Vintage Pentax 200 mm lens.

**psoo** · 03-05-2016, 03:22 PM

Today I was browsing in an antique shop and came across some vintage cameras and lenses. Unfortunately, the only item of interest to me was a Pentax 200 mm, f/5.6 lens. It had a bayonet mount and had an aperture ring that had to be used to stop the lens down before exposure. It was in fine shape although the bayonet mount looked a bit discolored. I was offered the lens for $35 but was told it was worth $40. I went home to check out the quality of the lens on the Pentax Forums. The lens was not listed on the bayonet-fit list but it was listed as an M42 mount lens. It was also not SMC. I guess a previous owner modified the lens to a bayonet mount, unless there is a bayonet version. Most reviewers in the Forums rate the lens highly. I use a K50 camera and would probably use this lens if it were that good. Can anybody advise me if the lens is worth $35 and if there are any likely problems in modifying the lens to a bayonet fitting?

pathdoc · 03-05-2016, 03:29 PM

Difficult to say without seeing pictures. The lens may have been fitted with an M42-Pentax K adapter ring, in which case that adapter ring alone is worth $35 on today's market. Don't let the lack of SMC coatings put you off - with the appropriate care to avoid flaring conditions, those old lenses can do really, really well.

**jatrax** · 03-05-2016, 03:42 PM

You should be able to get a Pentax-A 200mm f/4 for around $100. So if the difference between $35 and $100 is the difference in buying a lens then it might be worth a shot. But if it were me I would save up a bit and get the A version which can talk to the camera, is faster, and is not a frankenlens.

micromacro · 03-05-2016, 03:53 PM

Any chance it was this one?
Takumar/Tele-Takumar 200mm F5.6 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

I sold mine, and regret it now. Should have kept it for FF. Sharp wide open (with proper focusing skills), creamy bokeh (10 blades), it's beautiful lens.

Oh yours was K mount.
Check this one as well
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/telemar-2222a-200mm-f56.html

Last edited by micromacro; 03-05-2016 at 04:00 PM.

**luftfluss** · 03-05-2016, 04:01 PM

If the lens the OP saw is indeed the Tak 200/5.6 #micromacro is mentioning, it is indeed worth having, especially for only $35. It's a small, lovely, jewel-like piece of kit. I've found it to have the charming attribute of being both sharp and glowy wide open, the glow disappearing once stopped down just slightly. I think Pentax should reincarnate it as a Limited.

**c.a.m** · 03-05-2016, 04:24 PM

Could a M42-K adapter have been mounted? Perhaps it was not obvious upon a quick inspection.

**luftfluss** · 03-05-2016, 04:29 PM

Originally posted by c.a.m

Could a M42-K adapter have been mounted? Perhaps it was not obvious upon a quick inspection.

That's my thought, too. The OP does say a "Pentax 200 mm, f/5.6 lens", but we don't know how literal he is in describing the lens. 200/5.6 makes me think Takumar.

**c.a.m** · 03-05-2016, 04:49 PM

However, on second thought, based on a review of images of the lens model, I don't think the Tele Takumar was labelled 'Pentax,' except for the lens cap - 'Asahi Pentax.'

**niceshot** · 03-05-2016, 05:21 PM

F- 5.6 is a dark lens, you need lots of sun

**psoo** · 03-05-2016, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by micromacro

Any chance it was this one?
Takumar/Tele-Takumar 200mm F5.6 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

I sold mine, and regret it now. Should have kept it for FF. Sharp wide open (with proper focusing skills), creamy bokeh (10 blades), it's beautiful lens.

Oh yours was K mount.
Check this one as well
Telemar 22/22A 200mm f5.6 Lens Reviews - Russian and Zenitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

Hi MicroMacro. I think the lens I saw was the one you specified except it had a bayonet mount. I think somebody had modified the lens with a solid attachment - not an adapter. I will go back to check the lens and see if it is compatible with my K50. If it is, I'll buy it. For $35 l'll be buying history. I couldn't take my wife out to dinner for that price

I'd rather have the lens that feed my wife.

---------- Post added 03-05-16 at 08:31 PM ----------

Originally posted by c.a.m

However, on second thought, based on a review of images of the lens model, I don't think the Tele Takumar was labelled 'Pentax,' except for the lens cap - 'Asahi Pentax.'

I'll go back tomorrow and check it out. This must indicate that the lens is very old and worthy of collecting.

