135mm manual Takumar 2.5 vs Zeiss Sonnar 2.8

[perry_cas]

<p>Not sure where i should be posting this but as i know little about the tak and nothing about the Zeiss.... I know there is a 6 element 2.5 tak that is reputed to be v good. Still not sure how much better it is than the standard SMC 2.5, but then i started looking at the Zeiss Sonnar T* 135/2.8 wonder anyone in here knows anything about these two? I will be putting it on an Xpro1 for the 1.5 crop result of 200mm. I know the Zeiss is heavier, this length, It will be on a tripod. Primarily i am after SHARP!, but any other comments might be useful</p>

[SCL]

<p>"Sharp" is a matter of definition....there is sharp in the center of the frame falling off as one approaches the periphery, and sharp across the whole frame. Each is a function of different lens designs. Likewise vignetting characteristics differ for different apertures. What I'm saying is everything depends on how you plan to use the lens...if you're stopping down at medium range....there probably isn't much difference. Wide open at close range will tell a different story.</p>

<p>According to several sources there were 3 variations of the Pentax 135mm 2.5, the highest regarded one (and most expensive) is purported to be the SMC Takumar 1:2.5/135 from 1972 with 6 elements in 6 groups. It is said to be slightly soft in the center until closed down a stop, becoming increasingly sharp across the frame with all softness disappearing by f5.6.</p>

<p>The 135mm f2.8 Sonnar design was based off the Tessar formula, but using 5 elements in 4 groups providing lower chromatic abberation and improved aperture; but it is not up to the standards of the Planar design. The field sharpens quickly as the aperture stops down...the biggest complaint from many users (me too) is the longish minimum focusing distance. I've owned this lens for about a year and half, and while its rendition is very good, if I was back in the market and could find a really good deal on the (expensive) 135/f2.0 APO I'd gladly pay the extra money for it.</p>

<p>I think you'll be happy with either lens..I'd look for the best deal on price, and let that be the driver.</p>

[fred_c1]

<p>Zeiss have called their Ernostar designs "Sonnars" for more than 60 years. The C/Y mount 135mm is no exception. http://www.contaxcameras.co.uk/slr/slrmanlenses/sonnar135.html</p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Penny, get the Sonnar 135/2.8. The adapter is less of a pain to deal with than the screw mount Takumar (if you will latter want more lenses in the same mount). I also think that overall the Zeiss lens is optically better. I think you can shoot it hand-held. Tripods are generally not necessary, unless you are in a studio or shooting landscapes. In those case you would want a tripod no matter how light your lens is.</p>

[perry_cas]

<p>Mount this isnt an issue for me really. Actually have a few m42 lenses already, on the Zeiss it might actually be a problem as the whole barrel turns. But really, I dont care about the mount. As for tripods I shoot religiously with a tripod where i possibly can. This length at 1.5crop will be a 200mm, using the fuji focus peaking hand-held? Man, you have to try it to know!<br>

But thanks Alex for the info.<br>

Perry</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>I have the K version and it certainly is useable wide open with a perfectly flat field, but with noticeable CA and slight fuzziness that disappears by f8. But even f2.5 can be cleaned up very well in ACR to produce a good image. And for the price ($50-$100 on EBay) you can't beat it. But I've never used the Zeiss so have no idea how they compare.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>They both are excelent lenses. You would be hard pressed to to tell them apart in 8x10 prints. I sold my Super Takumar 135mm version years ago in favor of the SMC Takumar 105mm f/2.8.<br>

One of the sharpest 135mm f/2.8 lenses I have ever used is a Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 in Olympus OM mount. It's made by Komine (28xxxx serial number) and I bought it new around 1976. I still have it and use it when I need a 135mm.<br>

The world is full of sharp 135mm lenses - Nikkors, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, and Olymus. They are cheap!<br>

What camera are you going to put it on? Find out which adapters are avialble and then do your search.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I couldn't see a Zeiss adaptor but it may be hidden under another name but I did find a M42 adaptor which would fit my lens ... but after reading above you cannot have it ... Sorry! :-)<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=Xpro1+adaptors">http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=Xpro1+adaptors</a><br>

Ebay seems to have more options than Amazon in these searches.<br>

I have MFT so it could be a faster 270mm lens than my Lumix 280mm at f/5.8 :-)</p>

 

[perry_cas]

<p>Thanks All I settled on the 6 element K series pentax.<br>

And finding adapters has been interesting as i looked at a variety of lenses and then for the adapters. It seemed easier to find one on Amazon and then use the info to search on ebay where there would then be multiples. Ebay just seems so precise sometimes its a bit annoying.<br>

Its been an interesting exercise and am now looking with suspicion at that E series 100mm Nikon I have. the 100 (150) Focal length is going to get more use than the (200).<br>

thanks again for the input. </p>