Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
Log in or register to remove ads.

Pentax Lens Review Database » Film Era Pentax K-Mount Lenses » Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses
Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet Review RSS Feed

Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet

Reviews Views Date of last review
68 251,757 Sat April 17, 2021
Recommended By Average Price Average User Rating
93% of reviewers $53.33 8.21
Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet

This is a a budget lens; it is slightly faster than the non-SMC 135mm F2.8 telephoto lens.
This lens has no "A" setting and thus does not support aperture automation (Tv and P modes), only Av and M exposure modes can be used.

Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet
©, sharable with attribution
Image Format
Full-frame / 35mm film
Lens Mount
Pentax K
Aperture Ring
Yes (no A setting)
Automatic, 8 blades
4 elements, 4 groups
Mount Variant
Check camera compatibility
Max. Aperture
Min. Aperture
Min. Focus
120 cm
Max. Magnification
Filter Size
52 mm
Internal Focus
Field of View (Diag. / Horiz.)

APS-C: 12 ° / 10 °
Full frame: 18 ° / 15 °
Built-in, slide out
Soft leather
Lens Cap
Weather Sealing
Other Features
Diam x Length
64 x 79 mm (2.5 x 3.1 in.)
395 g (13.9 oz.)
Production Years
1980 to 1988
Engraved Name
TAKUMAR (BAYONET) 1:2.5 135mm
Product Code
User reviews
No SMC coating
Built-in HoodAperture RingFull-Frame SupportDiscontinued
Price History:

Add Review of Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet
Sort Reviews by: Date | Author | Rating | Recommendation | Likes (Descending) Showing Reviews 1-15 of 68
New Member

Registered: November, 2013
Posts: 12
Lens Review Date: April 17, 2021 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $50.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: very good sharpness at f8
Cons: visble small CA's wide open, especially in the corners
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 9    Value: 10    Camera Used: k-5 k-s1 k-x k200d z-5 z20p sfx mz5N   

This 4/4 elements TAKUMAR is an excellent portrait lens, very well corrected

++ very high value at an affordable price

++ very good sharpness

++ high contrast, stopped down a few

++ very good color rendition

+ nice bokeh at f 5.6

O small CAs wide open



you'll need - because of the light pollution of the cities - highest contrast in program and menu filters!

For pictures of ORION f 2.5 and 1 sec. with ISO 6.400 will be okay, but for photos of the 7 stars you must change to f 11 and 1 sec. with ISO 52.200 or use the PENTAX astro tracer with lower ISO. The CAs of 7 stars are blue, which gives a nice impression, because of visible dust clouds around them.

Nevertheless astro shootings are possible with this lens - but you must change program for this. Pay attention to vibration of the mirror. No sharp photos, if tripod is unstable or you've touched the camera. self activation of mirror some second before shooting stars is very usefull


+ good close ups with macro ring, stopped down to f 11

totally 8.5 points and full recommendation
Site Supporter

Registered: November, 2017
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,726
Lens Review Date: September 17, 2020 I can recommend this lens: No | Price: $26.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: cheap, good enough for astro at f/5.6
Cons: borderline useless wide open for astro

Others have detailed reviews of this lens for normal use and it has been covered in depth for most aspects so I am not reviewing it for that. Instead I am focusing on using this lens for astro. I picked it up locally for $26 including tax and it had been sitting at the camera shop for a long time and not having anything in that general range that works for astro decided that at $26 it wouldn't be a big deal if it was a waste of money since it isn't much money.

I thought this lens might be a stellar performer given how good the old M,K,A, and M42 200/4 lenses are for astro, especially since this has that fast f/2.5 aperture. Since the 200/4 lenses all seem to get real good for astro at f/5.6 I was hoping this one would get good at around f/4 giving another stop worth of exposure. Those old 200/4 lenses are really good starter astro lenses so I use them as a bench mark.

So tonight I went out and stuck it on my little equatorial, got it properly focused at infinity using a bahtinov mask and blasted away at different f-stops going up to f/8. At f/2.5 it was awful showing huge purple fringing and noticeable coma in the corners. What surprised me the most was the clearly visible vignetting that happened at f/2.5 which was unexpected especially since it was a night shot. Also all of the stars are pretty bloated, even the dim ones. Now being that this is a vintage consumer level lens performance wide open wasn't expected to be great but it was really bad. That said I would still rather use this lens over the modern 100/2.8 macro or my Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 both of which are useless for astro shooting but great otherwise.