---------- Post added 03-05-16 at 08:34 PM ----------

Originally posted by luftfluss

That's my thought, too. The OP does say a "Pentax 200 mm, f/5.6 lens", but we don't know how literal he is in describing the lens. 200/5.6 makes me think Takumar.

As I remember, I think you are right. I don't think I saw the word Pentax on the lens. I think it was Takumer or Super Takumer. I'll go back tomorrow to check it out. I think it's worth buying.

micromacro · 03-05-2016, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by P. Soo

I think the lens I saw was the one you specified except it had a bayonet mount. I think somebody had modified the lens with a solid attachment - not an adapter. I will go back to check the lens and see if it is compatible with my K50. If it is, I'll buy it. For $35 l'll be buying history. I couldn't take my wife out to dinner for that price

I'd rather have the lens that feed my wife.

Never leave your wife hungry, it will cost you

If it's Tele-Takumar, it's good one, and it should be in M42. Perhaps there is the adapter, not modified lens. I usually inspect old glass in stores with magnifier (aged eyes) to see if there may be fungus or scratches. If there may be oil on blades, it's not a problem for preset lens since you will close aperture manually. And at the most antique stores you can negotiate the price lower, try $30 (and feed your wife

)

My copy was sharp wide open, and even better stopped down to 6.3 (if I remember correctly the next stop). Don't worry about f5.6 if you are not going to shoot action in low light.
Also it was good lens for night shooting on tripod. It also would be good if that lens comes with hood.
Good luck!

**psoo** · 03-06-2016, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by micromacro

Never leave your wife hungry, it will cost you

If it's Tele-Takumar, it's good one, and it should be in M42. Perhaps there is the adapter, not modified lens. I usually inspect old glass in stores with magnifier (aged eyes) to see if there may be fungus or scratches. If there may be oil on blades, it's not a problem for preset lens since you will close aperture manually. And at the most antique stores you can negotiate the price lower, try $30 (and feed your wife

)

My copy was sharp wide open, and even better stopped down to 6.3 (if I remember correctly the next stop). Don't worry about f5.6 if you are not going to shoot action in low light.
Also it was good lens for night shooting on tripod. It also would be good if that lens comes with hood.
Good luck!

Hi MicroMacro: I'll take your advice and be sure to feed my wife. I went back to the antique dealer this morning and had a chance to examine the lens more closely. Yes it is a Tele Takumar with a Petri adapter that converts from a 42mm thread to a Petri bayonet. The Petri bayonet is different from the Pentax bayonet so I'll use my Pentax adapter on this lens. I was able to buy this mint Pentax lens for $30 and will put it through it's paces when I have time. I think it was a good buy, and I'll have fun using it

The dealer told me that the market for cameras was really down. He said that any camera that was offered to him was bought for $25 and he sold them for slightly lower than the Ebay price. He had some very nice 35 mm cameras on display. A Zeiss Contessa was on sale for $150. He also had an Exacta VX and several Canons and Nikons. I'll keep an eye on his inventory in the months ahead, but I think I can do better on eBay.

**c.a.m** · 03-06-2016, 02:04 PM

Takumar + mint + $30 = score

50-year old Takumar + mint + $30 = better score!

Looking forward to seeing images from this one.

- Craig

**psoo** · 03-06-2016, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by c.a.m

However, on second thought, based on a review of images of the lens model, I don't think the Tele Takumar was labelled 'Pentax,' except for the lens cap - 'Asahi Pentax.'

Of course you're right C.A.M. The lens does indeed have the identification "Asahi Opt. Co." In fact, I don't think any Asahi lens bears the designation "Pentax".

**psoo** · 03-06-2016, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by c.a.m

Takumar + mint + $30 = score

50-year old Takumar + mint + $30 = better score!

Looking forward to seeing images from this one.

- Craig

It also came with a Hoya UV filter. I guess I lucked out.

