Takumar K mount 135mm f/2.5

[kfrog]

<p>I have been looking to get an SMC or a Super-Takumar 135mm f2.5 but they are hard to come by and can be pricey on that auction site. So I started to wonder about the K mount Takumars. I've read that some were of lesser quality and some were ok to good. Not exactly glowing reviews but maybe enough for my uses. Any thoughts on them?</p>

[deaner66]

<p>http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showproduct.php?product=17&cat=26</p>

[stemked]

<p>The 135mm f2.8 dosen't have full coatings and it seem to be not as well built as most other Pentax lenses, but that said it was are optically a fine lenses, at least the one I played around with better than 15 years ago.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Douglas B,<br>

What Douglas S said. Years ago, I purchased one ignorantly and was not too impressed. Fortunately I was able to return it.</p>

<p>I do have a mint Super-Tak 135mm f 2.5 I'd sell. (I've got way too many 135mm lenses, that's a heaven of a focal length for Pentax gear). Just send a PM.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Before 135/2 lenses were more common, f/2.5 models were often the fastest ones. Asahi, Konica and Canon all has 135/2.5 lenses. I think that all of the AOC 135/2.5 M42 lenses had the same design but the later ones had better coating. Asahi made two different 135/2.5 K mount lenses. The first was the SMC Pentax which came out with the K cameras in 1975. Asahi later went to the compact M lenses but they did not make a 135/2.5 M model. There was a discount line of K lenses called Takumar Bayonet. I don't know whether these were sold in every market. The Takumar Bayonet series included a 28/2.8, 135/2.5, 135/2.8 and 80-200. These lenses have brightly colored distance markings. I have the 135/2.5 Takumar Bayonet. It is different optically and cosmetically from the older 135/2.5 SMC Pentax and is not supposed to be as good as the older lens. My casual use of the lens shows it's not bad. If the light is good I will use my 135/3.5 SMC M instead. Later Asahi did make a 135 faster than f/2.5. </p>

[kfrog]

<p>Thanks for the link Steve.<br>

Sounds like a nice lens Michael. PM sent.<br>

Thanks for the education Jeff. I got the impression that for the most part the K mount lenses were not quite as desirable as the Super Taks and the SMC's but were still ok lenses. That's what I figured.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I wouldn't say that the K mount Pentax lenses are less desirable than their M42 predecessors. Pentax (Asahi) was working with Zeiss to make new cameras with the Zeiss name. Eventually Zeiss thought Yashica had more experience with electronics and built the Contax SLRs in cooperation with them. What did Pentax get from its time with Zeiss? The K bayonet lensmount. Pentax was so late in getting a bayonet mount camera to the market that its first set of K mount lenses were just bayonet mount versions of earlier screw mount lenses. The 28/3.5, 35/3.5, 55/1.8 and 135/3.5 SMC Pentax lenses were included in this group. A few years later the smaller SMC M lenses appeared and these were new designs. There is some confusion about the SMC name. At about 1971 the Super Takumar screw mount lenses were replaced by the Super-Multi-Coated-Takumar lenses. These SMCT lenses had a tab which allowed them to be used for full aperture metering on the later Spotmatic F, ES and ESII models. When the Spotmatic F came out Asahi changed the cosmetics of the lenses and called them Takumar SMC. These were made for a very short time. The first K lenses were calles SMC Pentax. Later Asahi added the SMC Pentax M series. Other names were later used for lenses which had added electrical contacts and auto focus features. </p>

[kfrog]

<p>Well Jeff, based on the prices the screw mount Super-Takumars and SMC Takumars are getting on that auction site these days compared to corresponding bayonet lenses I'd say they are more desirable. Or maybe its basic supply and demand: there are more K mounts available? That's what I base my opinion on. I admit I don't have any of the old manual K mount lenses so I'm not speaking from experience. Just an observation.</p>