Few days ago I acquired the M42 mount Pentax Asahi Takumar 135mm f3.5.
As I am not overly familiar with all sorts of mounts (I can barely recognise an EOS mount..hehe) I would like to post a small request:
I would be immensely grateful if anyone in posession of this lens could post a photo of the rear of the lens? Preferrable on angle, so that it would be possible to spot element closest to sensor?
I am doing few searches at the moment, but chances are I am unlikely to find any satisfactory results.
I would think it is a manual version only. On canon, using M42 adapter, the pin is going to be "IN" all the time. On Pentax cameras or those M42 mount there is a mechanism that push the pin in just when you take the picture, when the lens is use on auto mode.
I see! That would explain absense of the AUTO switch aswell.
Well, no harm - focusing manually anyway and no problem focusing to infinity, I suppose...:-)
I also just found the link as I refreshed the thread! Thank you for your help.
The absense of pin on the mount confused me. Nevermind that though.
I came across comments such as SMC Takumars are more prone to flare compared to the older Takumars, otherwise optically they are just as sharp.
SMC Takumars are LESS prone to flare than the older Takumars, as Multi-coating reduces flare.
The older Super-Takumars and Takumars are more flare prone and lower contrast but just as sharp as the SMC Taks in most cases (the exceptions usually differ optically as well, like the 28/3.5, which had a lower-performance version in Super-Tak form as well as a newer version of the same design as the SMC Tak)
Always had a thing for the Super-Taks myself. Just a beautiful look to them. Kinda miss my set of S-T's at times.
I found one SMC Takumar in good condition some time ago, but was too slow and it was sold to somebody else.
The only alternative I found is one scratched beyond recognition in a "Junk" corner of a 2nd hand shop...
I found few 2.5 but at 3 times the price that of 3.5 I'd rather skip.
Apparently 2.5 got lots more CA than 3.5. Not sure how true that is as I haven't compared them side by side.
Looking for a 90mm Tamron (52BB) incl. macro ring and is curious about testing the Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 1:3,5/135. Found the latter in a great condition for 200 USD equiv.
I have both the 135 f2.5 and 135 f3.5 Super Takumars. Both are multicoated, but not super multicoated (if that makes sense). I really don't know what the difference between the older multi-coating and the SMC coatings is. You can tell a lens is multicaoted when it has a wild array of colors reflected from the lens elements and it reflects multiple colors. Single coated lenses tend to reflect pale blue or purple though there are other colors generally pale, and the lens elements reflect basically the same color throughout.
Anyways, about the 135 2.5 vs 135 3.5. The two lenses are significantly different. The 3.5 is tack sharp, not so with my 2.5. However the 2.5 has a soft beautiful almost glowing bokeh, while the 135/3.5 is more structured and hard edged.
You don't need to waste money on a kindai adapter, you only need those for very thin and tricky mounts like Contax or Rollei mounts. For thick mounts like M42, Leica, Olympus or Nikon cheap adapters are the way to go.
Qwerty64 wrote:
You don't need to waste money on a kindai adapter, you only need those for very thin and tricky mounts like Contax or Rollei mounts. For thick mounts like M42, Leica, Olympus or Nikon cheap adapters are the way to go.
So far I found that Kindai is a cheapest option here in Japan. M42 adapter costs rougly 5.000yen while adapter I was going to buy in the store which sold me the Tak was 8.000.
Ofcourse, there are few el-cheapo ones but I there were lot of complaints about those (Chinese made).
Maybe I am wrong..
Marcel VanEerd wrote:
With my adapter the lens pin is not pushed in, nor is it when placed on the body.
There are flanged and un-flanged adapters, of course. With the Taks, you usually don't need a flange because they have the "Man." switch which forces the blades closed. With various other M42 mount lenses, the flange is required to push the pin in, due to the absence of the switch.
The OP's lens is a "preset" lens, which came long before the days of auto aperture. Hence, no pin and no switch.
One aperture ring is used to preset the desired shooting aperture and the secondary ring is used to stop the lens down just before shooting. When this lens was made, stop-down metering was all the rage.
Over the years, living in Japan (1964-1967). I noticed the Pentax camera line was extremely popular with the locals. I believe part of the reason was their price structure, a bit below Canon and Nikon. Everywhere i went-it seemed almost everyone was using Pentax. I remember a 135 F2.5 Tak, that i believe later came out as a kit lens on a body in K-mount. Its counterpart SMC Pentax 135 F2.5, i believe was indeed superior. I used Pentax screw lenses on my German made Edixa. Very nice glass indeed.
Cheers
Harry
I see a fair bit of Pentax and Olympus around. It's far from Canon v Nikon as in Europe for instance (can't speak for USA).
There is a lot of old glass available still in many shops. When it comes to TAK I have seen plenty 2.5 around, but it appears that 2.5 got a lot of CA. The difference between 2.5 and 3.5 in price is about 10.000 yen, so I am going for the cheaper option.
With 3 different versions of 135mm Takumar, the acceptable price and quality (I would say it's not as much "near mint" as it is "mint") the lens was a given choice.
Just got the Hansa adapter today and tested the lens.
Not extremely pleased, but not disappointed either.
Seems to be softer than my Sigma 150mm and Canon 50mm f1.4 and about mariginally sharper than my Canon 16-35mm L, however I might be doing something wrong. I opened the lens to f3.5 and also tested f5.6 There seem to be no difference in IQ.
No obvious CA. Bokeh is very pleasant. Color reproduction is nice - I might even say it is better than Sigma 150mm.
In my opinion Tak produces clearer difference between sharp and soft areas as opposed to my Canons and Sigma.
Test Shots (EXIF in the image) Centre 3x3 crop, No processing at all. Conversion done using Photoshop CS2 RAW plugin (yuck...bluergh (personal remark))..
Being the old, preset version, this is exactly what I would have expected. The optical design is different than the Super-Tak 135/3.5 and S-M-C-Tak 135/3.5.
Generally speaking, there is a trade-off between bokeh & sharpness. The earlier design is not nearly as sharp due to spherical aberration and low contrast, but the bokeh actually benefits from these aberrations.
The newer versions, particularly the S-M-C-Tak 135/3.5, are simply razor sharp from wide open (as some may have seen from my samples and some recent samples from "PeaktoPeak" (Paul). With that uber-sharpness and Zeiss-like contrast comes absolutely electrified bokeh. So crazy it is fun, in a way.
Disclaimer: There are certainly lenses that somehow defy the odds and have both excellent sharpness and bokeh.