Things start to improve at f/2.8 with there not being noticeable vignetting anymore and the purple fringing has gone down but not much. There was a good decrease in coma but it is still clearly there. There is a noticeable shrinking of the stars at this point. Again given the age of the lens I am not too worried about this as I was expecting to have to stop it down at least 1 full stop so this was just to see how it performed.

Now at f/4 I was expecting to hopefully see things start to get really nice but instead there was still a fair amount of purple fringing around the stars and the coma hasn't improved much from f/2.8. However at this point you are getting nice sharp small stars in the center for the frame.

The purple fringing goes away once you stop this lens down to f/5.6 but you need to stop it down to f/8 before the coma finally gets cleaned up.

So now I compare this lens to others close to it that I own and my S-M-C 200mm f/4 Takumar doesn't have coma at f/5.6, and is producing nice pinpoint stars so it clearly the better performer. When I compare it to my DFA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro this is doing better as while the coma at f/5.6 with it is still there it is getting small and not too noticeable but unlike the 100 macro the purple fringing is gone. The 100 macro wants to be run at f/8 before that goes away. When I compare it to my Vivitar Series 1 135mm f/2.3 it looks a lot better as the purple fringing with it doesn't go away until f/8 plus that lens seems to make astro shots an odd color that doesn't clean up well.

So all in all it isn't bad but it isn't great for astro either. If you really don't want any coma you will have to run it at f/8 but if you accept some coma you can run it at f/5.6 for good results. Given that this lens is over a stop faster and substantially newer than my S-M-C 200mm f/4 Takumar I was hoping for it to be pretty good at f/4 and not just ok at f/5.6. I feel that the $26 I spent wasn't wasted and I will continue to use this lens for astro until I get something better and there are much better options. However I would not go looking for this lens specifically for astro unless you had a very limited budget. If you think I am being harsh in my judgement of this lens, well astrophotography is rather harsh on lenses and show all their shortcoming so a test like this is really the best way to know what to expect.
Site Supporter

Registered: July, 2020
Posts: 121
Lens Review Date: August 20, 2020 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $77.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: good build, sharp optics, fabulous price; built-in retractable/expandable hood
Cons: exposure can be frustrating on my K10D
Sharpness: 10    Aberrations: 10    Bokeh: 10    Handling: 9    Value: 10    Camera Used: K10D, K-3 II, K-1 II   

OK, I first posted this review under the Pentax K 135-mm f/2.5 lens, thinking my lens to be that one. What got me to find this page was the fact that mine has a retractable/expandable built-in hood, and that I bought the screw-on hood for the K lens without realizing I had the wrong lens. No, the screw-on hood for that K lens does not work on this Bayonet 135-mm f/2.8 lens, but I'm happy to discover (via a posting of this lens for sale) that it has a retractable built-in lens hood (didn't know that until today). So I deleted my review on the K Primes section and am posting it here instead. Big learning curve on all these old lenses...

This is a very sharp lens. I bought this off Ebay ($77 price tag included shipping), and it is in superb condition as advertised there. I was looking for a good prime lens in this range, and I searched until I found one in really mint condition. As with my Pentax K 30-mm f/2.8 lens (which I just finished reviewing), this one is frustrating to get the right exposure in bright sunlight, even with auto-exposure ("green" mode on my K10D), but it's pretty good on auto-exposure outside of bright sunlight. In a variety of tests (indoor artwork including pottery, shot from the next room over; a distant house chimney; garden flowers; Edmunds resolution test chart outdoors), this lens came through with flying colors -- very sharp all around, no color problems/aberrations, and great bokeh in flower close-ups. The focusing ring is top-notch, and it turns about 240-250 degrees (i.e., nearly a 3/4 turn) from infinity to closest focus, which means that you can really fine-tune your focus and get things very sharp; the wide ring thickness (from front to back along the barrel, encompassing more than half the length of the lens) is also excellent. The aperture ring sits, as typical in Pentax lenses, right up next to the camera, but as the notched ring extends entirely around the lens, one can easily turn the aperture rings from the side or even below the lens.

