Author: | | New Member Registered: October, 2019 Posts: 3 | Review Date: November 3, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $10.00
| Rating: 10 |
Pros: | Sharpness, bokeh, cinematic contrast | Cons: | Long minimum focus distance | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K5, K1 Mark II
| | My lens is the chrome and black version. I bought it from a camera store for only 10 dollars. The lens was listed as a "miscellaneous" equipment, which had no description. The lens was equipped with an Akashi Pentax M42/pKconvert ring.
Recently, I started to try this lens. I am very happy with its performance. I have Pentax DFA100 mm macro WR, D 70 mm F2.4 limited, and F50mm F1.7. In terms of sharpness, this lens is not inferior to these modern lens at all. Indeed, sometimes I would even prefer using this lens due to its less contrast. The pictures taken by this lens are quite similar to the typical stylish of many Japanese movies. Thanks to its 8-blade diaphragm, the bokeh is very satisfactory. I also like it's stepless preset aperture that allows me adjust aperture smoothly while shooting video.
The only thing I would complain about this lens is that the minimum focus distance is ~ 2m. | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2019 Posts: 15 | Review Date: March 29, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Light and easy to use | Cons: | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 7
Camera Used: K2 ME Super K-X
| | I have the Super Takumar 135mm f3.5, so that's the final image as above on this page.
If you look at the other thread on this forum's menu for the 135mm f3.5 Takumar you'll see the same lens being rated less than this one. That's because lots of people don't know which lens they have, so treat minor distinctions on this forum as variable in specific accuracy. It's surprising how many reviews fail to observe there are different lenses here, so be careful if you are reading these reviews with a purchase in mind.
The Super Takumar is a good to very good (nothing more, nothing less) lens. Some people who enjoy playing with old stuff get a bit carried away on this being "cheap" in comparison to ridiculously over-priced digital lenses, but that does not make it take better pictures that are reliably sharp and good looking; it just means this Takumar is old and limited in comparison to digital equipment. That's why it's cheaper, of course. Buy one and you'll be back using you digital equivalent within a month with this one in your drawer. Now, if you are using film with a camera that only takes M42 screw lenses, this Takumar is a different lens altogether.
This is a great lens at f5.6 to f11 but beyond that range it's good, but not very good. f16 is very good in some conditions. The "Super Takumar" coatings are pale pinky/mauve in comparison to the yellow/gold of the Super Takumar 55mm lens range. The Super coatings are very good, but you need to use a hood to ensure strong sunlight is kept off the front lens. Alternatively, SMC coatings are more protective, but you'll pay for that and they will only make a difference in certain angles of strong light invasion so it's a bit like throwing cash away for little benefit unless you like shooting into the light. You see, there is not much glass in this lens, so you won't get much reflection/refraction anyway. The lens is very good for $60 and good for $80. Pay more than that and the seller saw you coming. Luckily, some sellers will not attempt to rip you off with high prices for the "Super Multi Coating" version of this lens, but some will. Be choosy. "Super Multi Coated" versions also have an extra aperture mechanism on the M42 mount plus a second smaller pressure pin for releasing the auto/manual side switch. This makes the lens about 15g heavier than the "Super Takumar" version. Beyond these small differences, they are the same lens.
So, back to the "Super" lens. It has a nice basic and simple mechanism makes it easy to use. It's not heavy. Same diameter as a Takumar 55mm lens and about twice as long. So it's neat and tidy and can easily vanish into a coat pocket. Easy to keep clean and easy to service yourself with the right tools and a bit of know how. Mine seems to be a little unresponsive with the "firing pin" on the thread mount. It has to travel a long way to the aperture mechanism - if you are using the lens on a proper M42 film camera - and it can drag or stick in cold weather, even when serviced. It's not a great design in that regard in comparison with modern lenses. The only regular awkward thing is the huge focus turning circle, but only a fusspot pedant would find that worth a reason not to buy this lens. Sharpness is variable - as you'd expect - so it's frustrating to see some reviews not mentioning variables across the f-stop range. At f5.6 the "Super Takumar" is good in the centre and edge but f8 and f11 are very good in the centre while still good at the edge. Beyond that range the "Super Takumar" is quite soft and disappointing. At f22 the chromatic aberration is noticeable in high contrast images, but it's acceptable through the rest of the range to f3.5
| | | | Site Supporter Registered: January, 2011 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,075 | Review Date: June 22, 2018 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 10 |
Pros: | compact size and fairly light weigt | Cons: | none for me | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Asahi Pentax SV and S1a
| | Not used that often but comes in handy for those times I need the extra reach. I find the lens sharp with good contrast and colour rendition.
