| Author: | | New Member Registered: September, 2017 Location: Vladimir Posts: 4
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 31, 2022 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Colour, 3D, Sharpness, price-quality | | Cons: | no | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Nikon Z6
| |
Actually it's a A 135 2.8, but much cheaper. I have both, and did not see difference, except that Takumar more warmer colours.
There are slightly purple fringing and a little lack of sharpness wide open, according to modern standards, but there are noticeable 3D effect.
Easy and pleasure to focus.
Overall it's a very atmospheric retro lens for portraits like A 135 2.8
 | | | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: July, 2013 Location: People's Republic of America Posts: 9,910
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 31, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $32.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, colors, as good (IMHO) as Pentax-A version | | Cons: | Flaring, aberrations wide open | |
For what you pay for this lens, it should really be a 10, but it's not in the same level as an FA Limited or Start lens, of course. But what a bargain! It's more rare than the f2.5 sibling but in my opinion it's worth looking for. 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 this particular copy:
Sharpness - I give it a 10. It's perfectly sharp in the center from wide open (I don't care about sharpness in the corner wide open in this kind of lens - it's just not what it's for). It will be sharp in the corners if you focus on the corners (field curvature plays here - but it is also what gives the subjects character and a more 3D look). Stopped down it's very sharp, also much sharper than the SMC-A I used to have (which I think had issues).
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.
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. Go figure...
Rendering - the most important item to me, and the lens does great as you can see in the following pictures. To me it renders a lot like an M lens which is my favorite standard in Pentax lenses.
If you find one... get it.
Coatings compared to an SMC-M lens:
f2.8
 Red Rose-Takumar 135 by ChristianRock, on Flickr
 3 in a row by ChristianRock, on Flickr
 Xmas Tree Bokeh by ChristianRock, on Flickr
 A Shoe Left Behind by ChristianRock, on Flickr
f4 I think
 Spot the bumblebee by ChristianRock, on Flickr
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: November, 2017 Location: Garden City, NY Posts: 6,349
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 11, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Portraits, skin tones, warmth, soft-ish | | Cons: | soft-ish, limited use on portraits | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 9
| |
The lens is great for portraits. Very kind on the skins, a bit soft which is good as it forgives imperfections.
I also have the M 135mm/3.5 and find the latter to be an overall superior lens.
However, again, portraits... I'd choose the 135mm/2.8 bayonet.
Note - The last picture, of the moon, was taken through a closed window at my NYC apartment. Honestly given the circumstances, not a bad shot...
Pics:
Again, this last picture, of the moon, was taken through a closed window at my NYC apartment. Honestly given the circumstances, not a bad shot...
 | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: January, 2014 Location: Maclean, NSW Posts: 95
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: June 3, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, compact, good colours and pleasant bokeh | | Cons: | some purple fringing on backlit objects | | Sharpness: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
This lens is a steal! As far as I can tell it is the same optical format at the Pentax A 135mm f2.8 but without the automated aperture and perhaps inferior (though still multicoated) coatings. It appears sharp from wide open and very sharp when stopped down. The images are contrasty and the colours look great.
I have three manual focus 135mm lenses, the Steinheil Quinar f2.8, the Jupiter 37a and this one, which I picked up for peanuts on ebay. Of the three the Steinheil gives me the best images, but it is twice the size and weight. The Jupiter is also a great lens, but the Takumar beats it in handling. The wider aperture makes manual focusing easier and the slide out lens hood is just so easy. The Takumar is also the smallest and lightest of the three making it very easy to slip in my bag. But enough words ... time to let the images speak for themselves.
 | | | | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2010 Location: Leeds Posts: 152
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 21, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $90.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | An affordable 135mm 2.8. | | Cons: | No "A" on the aperture ring. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 8
Camera Used: Pentax K5ii and Q7
| |
I like this lens. I already had an M 135 3.5 so wasn't sure if it was worth getting this. The M 3.5 scored higher on this forum, and the two more positive reviews here haven't used the lens. But I wanted a 2.8, so I bought it.
Naturally, it is a little bigger/heavier than the M 3.5. But still not huge.
I am not an expert tester or anything, but from simple comparisons, my thoughts - comparing the two lenses:
I like the colours on both about the same. Didn't notice a significant difference.
The 2.8 seemed a little sharper to me. (I can't remember now how I did the comparison, but I think this was my conclusion even comparing both wide open.)
