Takumar vs Super Takumar ?

[chuck_h.]

I saw a 135mm f/2.5 at a pawn shop. It was not marked Super or SMC.

I have seen some forum discussions about the Takumar lenses but I

can't tell if they are using the name generically or if there is a

regular and a super for the 135/2.5 ? What is the difference between

the two versions?

[chasg]

I got a similar K-mount lens on eBay for $49 and it was marked simply "Takumar (Bayonet) 1:2.5 135mm 5560002 Asahi Optical Co." I believe the "bayonet" may indicate mine is quite an old version, but can assure you this lens is beautifully sharp and contrasty, a real gem on my Pentax *ist-DS where it effectively is 200mm. Don't worry about Super or not, or some Takumars being called inferior... this is a good lens.

[james_king9]

Chuck, with all due respect to the previous poster, those with experience of both the

uncoated Takumar bayonet and the SMC Takumar bayonet versions of the 135/2.5 lens

almost all advise that the uncoated version is much inferior for contrast and flare

compared to the coated version. The huge price difference between these versions in the

used market reflects that opinion. If you can find the SMC Takumar or the more common

SMC Pentax version you will be getting a much better lens.

 

That said, if you are not particularly critical (i.e., plan to use it mainly for casual snapshots)

or never expect to use the lens when a bright light source will strike the front element you

may be satisfied with it. Just don't pay more than $50 or so.

 

Regards, Jim

[stephen_kruft]

The difference is just that a Super-Takumar is an automatic lens (meaning it is stopped down automatically to the stop you have set when the shutter is tripped) while one without Super (or SMC) is a manual or preset-diaphragm lens.

[stemked]

Stephen,

 

I think in this case Chuck is referring to a K mount not screw mount Takumar lens.

 

My only personal experience with the lens (at a camera show any years ago) was that it didn't seem to be as well built as the K mount lenses. It's not that it felt junky, it just wasn't a well refined lens in my hands and frankly that's something I generally like about my Pentax lenses. And of course it doesn't come with full SMC coatings so one would assume it has more flare issues.

 

I do, however, recall a fellow who comment on this lens that he had a 'couple other' 135mms and he said he actually prefered the 135mm Takumar over his SMC lens. Since I can't recall which SMC lens he was talking about, nor do I recall if or how he seriously compared these two lenses I can only conclude that the bargin Takumar certainly isn't a bad lens. I would suggest however avoiding situations that might cause heavy flare.

[markku_ylilammi]

Bayonet Takumar 135 f:2.5 has admittedly bad reputation. I have one, and it's true, full open it is soft. However, stopped down to, say, 5.6, the result is completely acceptable.

 

The softness is due to low contrast and in digital cameras it can be corrected by increasing the gamma. The resolution is sufficiently high for a 6 Mpix camera. The lack of SMC has never caused any problem; the standard coating suppresses reflections well enough.

 

Super in Takumar lenses means automatically opening diaphragm. Only the very last versions of Super-Takumars have SMC coating. The lenses after the Super-Taks are called SMC Takumars. I understand these were very rapidly replaced by the SMC Pentax lenses (in K mount).

[machts gut]

I guess it must have been in the late 80ies, when some K-mount

lenses named Takumar appeared on the market (at least in

Europe). They were cheaper and not as well built than the

SMC-M, A or K- Versions and I can only guess that Pentax

wanted to add some of the good reputation of the old Takumar's

and Super-Takumar's. Maybe this series can be compared to

Nikon Series E or the last Minolta MD (not "Rokkor") lenses. Afaik

there have never been "original" Takumar Lenses with

K-Bayonette.

 

Stefan