To be honest, I had not seen or heard of a K mount Takumar 135F2.8 before, only the 2.5, so I can't comment one way or the other on the difference optically between the Tak (bayonet) 135/2.8 and the K15/2.5, other than to point out that any 4 element design will be very bad relitive to more complex 6 element deisgns with respect to the management of CA.

I would have to see the two perfrom side by side, but the rest of the conclusion is what I said, the tak (bayonet) 135/2.5 is the worst 135 pentax made.

I also can't argue that coatings improve over time, and the later tak 135/2.8 should, even if it is not SMC be better than the tak (bayonet) 135/2.5 simply due to this fact.

[mgvh]

One personal recommendation to stay away from is the Takumar (Bayonet) 135. This is an uncoated lens AFAIK and flares badly when pointed anywhere near strong light. I have one and I know.

I haven't noticed this problem on my Takumar (Bayonet) 135 f2.5. It was excellent for theater shots where there are a lot of stray light reflections. I think a lot can also be avoided with the use of a hood.

[Lowell Goudge]

I haven't noticed this problem on my Takumar (Bayonet) 135 f2.5. It was excellent for theater shots where there are a lot of stray light reflections. I think a lot can also be avoided with the use of a hood.

Go back to what I said. Being the wors pretax made does not make it bad relative to other options, it is what it is, the main point is there are better pentax options out there

[RioRico]

I have a pile (#15) of 135s including 4 Pentaxi: S-M-C Tak f/2.5 and f/3.5, Tak Bayonet f/2.5, and SMC-M f/3.5. None of the other 135s are slouches; they include Ricoh, Komine, Tomioka, Zuiko, Enna, Jupiter-11, and more. I do not count the Tak Bayonet f/2.5 as the 'best'. But it's good, and it's my most-used 135 because it focuses closest. At 1.2m, its nearest competitor is a Jupiter-11 at 1.4m, while the others range from 1.5m-3.3m. What's the 'best'? The S-M-C Tak f/2.5; close behind are the Jupiter-11 f/4 and the SMC-M f/3.5. But when I need speed AND closer focus, the Tak Bayonet is there for me.

[.a.t.]

In case anyone cares to meander further:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/57889-135mm-ta...nt-so-bad.html