What are the thoughts on the 135/3.5 super Takumar (M42 mount)? Plenty cheap ones around…was thinking of getting one as I currently have nothing longer than 50mm.
I have this lens, got mine in 1966, have no ideas how many shoots I've taken with it, it is a fine 135, I have the 85, 105 and 150, I found that the 135 has nice reach, good for most situations, in door sports with fast film, not long enough for outdoor field sports or wildlife. Of the short teles I have in M42 the 150 is a length I use the lest often. Also inexpensive the 200, so the question is, what do you think you be shooting with it?
I have this lens, got mine in 1966, have no ideas how many shoots I've taken with it, it is a fine 135, I have the 85, 105 and 150, I found that the 135 has nice reach, good for most situations, in door sports with fast film, not long enough for outdoor field sports or wildlife. Of the short teles I have in M42 the 150 is a length I use the lest often. Also inexpensive the 200, so the question is, what do you think you be shooting with it?
Good question. What will I be shooting, I guess general family portraits outside and sometimes a bit of reach helps when at events, eg got some really nice shots with my M4 and the 135 Elmar-M at a motorsports event a while ago. I have an on off relationship with 135, it is the longest lens I like using, anything longer and it is just too remote. Will use it with an old Praktica, on a Canon EOS with an adapter and I’m lately having fun shooting my 55/2 Takumar on my Leica Monochrom, I’ll try it there too with some tubes for macro as well. (Sorry about mentioning the D-word).
When I use my Spotmatic, my 135mm Super-Multi-Coated Takumar gets a lot of use. It is well-made, inexpensive, uses the same 49mm filters as many other Takumar lenses, and is an example of 1960s and 1970s Japanese optical excellence. Some examples:
What are the thoughts on the 135/3.5 super Takumar (M42 mount)? Plenty cheap ones around…was thinking of getting one as I currently have nothing longer than 50mm.