Pentax 135 F2.5 or 3.5 SUPER TAKUMAR ?

[Brad Bireley]

Is the 135 F2.5 SUPER TAKUMAR that much better then the 135 F3.5 SUPER TAKUMAR or the 135 F3.5 SMC TAKUMAR ?

 

[Paul Howell]

Is the 135 F2.5 SUPER TAKUMAR that much better then the 135 F3.5 SUPER TAKUMAR or the 135 F3.5 SMC TAKUMAR ?

Unless you need the speed once stopped down both a good performers, I have both but usually use the 3.5 as it is lighter.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

The f3.5 is wickedly sharp, dirt cheap, and uses the 49mm thread filters that are standard with most other Takumar lenses.

 

[Brad Bireley]

The f3.5 is wickedly sharp, dirt cheap, and uses the 49mm thread filters that are standard with most other Takumar lenses.

Is this both versions, the super & smc ?

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I've used only the SMC Tak, but on slow film it looks pretty pretty.

Softbox + reflector. Camera on tripod, f8 or f11, Ektachrome E100G (should have used the GX instead, the subject looks a little pasty). Cheap scan from the minilab's Fuji Frontier. No PS post-processing.

 

[Paul Howell]

Is this both versions, the super & smc ?

The 3.5 both super and smc have 49mm filter threads, the 2.5 super is 6 elements in 6 groups the smc is 5 elements in 5 groups and has either a 55 or 58mm filter, I cant recall off the top of my head. Wide open the 2.5 is very sharp for the day, and the Dept of Feild is much better than a 180 2.0.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I don't know about all of these lenses, but I own the 135mm f/3.5 SMC and it is a killer lens.
- Thomas

 

[cao]

The 3.5 both super and smc have 49mm filter threads, the 2.5 super is 6 elements in 6 groups the smc is 5 elements in 5 groups and has either a 55 or 58mm filter, I cant recall off the top of my head. Wide open the 2.5 is very sharp for the day, and the Dept of Feild is much better than a 180 2.0.

I don't think this is quite right. As I recall, Pentax made two versions of the 135/2.5 SMC Tak. The earlier one did indeed that 5 elements, but later they switched to a six element design which some say is sharper. This is not a frequently used lens for me, so I'm merely a parrot. Somewhere out there, probably on PDML, is the serial number break where the change from five to six elements occured.

 

[Paul Howell]

I don't think this is quite right. As I recall, Pentax made two versions of the 135/2.5 SMC Tak. The earlier one did indeed that 5 elements, but later they switched to a six element design which some say is sharper. This is not a frequently used lens for me, so I'm merely a parrot. Somewhere out there, probably on PDML, is the serial number break where the change from five to six elements occured.

I checked the Ashi Historical Group's web site, the 3.5 was only made in 5 lens in 4 elements, the 2.5 was made as 5 lens in 4 elements, and as 6 lens in 6 elements. My 3.5 is a late model super and the information that came with the lens says 5 lens in 4 elements. I was under the impression that the 135 3.5 super while multi coated but basically the same lens as late model SMC.