| Author: | | Inactive Account Registered: September, 2006 Location: D/FW area, Tx. Posts: 1,710 | | Review Date: January 17, 2007 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | good paper weight JMHO | | Cons: | soft, soft JMHO flare | |
i didn't have this for long. i got it before i knew there were 2 versions of the 2.5. this is not coated and you can rest your head at night on the images i got from it at f2.5. it did sharpen up somewhat at f8+ but i had gotten for it's wide aperture. it's a nice looking lens if your are a collector.
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2007 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 323 | | Review Date: January 23, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Fast | | Cons: | Soft, non coated | |
I also didnt know there were 2 versions of this lens. It's terrible with a flash, or with the light source in front or 90 degrees to either side. The pictures come out very soft almost foggy. Pictures are pretty nice when light source is behind camera. Good in low light. In my opinion, its a very fast lens at f2.5, and delivers better quality than a cheap zoom.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: November, 2006 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 419
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 7, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Cheap, sharp, fast, good focal length for portraits. | | Cons: | Gets bad reviews from people looking for a magic lens | |
First, let me say that this lens is the most under-rated lens for the Pentax mount. Because of the SMC 135mm f/2.5 many people act like this Takumar lens is worthless junk. On the contrary, this lens is a stellar performer ... if the photographer using it knows how to work within the design limitations.
"Design limitations?"
This lens lacks optical coating (or just has poor coating). What does that mean in practical terms? Use a lens hood all the time ... even if you don't think you need one.
Lenses that lack anti-reflection and ultraviolet coatings tend to be more vulnerable to reflection and refraction resulting in poor color fidelity and increased flare and ghost images/halos.
Add a lens hood and avoid pointing the lens DIRECTLY at a light source and you don't have to worry about the lack of optical coatings. Some of the greatest lenses ever made didn't have optical coatings ... and they still create amazing images today.
If you don't use a hood on an uncoated lens then don't expect the best results. Likewise, if you are using an uncoated lens (even one with a hood) you need to avoid shooting DIRECTLY into light if you want the best results.
I use uncoated lenses (the Pentax Takumar 135mm f/2.5 and the Jupiter-9 85mm f/2) all the time in the studio with flash and continuous lighting. I also use these uncoated lenses outside in daylight for location portraiture and the results are great.
| | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2007 Location: Spain Posts: 6 | | Review Date: March 28, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Very fast and sharp | | Cons: | Easy to get some purple fringes if you are not careful | |
I use it as a fast tele for portraits and detail shoots outdoors and its easy to accurately focus and get very sharp pictures. It also has a built in lens hood that you can extend at the same time you remove the cap 
As JJJPhoto said, always use the hood and avoid focusing light sources directly to keep the fringe under control.
| | | | | | | Junior Member Registered: May, 2007 Location: Las Vegas, NV USA Posts: 42 | | Review Date: May 22, 2007 | Not Recommended | Price: $85.00
| Rating: 2 |
| Pros: | Solid Build, Color (if you like what it does) | | Cons: | Far Focus, Diffusion, Coloration, Low Contrast | |
This lens suffers from soft images, flare and low contrast. Just what one would expect out of a non-coated lens.
While shading the lens helps the overall contrast, one must be careful not only of the stray light, but even the light of the subject will cause problems if there is too much contrast (bright subject on a dark background).
The distortions are typical of internal reflections. The main image is very sharp but there are softer secondary images on all subjects, especially if bright. Of course, if this is the effect you want, it is perfect.
The lens offers a warm coloration. This can be very pleasing, especially in high UV scenes.
This lens is marked for IR, but I have not tried it with such.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: June, 2007 Location: Belgium Posts: 96 | | Review Date: June 21, 2007 | Not Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Fast, nice reach on a DSLR, build quality, decent at f8 | | Cons: | soft wide open, CA problems, lacking contrast | |
Mixed feelings about this one, on one side it's very bad wide open: soft images with CA problems and lack of contrast.