03-05-2016, 03:22 PM	#1
psoo Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 485	Vintage Pentax 200 mm lens. Today I was browsing in an antique shop and came across some vintage cameras and lenses. Unfortunately, the only item of interest to me was a Pentax 200 mm, f/5.6 lens. It had a bayonet mount and had an aperture ring that had to be used to stop the lens down before exposure. It was in fine shape although the bayonet mount looked a bit discolored. I was offered the lens for $35 but was told it was worth $40. I went home to check out the quality of the lens on the Pentax Forums. The lens was not listed on the bayonet-fit list but it was listed as an M42 mount lens. It was also not SMC. I guess a previous owner modified the lens to a bayonet mount, unless there is a bayonet version. Most reviewers in the Forums rate the lens highly. I use a K50 camera and would probably use this lens if it were that good. Can anybody advise me if the lens is worth $35 and if there are any likely problems in modifying the lens to a bayonet fitting?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
200 mm manual focus prime lens	robert	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	02-14-2016 07:22 AM
Which 200 mm lens to buy?	uday029	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	06-03-2015 03:06 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax FA 28-200 mm lens, f/3.8-5.6 (PRICE DROP)	enoxatnep	Sold Items	2	03-30-2015 10:30 AM
Pentax KX and Takumar SMC 200 mm f/4 lens	ctron	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	10-15-2014 01:21 PM
For Sale - Sold: HD Pentax 20-40 mm F2.8-4 WR & 50-200 mm F4-5.6 WR lenses	Vantage-Point	Sold Items	6	09-12-2014 06:02 AM

03-05-2016, 03:29 PM	#2
pathdoc Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2015 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,381	Difficult to say without seeing pictures. The lens may have been fitted with an M42-Pentax K adapter ring, in which case that adapter ring alone is worth $35 on today's market. Don't let the lack of SMC coatings put you off - with the appropriate care to avoid flaring conditions, those old lenses can do really, really well.

03-05-2016, 03:42 PM	#3
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,992	You should be able to get a Pentax-A 200mm f/4 for around $100. So if the difference between $35 and $100 is the difference in buying a lens then it might be worth a shot. But if it were me I would save up a bit and get the A version which can talk to the camera, is faster, and is not a frankenlens.

03-05-2016, 03:53 PM	#4
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722	Any chance it was this one? Takumar/Tele-Takumar 200mm F5.6 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database I sold mine, and regret it now. Should have kept it for FF. Sharp wide open (with proper focusing skills), creamy bokeh (10 blades), it's beautiful lens. Oh yours was K mount. Check this one as well https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/telemar-2222a-200mm-f56.html Last edited by micromacro; 03-05-2016 at 04:00 PM.

03-05-2016, 04:01 PM	#5
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,629	If the lens the OP saw is indeed the Tak 200/5.6 #micromacro is mentioning, it is indeed worth having, especially for only $35. It's a small, lovely, jewel-like piece of kit. I've found it to have the charming attribute of being both sharp and glowy wide open, the glow disappearing once stopped down just slightly. I think Pentax should reincarnate it as a Limited.

03-05-2016, 04:24 PM	#6
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,194	Could a M42-K adapter have been mounted? Perhaps it was not obvious upon a quick inspection.

03-05-2016, 04:29 PM	#7
luftfluss Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,629	Originally posted by c.a.m Could a M42-K adapter have been mounted? Perhaps it was not obvious upon a quick inspection. That's my thought, too. The OP does say a "Pentax 200 mm, f/5.6 lens", but we don't know how literal he is in describing the lens. 200/5.6 makes me think Takumar.

03-05-2016, 04:49 PM	#8
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,194	However, on second thought, based on a review of images of the lens model, I don't think the Tele Takumar was labelled 'Pentax,' except for the lens cap - 'Asahi Pentax.'

03-05-2016, 05:21 PM	#9
niceshot Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2014 Location: NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,565	F- 5.6 is a dark lens, you need lots of sun

03-05-2016, 06:28 PM	#10
psoo Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 485 Original Poster	Originally posted by micromacro Any chance it was this one? Takumar/Tele-Takumar 200mm F5.6 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database I sold mine, and regret it now. Should have kept it for FF. Sharp wide open (with proper focusing skills), creamy bokeh (10 blades), it's beautiful lens. Oh yours was K mount. Check this one as well Telemar 22/22A 200mm f5.6 Lens Reviews - Russian and Zenitar Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database Hi MicroMacro. I think the lens I saw was the one you specified except it had a bayonet mount. I think somebody had modified the lens with a solid attachment - not an adapter. I will go back to check the lens and see if it is compatible with my K50. If it is, I'll buy it. For $35 l'll be buying history. I couldn't take my wife out to dinner for that price I'd rather have the lens that feed my wife. ---------- Post added 03-05-16 at 08:31 PM ---------- Originally posted by c.a.m However, on second thought, based on a review of images of the lens model, I don't think the Tele Takumar was labelled 'Pentax,' except for the lens cap - 'Asahi Pentax.' I'll go back tomorrow and check it out. This must indicate that the lens is very old and worthy of collecting. ---------- Post added 03-05-16 at 08:34 PM ---------- Originally posted by luftfluss That's my thought, too. The OP does say a "Pentax 200 mm, f/5.6 lens", but we don't know how literal he is in describing the lens. 200/5.6 makes me think Takumar. As I remember, I think you are right. I don't think I saw the word Pentax on the lens. I think it was Takumer or Super Takumer. I'll go back tomorrow to check it out. I think it's worth buying.