My copy is the Super-Takumar model 1, has a very smooth focus and solid aperature clicks.
It makes up my trio of lenses including the super-multi-coated 35mm f3.5 and the super-takumar 55mm f1.8
| | | | Pentaxian Registered: March, 2007 Location: Greater Copenhagen Area Posts: 430 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: July 30, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Build, size, the preset aperture and rendering | Cons: | None at the current price point | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-5 and Spotmatic F
| | I have both the early model preset Takumar (silver/black) and the late model (all black), and this review concerns both of them.
On the plus side, these preset lenses are very easy to use on a Pentax DSLR in Av-mode. Focus fully open and stop down to the desired aperture to take the picture. You can use the preset ring to choose a definite stop or set the preset ring at F/22 and stop down smoothly without any clicks between fully open and F/22.
Another plus is the compact size and superb build quality. The focus ring and the stop down ring are silky smooth on my two lenses, but the preset ring is a bit stiff on both.
By the way, the early version is the tiniest one with only 46 mm filter ring, whereas the late model preset has a 49 mm filterring like its later siblings (there is an error in the table above on this point - only the early model has 46 mm filter thread)). The early model has a special metal hood, whereas the late model preset use the same hoods as later F/3.5 models with 49mm thread.
On the negative side, the min. focus distance is only 200 cm on the early model and 180 cm on the late model.
Image quality is quite good on both models. They are pretty sharp even wide open without being critically sharp for portrait work. i.e. they give quite pleasing results. Action work is not their forte, but they are fine for portrait work, landscape, flowers and the like.
[On the Pentax Spotmatic F and later Spotmatics the S-M-C Takumars work best, as the Spotmatic F introduced open aperture metering with these lenses.]
Size comparison (from left): S-M-C Takumar 135mm F2.5, S-M-C Takumar 135mm F3.5, Takumar 135mm F3.5 (late model) and Takumar 135mm F3.5 (early model with its special hood).
K-5 portrait:
Crop: | | | | | Senior Member Registered: March, 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 195 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: February 11, 2015 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Lens Design, Image Quality, Build | Cons: | | | I have the version with the cocking lever. This lens seems to go under the radar a little bit and might deserve more attention since it obtains the smooth, beautiful image characteristics of the other lenses with 5 elements in 4 groups-Super Takumar 120 2.8/105 2.8/85 1.9 and the M85 2, and, the variant but similar M 100 2.8. It will get you surprisingly great results once you give it a chance. It is very sharp at all apertures and there is nothing to report in the way of problems image wise. It is as clean, free from ca as my 37AM and better than my 135 2.5 S-M-C Takumar. Mechanically it is a superior lens. Even though mine is in mint condition, the aperture ring is just a bit stiff, but it is a minor issue. Auto Taks tend to suffer from a little stiffness sometimes, but, still, they are mechanically sound lenses with a great build. I would prefer the lens to be a tad bit bigger. I've never cared for the slender design of some of the 135s. I'm sure many folks are opposite and would love the demure size of this one. As with all good lenses, when put to proper use, this lens is a winner.
| | | | Senior Member Registered: June, 2012 Posts: 276 3 users found this helpful | Review Date: August 25, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Cheap, sturdy, pre-set easy to use in Av mode | Cons: | not for fast moving subjects | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K5
| | I have the chrome version and the condition was still great. Pre-set ring is a bit stiff but the aperture ring was smooth. Focus throw is very large which is very good for fine tuning but not useful for fast moving subjects (unless they are >15 m away).
Very sharp in my opinion. Coupled with Pentax DSLR in-body stabilisation system it is very easy to use, just preset aperture, focus, then close down and shoot. Unlike K or M lenses, the preset lenses are usable in Av mode because you can (have to) physically close down the aperture.
ISO 6400 image below seems sharp (no post-process). Slow moving animals are fine to shoot with.
This croc is shot at a relatively lower ISO 200 (there is a fence between me and the animal but was blurred out thanks to the focal length and relatively large aperture than cheap zooms,
DIfficult but not impossible to capture fast subject!