I also put my Pentax Rear Converter-A 2X-S on with this lens, and the results are very good on my APS-C K10D camera, with the lens being effectively 200mm without the converter and 400mm with it (with the 1.5x crop factor). This can really be used well as a 400-mm f/5.6 lens for very cheap on an APS-C camera; there appears to be negligible degradation with the 2X converter in the sharpness and quality of the images. All my test shots described above were done on a tripod except the flower shots, as the indoor shots were as low as 1/6 second. The 2X converter was only used for the chimney shots in my testing. For the money, it's hard to beat if you don't mind manual. This is one of the best purchases I have made, value-wise and quality wise. It just is not an action lens, because you need to take time to focus, get the right exposure, and it does best on a tripod. This will be going into my travel kit, due to its lightness and versatility with the 2x converter. I am eager to see how it performs on my FF K-1 MkII that I'll be buying soon. I have done some 30-sec tracked star exposures at night, and the results are excellent.

My lens says "TAKUMAR (BAYONET) 1:2.5 135mm" on the side of the lens near the "top" (where the filter goes).

photos of the lens on my camera (the first one shows the lens hood extended; the other two show it retracted):

Site Supporter

Registered: May, 2015
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 892
Lens Review Date: March 12, 2020 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $35.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharpness, build quality, cheap
Cons: Slight lack of colour & contrast, green button metering.
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 9    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 8    Value: 9    Camera Used: K-5, K500   

My copy does not indicate where made and has some small dust particles inside as well as a little fungus around the part of the circumference, (only a problem on full frame bodies maybe?).
Colour is not very vibrant and contrast is good rather than excellent. The hood is not tight and can wobble a bit.
The combination of lacking SMC, the bit of fungus and small dust particles may be to blame for colour and contrast being not excellent.

I would have liked it to be with an "A" setting on the aperture like my Tamron 135 F2.5 with an "A" adaptall mount. Much easier to use than green button metering.

I actually do like it though, nice and sharp, good enough wide open and probably sharper than my Tamron Adaptall 135mm F2.5.

I may have paid over the odds for this considering the condition but do not regret it, a little pp work makes a lot of difference to the images and I need to get some practice in.

Registered: July, 2013
Location: People's Republic of America
Posts: 9,188
Lens Review Date: December 31, 2019 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: N/A | Rating: 8 

Pros: Sharpness, colors, cheap!
Cons: Aberrations wide open, no SMC coatings
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 6    Bokeh: 10    Handling: 9    Value: 10   

This lens is usually found very cheap, which makes it a bargain. It's a nice lens to have. I have had all 3 versions of this 4-element design:
-First the SMC-A 135 2.8
-Then the Takumar Bayonet 135 2.5
-Finally this Takumar Bayonet 135 2.8
Sold the Takumar Bayonet 135 2.5 early on, though the only difference between it and the SMC-A 135 2.8 was that the SMC lens had better contrast and colors, and handled better. Then later I sold the SMC-A because I was always reaching out for the SMC Pentax-A 70-210 f4, which gave me better results. The issue was that the SMC-A was the less sharp wide open than the Takumar Bayonet had been, which negated the advantage of having that extra stop over the zoom.
But I missed having a prime in that range and even though I don't use it a whole lot, it's good having when I need the f2.8. So when I saw one for 32 dollars on the auction site, I bought it.

So for the 135 2.5 Takumar Bayonet copy:

Sharpness - Very sharp, to me acceptably sharp wide open. I once made a direct comparison with the SMC-A 135 2.8 wide open and I could not find any difference in exposure (suggesting that either this lens is an f2.8, or it has a lot more vignetting wide open even at the center, than the SMC lens). Stopped down it's very sharp.

Handling - it's a 9 only because it doesn't feel as nice and luxurious as a Takumar or K lens, but it's perfectly fine. The feel while zooming is good (feels more like a modern lens than a vintage lens in that aspect, but a good modern lens like a Sigma Art). The aperture ring is plasticky but I have not had any issues, it works fine and I have confidence in it. In fact it was a bit firmer and better than the later Takumar Bayonet 135 2.8.

Bokeh - it's great which is what you'd expect from a 135mm lens.

Aberrations - they are there wide open but it's what you'd expect from a non-SMC lens. Yet I don't feel they're any worse than the SMC 135 I used to have.

