I have a question concerning these two lenses, but first will give some background: I have a habit of occasionally scouring antique shops/malls for older camera equipment. I do it mainly for the thrill of finding something rare, fun, and useful, yet priced low. Almost two months back I found a Takumar 35mm f2.3 - with case and original box - on a shelf for $18. An added bonus was the original (chrome) Takumar 135mm f3.5 for the same price. They were both in superb exterior and interior condition. I happily took them with me for use with my Pentax MX and ME Super and M42 adapter. Because winter is cold and construction job hours are long, I have yet to take them out for a "test drive." But spring in PA is finally here. Fast forward to this weekend. I found the following kit for $80: Fujica ST-801 Fujinon 55mm f1.8 Telesar 135mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena 20mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.8 The body and lenses are all in excellent, working condition. The Zeiss 20mm is staying in my collection. I will be parting with the ST801, 55mm, and 135mm. This brings me to the dilemma of which 35mm: Takumar or Carl Zeiss Jena? I understand that the Takumar is not multi-coated, making finding a lens hood critical. Past that, the reviews I've found tend to give both lenses favorable grades. Physically, the Takumar has a physically vintage-looking charm to it. But, I cannot keep both and, therefore, must make a choice. So, my question is this: which lens is worth keeping based on optical performance? Does anyone have experience with both lenses? Maybe this should be posted this in the Pentax forum, but I am afraid of the Takumar police being unhelpful and only bashing the Zeiss Also, can we not turn this thread into a Carl Zeiss east vs. west? Those arguments have been long played out and are largely unuseful. Thank you to anyone with wisdom to share.