Overall this is lens I would recommend if you want to get used to the 135mm focal length before going for a more expensive modern lens.
| | | | Pentaxian Registered: July, 2012 Posts: 928 5 users found this helpful | Review Date: June 23, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Small size, preset controls, pre-SMC color rendition | Cons: | None for its cost | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K20D, K-01
| | Mine is the all black version. It’s a very cute lens, and surprisingly small and light compared to later SMC Takumar 135s. With preset controls it’s a joy to use if you enjoy manual lenses. It's sharp enough for the vast majority of purposes - portraits, still life, street scenes etc. A good deep hood is not essential but helps to avoid flare and overly-light images; the original hood is shown in the photo below. I haven’t noticed the lens being particularly prone to CA or purple fringing. One notable reason to buy these pre super-multi-coated lenses is their color rendition. There’s something special and different about images from early Takumar lenses up to and including early versions of the Super Takumars. A kind of cool glow that does not detract too much from sharpness; quite distinct from modern digital lenses. Just don't expect this lens to perform like a 100mm Macro!! None of the Takumar 135mm 3.5s are expensive, and this version seems to suffer somewhat in IQ comparisons on-line to later SMC Takumar versions (not to mention the 135 2.5s or K/M series), which can make it even more cost effective to buy. It’s a 9 to me because it’s so beautifully engineered and such great value. The bottom line is that if you put the effort into composing, focusing and metering etc., this lens will produce excellent images. And you really have to hold one to realise just how cute it is... | | | | Forum Member Registered: December, 2012 Posts: 94 | Review Date: December 29, 2012 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Image, build quality and great feel | Cons: | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 9
| |
Image quality filming | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2012 Location: Norwich, Norfolk. Posts: 13 | Review Date: December 16, 2012 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Compact. Simple to operate. Sharp. Build quality. | Cons: | Lens is nearly 60 years old (but in better shape than me at 65). None. | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-r; K100D.
| | Mine is the silver / black model. The lens was offered on EBay as damaged. The damage was a minor chip on the very edge of the front lens, I needed a magnifying glass to confirm it. It makes no difference whatsoever to the recorded image. I managed to win the auction with a bid of £10.60, a prime lens of this quality! The lens is compact and extremely well built. I have and will, use this on the K-r and K100D, making it the equivalent of a 200mm telephoto. The image is sharp and without any CA, which will enable even further cropping, without too much degradation of the picture. The preset makes this lens simple to operate. The colours are good with have excellent contrast. The focus is long and it can be difficult to change focus points at speed.It is a pleasure to use, and has a real “feel-good” factor (as with most of these vintage lens). The only possible downside may be that it has to be operated in manual mode (but that’s a plus as far as I am concerned) and it needs an adaptor for the 42mm thread. If you get a chance to obtain a copy you won’t be disappointed. | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,429 5 users found this helpful | Review Date: February 12, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | TINY, Sharp, Preset, Bokeh, Build | Cons: | None | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-x
| | I recently picked up the silver and black rendition of this lens. It is a very compact 135mm lens. The build quality is outstanding as well as the photos it takes. The lens is very sharp, and it handles bright conditions well (I don't have a hood for it),
I've only used the lens for a short time and it is fast becoming one of my favorites. I've only used it on landscapes so far, but I expect it will make an excellent portrait lens as well. Here are a few samples from this lens. RMNP 4 Feb 2012 2 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr RMNP 4 Feb 2012 1 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr RMNP 4 Feb 2012 3 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr RMNP 4 Feb 2012 5 by Colorado CJ, on Flickr
| | | | Senior Member Registered: April, 2010 Location: Seattle Posts: 153 | Review Date: August 29, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | small size, preset works well for aperture setting | Cons: | needs a lens shade, contrast is somewhat light | | This is an all black body second and newer version.
This is a wonderful lens and a lot of fun to work with. Great build as you would expect from a Takumar and the preset is nice to work with for setting the aperture.
Would easily purchase one of these earlier Takumar lenses. | | | | Senior Member Registered: December, 2009 Location: Kagoshima, Japan Posts: 237 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: July 4, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $10.00
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | small, light, portable, preset | Cons: | N/A (refer to review) | | Since there's no actual review of this lens, I'll post the first one.
Mine is the first (silver-black) version.
I bought the lens recently, but when I got it it was in a really bad mechanical shape. The lens reeks of oil and doesn't focus to infinity so I'm really inclined to say that the previous owner had some tampering with it. This is why I can't make a fully objective review of it. The lens had no cap nor a hood, so I don't know about them, but it came with a brown hard case as opposed to the black ones I have.
The optics are good, and great for portraiture. The filter ring is smaller than the normal at (i think) 43mm. This makes the lens a really small telephoto, having the mount cap just a little smaller than the diameter of the lens.
This little fellow is a lens I would carry everywhere if it wasn't because of it's mechanical damage, which is why I can't more than put a tentative 7 to it. If I get another copy (and I want one) I'll review the score.
| | |