ALSO, REGARDING USING THE LENSES ON A PENTAX Q7:
I'd say the purple fringing was a fair bit better on the 2.8.
At f8, both were pretty good (at least in the conditions I did the test in).
Shooting wide open, however, the 2.8 was significantly better than on the 3.5.
More subjectively, I think I prefer the feel (physically) of the 3.5, and certainly the fact that it is smaller. All things considered though, I'd have to say I prefer the 2.8 lens.
More expensive, and a bit heavier, but worth it for the 2.8, slightly better sharpness (I think) and less purple fringing.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: March, 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241
4 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 25, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: N/A |
|
I just won this lens at an eBay auction (€ 27.95 including shipment), and it may take some time till I finally get it. But I want to add some comments beforehand.
1) Some time ago I met a retired professional who told me that in the eighties an official Pentax dealer showed him a written internal paper by Pentax which informed that, since 1979/1980, ALL Pentax/Takumar lenses not labelled as "SMC" are nonetheless MULTICOATED. They would just lack the patented SMC coating, but the multicoating should not be worse than that of the competitors. If this is true, it would include most of the Takumar Bayonet lenses.
2) Also some time ago, I downloaded a PDF with a detailed real life comparison (including some marginal chart tests) of the Pentax 135mm range lenses. I think I got it from a link in some other forum, if I can find out the URL, I will add it to this comment. His results differ in some respects from the usual findings in forum posts.
Winner in this test is the SMC-F 2.8/135 [IF], closely followed by the SMC-A 2.8/135, which is not too surprising, as they are the newest. But for the rest, there are some amazing results (which could be caused by the fact that all these lenses are old, used, and probably would need a factory adjustment). In this test the Takumar 2.8/135 [Bayonet] is, together with the SMC-M 2.8/135, very near to the winners! It also was on par with the SMC-M 3.5, and in most respects better than the generally highly praised SMC-K 2.5/135.
Also astonishing: the missing SMC coating did not show ANY bad effects in real life shots with the Tak 2.8, but was VERY visible with the Tak 2.5! Could it be Pentax changed the coating during production without mentioning it? Also, the Tak 2.5, wide open, has significant loss of resolution against the Tak 2.8, and PF and other colour errors are SIGNIFICANT worse at all apertures.
So, according to these results, one could think the Tak 2.8 could be a better buy than the Tak 2.5.
By the way, he also compared to the Pentax DA 4-5.6/55-300mm at 135mm, which was no match to any of the Primes in any respect.
Added: Just found the URL.
http://www.tzcobretti.de/testberichte.html
(Non working link removed)
Unfortunately everything is german only, but the result sheet (conclusion at the end) should be fairly self-explaining.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: July, 2009 Location: Europe, Benelux, Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen, Terneuzen Posts: 26
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 12, 2009 | Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
|
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 good 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.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: March, 2008 Location: Quebec city, Canada Posts: 9,356
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 7, 2008 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Fast, great build quality, built-in hood | | Cons: | Not really sharp wide open | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 8
| |
135 mm with f2,8 is a very exciting combo. Sadly this lens is no macro lens, and cannot focus really close. When wide open, it is decently sharp, but not great. It becomes quite sharp at f4, and remains that way at least up to f11. At f16 it becomes visibly softer.
Images look good. I think the contrast is what bothers me most, but it's not BAD, just not fantastic. The problem is that I can compare it with a Vivitar 70-210 f3,5 and it cannot really hold its ground against it. But then the Vivitar was selling for 700$ CND thirty years ago, so it's not a fair comparison at all.
Build quality is surprisingly good. After 20+ years, the focus ring is smooh, the body is clean, the aperture ring is fluid. There is a built-in hood that works very well. Some people claim that this lens is not coated; that is false. It is coated, just not SMC.
Manual focus is efficient, the focus ring has a long throw and feels well damped.
I'm glad to have this lens, and will probably use it more in the future, if only to experiment and see what I can do with it. At the end of the day, having a 135 mm f2,8 lens is always a good thing. And this lens is certainly not the doorstop some people claim it is.
---
Edit : I used this lens at a wedding a few days ago, between f4,5 and f5,6 (where it's supposed to be very bad according to some), and it can shine as a portrait lens! I'm revising my evaluation from a 7 to an 8. Here's what it can do:
Creamy bokeh, beautiful contrast, sharp enough. I can't ask for more...
| | |