Rendering - the most important item to me, and the lens does great. It's different from the SMC-A and later Bayonet 2.8 design, but it's great. To me it renders a bit like a K lens, meaning contrast is a bit lower, but colors are still rich and pleasing. I always got great tones with browns from this lens for some reason.

If you find one... get it, or get the 135 2.8 which has slightly better coatings. Either one is great!
Junior Member

Registered: December, 2019
Posts: 41
Lens Review Date: December 31, 2019 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $20.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: cleans up nicely even by F2.8, nice focusing ring, integral hood, cheap
Cons: Horrific at F2.5
Sharpness: 8    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 10    Value: 10    Camera Used: Pentax MX, Canon 5DMkII   

The recommendations to stop it down, at least to F2.8, are absolutely correct. The lens is a sloppy smudgy mess at F2.5 but just the jump to F2.8 helps it massively, really night and day. Really nice for a budget lens; the focus ring and aperture ring are both very clean and precise.

2.5 is so bad I'm tempted to open up the back of the lens and try to block off the 2.5 detent, it's easy to accidentally knock it back to there for 2.8. Someone complained about the colorful aperture and focus markings, but I like them; they're cheerful and aid reading at a glance.

Registered: September, 2017
Location: Medellín
Posts: 1,313
Lens Review Date: December 23, 2019 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $35.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Built in hood, flawless metal build, color coding, 8 aperture blades, light.
Cons: Soft wide open, CA.
Sharpness: 8    Aberrations: 7    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 10    Value: 10    Camera Used: Film cameras, K-5   

Works well for soft b&w portraits wide open. Stop down a bit and it performs really well overall. Construction is flawless, definitely budget but well made in Japan. Built-in hood could be longer, because it really doesn't like bright lights in and outside the frame. Keep that in mind and look for scenes with soft light overall. You can build a nice 52 mm filter thread manual lens kit with it. It's the culprit of me getting the K version. For the price, you can't go wrong if you're just starting out. Try it and learn how to work with it.

Registered: July, 2016
Location: Patrick Co. Virginia
Posts: 1,344

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: November 6, 2019 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $30.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: beautiful, handles good, isolates subject well, nifty little built in hood
Cons: CA on bright objects
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 6    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 10    Value: 10    Camera Used: k-50, k5   

I got this one from ebay from an estate auctioneer. It came in a nice old can along with a 2x tv. It was also the first old lens I bought..the one that started it all.

I originally bought it for it's length and speed to do wide field astrophotography, but it has become one of my favorite lenses in my old glass collection.

While it has some trouble on bright targets like Pleiades, it does a pretty decent job on darker nebula using tracked long exposures.


Registered: June, 2014
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,054

5 users found this helpful
Lens Review Date: August 19, 2019 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: N/A | Rating: 8 

Pros: Exceptional sharpness, Great handling, fast
Cons: Flaring, f2.5 is next to worthless
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 7    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 8    Value: 10    Camera Used: KP   

I've made a review once before on this lens, but that was when I was much newer to photography in general so I basically just posted "cool lens!" and some pictures. Now knowing that isn't very useful, and now that I have much more knowledge and a better grasp on how good this lens actually is I wanted to rewrite my review from the ground up.

This takumar line of lenses has nothing to do with the old super high end giants. The Takumar Bayonet and Takumar A/F lineup were budget lenses in the 80s and 90s, designed without pentax's famous SMC coatings for the frugal photographer at the time. Now one would assume this makes the lenses useless for broad daylight photography but that's not really the case.

See these lenses are still multicoated, they do not lack coatings or only use a single layer. While the lens in terms of veiled flair when the sun is just out of frame isn't amazing, and sometimes contrast can suffer these are not things that are very difficult to work around with this lens. Either using a hood or just framing correctly can eliminate this problem entirely.

Now you also might think that because this lens is a budget lens, it also has budget performance. This isn't the case either. See these lenses shared optical formulas of their bigger SMC cousins. This lens in particular is believed to share the optical formula of the Pentax-A 135mm f2.8, a far more modern design than those of the K, M or Takumar variety. This means this lens actually has a great sharpness advantage over older lenses, despite being a budget oriented lens.

Of course the question of overall QA is still there, the possibility of a bad copy might be higher in a lens like this. Still for the price the sharpness and rendering is hard to beat. I've been using this lens for years and it's still one of my go to primes.