On the other hand, once you stop it down to f8 and have some sunlight available, it's a pretty decent portrait lens. It still lacks some contrast then, but that's easily fixed in post porcessing, and most of the CA is gone at f8
I'd rather recommend to get the SMC version or the 3.5 Pentax-M...better value for money it think.
Nonetheless, build quality is very good, and it is a nice focal length to have.
Tom
| | | | | | | | Review Date: August 25, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Fast, cheap | | Cons: | no smc | |
The lens works well for the cost, if you're cheap you can be happy with this lens. I really like the way this takes portrait shots. I wouldn't pay more the $50 for it though, it is heavy, and manual focus. It works great when there is low light.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: January, 2008 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 38 | | Review Date: February 3, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Fast, cheap telephoto prime | | Cons: | No SMC coating | |
If value were part of my rating criteria I would rate this lens an 8.5 or 9. As far as this lens being soft wide open (which seems to be the consensus here and elsewhere), I have to respectfully disagree. I took a comparison shot with this and the new 50-135 DA* on my K10d and the sharpness is truly negligible when zoomed in (at F2.8). This may sound phoney, but try it for yourself. Focusing is smooth and build quality is very solid. When mated with a new B+W filter (which cost just as much as the lens!) results are more than acceptable.
| | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: July, 2007 Location: Jonesboro, GA Posts: 1,972 | | Review Date: March 26, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $65.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Fast, inexpensive, decent quality | | Cons: | Only fair at f2.5, although by f4 is okay. | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 8
Value: 8
| |
Other writers have asserted that this lens is uncoated. NOT SO! It is coated, although not multicoated. Before the development of multicoating the purple coating familar to those of us of a certain age was what there was. Having used an uncoated lens, an ancient Retina I with a 3.5 Ektar, a four element Tessar formula, even single-coating makes a huge difference!
As such the f2.5 135mm Takumar is more vulnerable to flare than more modern optics, although the built-in lens hood helps considerably. Of course you can always see the flare through the viewfinder, can't you now, and rearrange things a little bit.
I've found the image quality more than adequate, and the extra speed is always nice.
Please remember that some of the finest lenses of the past were single-coated or even uncoated. Leica and Zeiss built many highly regarded single coated lenses.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2007 Location: North West UK Posts: 390 | | Review Date: March 27, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | F Stop. compact size Great Bokeh, colours | | Cons: | Manual, slow to focus .soft wide open. | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K10D, K-5, K-3
| |
I found this lens at a second hand dealer locally. What drew me to it was the F2.5 at wide open (my previous 135mm were F3.5 and F2.8 and M42 thread).
The lens is nice and sharp and has a lovely Bokeh wide open to add to the effect. The colours are also good, nice and vibrant, even when the K10D is set to neutral.
Although it is only a Takumer of the 80's, rather than the full on SMC, I find that this has not really been a problem.
Also, CA is okay. Although I have not used it in bright light/high contrast, the CA has not been relevent. Maybe when the Sun returns it might change, but so far so good.
With regards to focusing, it is a bit slow, and it seems to work better in this respect with the *istDS rather than the K10D.
On the whole a nice little lens to have in the kit bag and if you can find a nice cheap good example, buy one, as the wide aperature is addictive.
Edit - 2 1/2 years after original thread.
Well, Although I don't use it that often (I have a DA*50-135mm too), when I do put it on the camera it impresses me with its ability. Use it in the right conditions and you can't go wrong (and that is most conditions)
This is one I took with it today (28th Nov 2010)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/offertonhatter/5214951614/
Edit (June 2015)
Thought I would give it a try on my new K-3. Colours are still great, but as other posts have said, soft wide open. An almost dreamy effect. Also, plenty of CA, but it is not harsh. Stopped down to F4 and beyond it comes into it's own. Sadly I already have the DA*50-135 for that. However, it is a small tactile delight to use, and I have kept it for that reason. Great on film cameras though, | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: November, 2008 Location: The Untied States Posts: 1,881 | | Review Date: January 6, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Great feel, looks nice, very sharp esp after f/4, good colors | | Cons: | CA visible at all apertures, moderate coma wide-open | |
I would definitely recommend this lens if you're not expecting the same quality of lens that is in the SMC 135/2.5 -- which costs more than three times the price, as well.