03-05-2016, 07:18 PM	#11
micromacro Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,722	Originally posted by P. Soo I think the lens I saw was the one you specified except it had a bayonet mount. I think somebody had modified the lens with a solid attachment - not an adapter. I will go back to check the lens and see if it is compatible with my K50. If it is, I'll buy it. For $35 l'll be buying history. I couldn't take my wife out to dinner for that price I'd rather have the lens that feed my wife. Never leave your wife hungry, it will cost you If it's Tele-Takumar, it's good one, and it should be in M42. Perhaps there is the adapter, not modified lens. I usually inspect old glass in stores with magnifier (aged eyes) to see if there may be fungus or scratches. If there may be oil on blades, it's not a problem for preset lens since you will close aperture manually. And at the most antique stores you can negotiate the price lower, try $30 (and feed your wife ) My copy was sharp wide open, and even better stopped down to 6.3 (if I remember correctly the next stop). Don't worry about f5.6 if you are not going to shoot action in low light. Also it was good lens for night shooting on tripod. It also would be good if that lens comes with hood. Good luck!

03-06-2016, 12:47 PM	#12
psoo Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 485 Original Poster	Originally posted by micromacro Never leave your wife hungry, it will cost you If it's Tele-Takumar, it's good one, and it should be in M42. Perhaps there is the adapter, not modified lens. I usually inspect old glass in stores with magnifier (aged eyes) to see if there may be fungus or scratches. If there may be oil on blades, it's not a problem for preset lens since you will close aperture manually. And at the most antique stores you can negotiate the price lower, try $30 (and feed your wife ) My copy was sharp wide open, and even better stopped down to 6.3 (if I remember correctly the next stop). Don't worry about f5.6 if you are not going to shoot action in low light. Also it was good lens for night shooting on tripod. It also would be good if that lens comes with hood. Good luck! Hi MicroMacro: I'll take your advice and be sure to feed my wife. I went back to the antique dealer this morning and had a chance to examine the lens more closely. Yes it is a Tele Takumar with a Petri adapter that converts from a 42mm thread to a Petri bayonet. The Petri bayonet is different from the Pentax bayonet so I'll use my Pentax adapter on this lens. I was able to buy this mint Pentax lens for $30 and will put it through it's paces when I have time. I think it was a good buy, and I'll have fun using it The dealer told me that the market for cameras was really down. He said that any camera that was offered to him was bought for $25 and he sold them for slightly lower than the Ebay price. He had some very nice 35 mm cameras on display. A Zeiss Contessa was on sale for $150. He also had an Exacta VX and several Canons and Nikons. I'll keep an eye on his inventory in the months ahead, but I think I can do better on eBay.

03-06-2016, 02:04 PM	#13
c.a.m Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Ottawa, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,194	Takumar + mint + $30 = score 50-year old Takumar + mint + $30 = better score! Looking forward to seeing images from this one. - Craig

03-06-2016, 03:14 PM	#14
psoo Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 485 Original Poster	Originally posted by c.a.m However, on second thought, based on a review of images of the lens model, I don't think the Tele Takumar was labelled 'Pentax,' except for the lens cap - 'Asahi Pentax.' Of course you're right C.A.M. The lens does indeed have the identification "Asahi Opt. Co." In fact, I don't think any Asahi lens bears the designation "Pentax".

03-06-2016, 03:23 PM	#15
psoo Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 485 Original Poster	Originally posted by c.a.m Takumar + mint + $30 = score 50-year old Takumar + mint + $30 = better score! Looking forward to seeing images from this one. - Craig It also came with a Hoya UV filter. I guess I lucked out.