The downside of this lens however is usability, through no fault of the lens itself but because of how the crippled K mount on modern cameras work. With modern k mount cameras you have to stop down meter in M mode using the green button, on older k mount cameras you'd automatically get a reading, usually with a half press of the shutter.

Another big downer of this lens, and something that also hurts usability, is the fact that this lens even has an f2.5 option at all. See the f2.5 on this lens is completely useless. Extremely soft, extremely hard to focus, and super low on contrast. What's immensely frustrating is that all goes away when you hit f2.8, meaning that f2.5 was probably done by a cheat in its design, and was never intended to be as such.

Because of this though, when you try to shoot this lens wide open with AV mode for metering, you're stuck with f2.5 which you can already tell that's a problem. If you intend on shooting wide open on a digital camera a lot I'd recommend being patient and trying to get either the f2.8 version of this lens or better yet find a cheaper pentax-A 135mm f2.8.

This lens really hits its peak performance at about f4-f8 depending on the situation. Great for portraits, animal shots and even landscapes.

I rate this lens an 8 because of its value, at around 30 dollars it's almost unbeatable. The Pentax-A version of this lens obviously would be easier to use with similar or better results, however that lens can go well over 100 dollars so its in a different league entirely. Never let anyone try to convince you to downgrade this lens to an older inferior formula like the pentax-m 135mm f3.5.

My copy is a made in japan version with the built in hood, in case anyone is curious.

Here are some example shots:

Puffin! by Brian Mckee, on Flickr

Chatty Birds by Brian Mckee, on Flickr

Brian Sutherland by Brian Mckee, on Flickr

Flower Bokeh by Brian Mckee, on Flickr

Light the Way by Brian Mckee, on Flickr
Forum Member

Registered: November, 2016
Posts: 65
Lens Review Date: April 14, 2019 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: N/A | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp stopped down, soft wide open but works well for portraits.
Cons: Soft wide open, not good for anything much more than just portraits.
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 8    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 8    Camera Used: Fuji X-A1   

This was given to me by a friend who works at a charity shop.
At first I was mystified as to where it sits within the Pentax/Takumar/Asahi range, especially when I saw that it is made in Taiwan.
I read some fairly negative feedback about this lens but having taken it out to test it today, it seems pretty good.
I've decided that it is likely to end up on my "lenses with character" shelf, along side my Helios 44-2, Pentacon 135 2.8 "bokeh monster" etc.
I have tried a few old 135s, one or two of which seemed a bit insipid and I thought this one might be the same, but it isn't.
All of the following (apart from the last one) are test shots straight out of the camera, absolutely no adjustments made in Camera Raw or Photoshop.

Each pair of photos are F2.5 first then F8
The last one is at F2.5, it is cropped and I made some slight changes to colour and contrast.

Site Supporter

Registered: February, 2007
Location: Prevost, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 446

2 users found this helpful
Lens Review Date: March 8, 2019 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $100.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Excellent build, Very sharp at F:5.6 and on, Easy to focus, No CA
Cons: A bit soft at F:2.5
Sharpness: 10    Aberrations: 10    Bokeh: 9    Handling: 10    Value: 10    Camera Used: K1 II   

Extremely happy with this purchase, the use of the green button is a tremendous tool facilitating manual adjustments and it makes manual photography a joyful experience. Very easy to nail the focus, and the colours are great. A bit soft at F:2.5 but improves very fast after with a tack sharpness at F:8. I added 3 winter photos taken in Ste-Adele, Qc, Canada. Works very well with the Full Frame with no Vignetting. You would think this lens was made for the K1 II... This is the Japanese version of the TAKUMAR 135mm (Bayonet) F:2.5...

Winter scenes in Ste-Adele QC, Canada

Rapides de Ste-Adèle/Rivière du Nord by Robert Amiot, sur Flickr

Rapides de Ste-Adèle/Rivière du Nord by Robert Amiot, sur Flickr

Pentax K1 Mark II & Takumar 135mm F:2.5 by Robert Amiot, sur Flickr
Forum Member

Registered: February, 2015
Posts: 93

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: December 9, 2018 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $40.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, build quality, small size
Cons: ?
Sharpness: 9    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 9    Value: 10   

I have the Taiwan version. This is a good lens, at least in my limited testing. Wide open it appears to best my SMC Tak 135 2.5 (first version) which I really like. At 2.5 it will clearly resolve the stitching on my camera bag from 30 feet and the very small printing on a bottle from 20 feet is pretty crisp. I'm very surprised! Colours and contrast seem good. It is coated but I'm sure there'll be lots of fringing in harsh light. I put an over size hood on it (the built in one is inadequate) so hopefully that will help. Not that it matters much because I mostly shoot film. This was a great purchase!

