Tak 135mm 2.5 smc

[perry_cas]

<p>I have a fuji xpro1 and have been using a jupiter 135/3.5 as a tele. I bought it cheaply as its not a focal length i use often. Its 'not bad'. Some decades ago i had the taKumar 135 2.5 which I remember as a pretty wonderful lens. I am wondering if anyone might care to comment on a comparison of the 2 as i am wondering if it might give me better results??? </p>

[Member69643]

<p>I have read that the Takumar 135mm f2.5 lens is not a highly regarded lens. That said, I have one and love it. It's taken some very nice images for me. Maybe I have a good copy, maybe my standards are low. I use mine exclusively with 35mm film so my resolution requirements might not be the same as a digi snapper.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>There was a "budget" version of the K-mount 135/2.5 marked "Takumar (Bayonet)". It was not multicoated. The desirable multicoated version is marked "SMC Pentax". Former sells for around $60, the latter for around $200.<br>

The very common and affordable Pentax-M 135/3.5 is also quite a decent lens.</p>

[Member69643]

<p>John is correct about the two versions; mine is the horribly stinky uncoated version. I just love it.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>I'll agree that there's "snobbism" about the Takumar (Bayonet) lens. Price/performance ratio is great. Just don't pay too much for it.<br>

Another approach is the M42 135/2.5's, they are optically the same as the K-mount ones, multicoated, and not expensive.<br>

All of the Pentax 135/2.5's are quite a heavy hunk of glass, which is why I'll sometimes take the Pentax-M 135/3.5 or 150/3.5 instead. Many of the Pentax-M and Pentax-A lenses are "maligned" for not being quite as sharp as their predecessors, but boy they are a lot lighter. That 135/2.5 is going to be very front-heavy on the Fuji.<br>

Actually, it seems to be pretty hard to make a "bad" 135mm lens. </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Actually, it seems to be pretty hard to make a "bad" 135mm lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>T-mount or M42-mount 135mm preset lenses ranging from f/2 to f/4 are extremely common, cheap, and mostly surprisingly good optically.</p>

<p>I personally have found the various Spiratone 135mm f/2.8 pre-set lenses to be excellent (they were made by Sigma, Tamron, and others for Spiratone).<br>

I bought one for my Pentax H2 when it was new since I couldn't afford the Takumar version at the time. Got good service from it for many years. </p>

[perry_cas]

<p>Actually, it seems to be pretty hard to make a "bad" 135mm lens. the 135 was i read somewhere a Zeiss and i think it might have been Jena design the tak the canon the jupiter, Nikon ? all made off the same design, but clearly they are not all the same. I was really talking about the m42 mount, those screw thread Taks were ( read somewhere else) all hand ground, or at least lots were at some point. I know that the screw mount lenses that i had from my first camera the Pentax S2 with clip on light meter were so sharp they were scarey. At the time.</p>

 

[wayne_campbell]

<p>Does this free pass for all 135mm lenses extend to the Sears 135mm f/2.8 that seems to be omnipresent on eBay?</p>

[todd_phillips3]

I have the horrible stinky bayonet version too (got it for $40) and think it's great bfyb...

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/tmphillips/8440070348/" title="feb02 by todd-, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8043/8440070348_e2b4250127_b.jpg" width="607" height="800" alt="feb02"></a>

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.tmphillips.com/g3/var/resizes/feb-13-single/IMGP0400GRS.jpg?m=1369169770">

[michael_elenko]

I regret selling the SMC f2.5 version years ago. It was on the heavy side but the handling was engaging and the colors so

fine. I'd recommend that one.

 

I once has a Sears A 135mm f2.8 and it was simply terrible. I realize the branding is applied to different designs.

 

ME

[perry_cas]

<p>gee Todd I see why you like the 3.5. For $40 it was a good buy. I will post some tests of the Jupiter for 'comparison'.</p>

[hinman]

<p>I have run into a few copies of good quality 135mm that I really like. I have not tried Tak 135mm but I do like the 105mm. The Komine 135mm f/2.8 with close focus in 1:2 is one lens that I missed after selling. The bokeh and color is wonderful <br /> <img src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3091/2922123407_cf3b029746_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="685" /><br /> Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 close focus (by Komine)</p>

<p>But the Komine 135mm close focus is not a small and lightweight lens. The focus throw is quite long and meant for close focus. In its replacement, I go for the Tamron adaptall-2 135mm f/2.5 (03B) and this lens is quite small and compact more suited for short-tele use.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8083/8405928328_43dbc214aa_b.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Tamron adaptall-2 135mm f/2.5 (03B)</p>

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7282/8818098848_99dc498825_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="1024" /><br /> Tamron 135mm f/2.5 with K-5</p>

<p> </p>

[david_l18]

<p>It seems 135mm generally has had a good reception. I've got a Chinese made version coming soon and will share some thoughts.</p>

[ivo_miesen]

<p>My only 'problem' with the 2.5/135 is that it's sometimes too sharp. It's one of my most favourite lenses. I don't have the 3.5/135 Jupiter but I've used the 2.0/85 Jupiter 9 quite often. It's a complete contrat to the 2.5/135 Takumar. The Jupiter 9 is quite soft and a superb portrait lens, the 2.5/135 Takumar is on the complete other end of the sharpness range, sometimes too sharp.</p>

[perry_cas]

<p>thanks for this Ivo. I didnt do my Homework when i bought the jupiter. Its not that sharp and as i use it on a 1.5 crop i want the reach of 200mm it gives, useless as a portrait lens. I think i will hold out and spend the extra on the 6 element.</p>