The lens itself looks great and is very solid and feels a bit indestructible. It has very good resolution, but most people will say otherwise because they confuse resolution with clarity. There is coma at f/2.5 up to f/4, so it takes away from the sharpness people perceive; but the detail is still there. Past f/4, the coma goes away, and it gets very respectably sharp. However, chromatic aberration is visible at all apertures in high contrast areas, though it's never TOO bad.
To me, this lens is all about price/performance ratio. If you want to spend over $250 for one of the best 135mm lenses out there, then do it. I'm sure you'll be happy with it. However, if you aren't made of $250 bills and want a solid performer that will never cause a "missed shot", then grab this lens for $60-80.
| | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2006 Location: Maui Posts: 11
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 20, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | fast, long, cheap, easy to find | | Cons: | no A settings, non-SMC | |
For value, I'd give this lens a 10... but in pure optical terms, it's really about a 7. It has all the problems you'd expect from a single coated, decades old lens... contrast lacks, flare abounds, CA can be extreme. No A setting makes for more difficulty in metering and high speed sync is not available.
However, it is certainly NO dog... images are not necessarily too soft, even wide open. The rest of the problems are easily dealt with if you choose your shots/situations carefully. I would buy it again and I think it's worth at least double what I paid. I have a thread at my usual haunt with pics and crops if interested: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21634776-Lens-Crappy-lens | | | | | Senior Member Registered: October, 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 258 | | Review Date: April 18, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cheap, Fast, usable at low light | | Cons: | poor coating, soft at f2.5 | |
This lens is actually under rated from alot of user. It's pretty good for it's price, one cons is the poor coating on the lens. Built in Hood is must use at all time. At 2.5, it's a bit soft, but for outdoor, i mostly set it to f8, and i got a lot good pictures out of it, bohek is awesome good for this lens. the SMC version might be better, but this is good as well.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: July, 2009 Location: Europe, Benelux, Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen, Terneuzen Posts: 26 | | Review Date: July 12, 2009 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
|
I can't really put a full review of this lens here as I do not own it and never have.
But I wish to make a few comments.
Basically this lens is the same as the SMC-Pentax version except for the coating.
In some light-conditions it can give the same excellent result as the SMC-version.
When light comes in from the wrong angle however it can lose contrast, give flare etcetera. This can be suitable for dreamy portraits.
If one remembers that in the '50s and early 60's lenses did not have multicoating either, it is clear that a lens like this can be used to create a similar effect.
That said, it is easy. Learn what the lens can do and cannot do. If you need a flare-free lens that gives always crisp images go for an SMC-version. If you want to use the effect, or cannot afford (then) or find (now) the SMC version, this one is a good choise.
The 2.5 version can be expected to be slightly better than the 2.8 version.
The 1.8 star and 2.5 (SMC) were top of the bill then whereas the 3.5 (both 3.5 K and M versions) and the more recent 2.8 (A, F and FA) version were clearly the cheaper (but still good) counterparts for the average user and for those that needed to travel lighter.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 106
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 19, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | inexpensive, excellent portrait lens, bokeh, colors | | Cons: | manual, slow to focus | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 8
| |
If you know how to use this lens it's a stellar performer.
I use it indoor and outdoor for portraits.
Outdoor for detail shoots and street photography.
Here some shots:
1.
2.
3.
Edit 12/31/2009
Mind you, there are two versions of this lense I found out recently.
A member of the Dutch Pentaxian forum had one, made in Taiwan, which
produced bad photos. Not sharp, no soft bokeh etcetera.
I don't say that all the Taiwan Taks are bad though.
Perhaps this was an exception.
Mine is the "made in Japan" version, which is outrageous!!!
(Serial nr. 544....)
| | |