On further testing, it's sharper wide open than my M 135 3.5 and K 135 3.5 as well. Not that sharpness is the most important thing in a lens always. I also noticed that it's not really a 135. Maybe a 120 or 125mm, I'm not sure how to measure that...
Site Supporter

Registered: December, 2015
Posts: 5,329

7 users found this helpful
Lens Review Date: May 4, 2018 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $50.00 | Rating: 10 

Sharpness: 10    Aberrations: 6    Bokeh: 10    Handling: 8    Value: 10    Camera Used: K-1   




Ok ok... this is what I have found after a week of playing with it.

f2.5 is acceptable if shooting something within 3m or so, basically shooting flowers, petals or even a portrait and zoning in on the eye, things will look real swell at 2.5 if the subject is close and is pretty still.
If the subject is further away, such as 5m or more, f2.5 is insanely hard to nail focus, to the point it feels more like chance (and I have a 1.22 magnifier attached, and have tried LV as well etc, it's just really damn hard). The feedback from the OVF or VF is not enough, so often the shots comes out soft when in the OVF it doesnt appear you could get it any sharper, in fact rotating the focus ring a tad in each direction doesn't look like it makes a difference (but it obviously is), it's just you can't see far enough down to see, so many shots are a tad soft (tho often still acceptable). I think this accounts for reviewers differing over the sharpness quality for this lens. It really depends on the distance to the subject and sometimes a bit of luck!
I would also have thought f2.5 was just 'soft' had it not been for an unusual determined take of 20 or so pics (or more) of something static 5-7 meters away and getting that one shot out of the 20 that actually showed some real extra perceived nice sharpness! So it can happen. Of course when shooting something within 2-3m away, there is so much more to see and gain in terms of focus feedback that f2.5 shots look swell and the success in nailing these shots is far higher.

So... when shooting things further away I recommend getting into Manual mode and choose f2.8-5.6, I often find f4 works well, you need the slightly greater DoF that helps get things more sharp when they are further away.

f2.8 is significantly and noticeably sharper than 2.5 as well (with not much deterioration in bokeh), also purple fringing seems to almost disappear at 2.8 whereas its quite pronounced at 2.5 and made worse if you miss the focus even a teeny tiny bit. How I wish I could shoot f2.8 in Av mode with this lens!

So whilst I think this is a fantastic lens it does involve a little more thinking when approaching the shot. I can nail f2.8 with the DFA 100 when the subject is really far away, not so much this lens.

F2.5 up to 2-3m, further than that I recommend bumping the aperture up (down?) heh.

I think that sums this fella up.

I've never owned a K Mount before, and doubt I will again. I can be in Av mode at 2.5 but that's it. I wish I could be in Av mode at 2.8 or f4 with this, then it would be a killer lens! So I've learned something, 'A' settings on a lens matters, more than I thought. Cest le vie!
Forum Member

Registered: February, 2013
Posts: 66

4 users found this helpful
Lens Review Date: January 22, 2018 I can recommend this lens: No | Price: $45.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Soft portrait lens. If you guess with lighting that gives an excellent result.
Cons: Not sharp
Sharpness: 5    Aberrations: 6    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 7    Value: 10    Camera Used: Pentax K-01   

New Member

Registered: March, 2016
Posts: 2

1 user found this helpful
Lens Review Date: April 2, 2017 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $45.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: F2.5, Small, Very sharp at 2.5
Cons: Cromatic aberrations, short hood
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 6    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 9    Value: 10    Camera Used: K3II   

Great lens. Nice bokeh and very sharp at 2.5. Is not easy to focus with it but with some training I have the trick. You must past the focus confirmation on clockwise, the more near the subject the more you need to past the confirmation.

Negative: the cromatic aberrations are here. The lack of contrast (easy to correct in post) can be solved with a bigger hood.
Add Review of Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:34 AM. | See also:, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]