Pentax Takumar lenses, anyone?

[RobLewis]

So what is Takumar? I'm thinking of buying a 135mm F2.8 Takumar-M.
I want a longer lens in the bag than the standard 50mm. I'm a relative beginner, with tight budget, and this seems like a good deal. (it's $79)
Opinions?

Thanks

 

[Markok765]

A wonderful lens, i have the 105mm, is it scewmount?

 

[David Brown]

Assuming it's the proper mount for your camera, Takumars are Pentax's OEM lens and are generally quite good.

 

[Gerald Koch]

It all depends on what you want the lens for. There are two problems with 135 mm lenses. They are too long for portraits, for this purpose, anything from 80 to 105 mm is a better choice. The other problem is that they are often not long enough when you really want to bring a subject up close, say the bird on the branch across the street. For such situations a 200 mm is better.

This focal length is a compromise and good if you can only afford a single additional lens.

 

[Nick Zentena]

M means K mount. IIRC the Taks for the K mount were Pentax's lower grade. This was different then the M42 naming. Of course with my memory somebody will correct me-)

Tight budget?

Look for the Sears labeled lenses. The older ones were made by Ricoh. If you're lucky it'll be 1/3 of the price you mention. Even the ones labelled Ricoh are fairly cheap.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

I'm not entirely sure this is an M lens - according to my memory (and Pentax lens guide) the first time a 135 mm lens appeared as an f2.8 was as an SMC Pentax-A lens from the early 1980s. This puts it in the 3rd generation of Pentax bayonet-mount lenses (K, M, A). Assuming this lens is is excellent condition (don't buy a lens with any faults whatsoever, there are plenty of really good ones to choose from), $79 is a reasonable price and the SMC-A series lenses work without restriction with the auto exposure modes of later models (except of course they need to be focused manually when put on autofocus bodies).

PS: There has never been a "lower grade" of Pentax prime lenses (fixed focal lengths). All of these are excellent quality by the standards of the time when they appeared. The same does not apply to Pentax zoom lenses, the quality of which ranges from quite good to very nasty (some of the Pentax SMC-F autofocus zooms).

 

[RobLewis]

sorry to include a link to a non-sponsor- but here's the lens in question-
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...762&is=USE&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Thanks for the advice on the focal length Gerald- didn't think of it before you said it. It may be a wierd length, since multiple lenses are not in the budget. May be better off looking for a 105.

 

[Oren Grad]

For a while Pentax sold a K-mount 135mm f/2.5 (not f/2.8) lens under the name "Bayonet Takumar". This was considered an economy offering, though beyond some compromises in the mechanical construction and possibly the coating I'm not sure what other differences there may be compared to the mainline SMC Pentax 135mm f/2.5. Perhaps one of the comprehensive Pentax sites on the web will have more information.

I have one in my hand right now - I spotted it in a dealer's bargain bin quite a few years ago at some ridiculous price like $20 and figured it was worth it even as a souvenir. I've never gotten around to trying it, though.

 

[Nick Zentena]

You're usually better off buying used lenses off KEH. More choice and it seems better prices.

 

[DBP]

The 135/2.5 is $62 in EX condition at KEH. Looks like a better deal, and from a sponsor.

 

[Oren Grad]

sorry to include a link to a non-sponsor- but here's the lens in question-
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...762&is=USE&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Thanks for the advice on the focal length Gerald- didn't think of it before you said it. It may be a wierd length, since multiple lenses are not in the budget. May be better off looking for a 105.

Rob, the illustration at that link is indeed the 135/2.5 Bayonet Takumar. There was never a 135/2.5 in the SMC Pentax-M series, only a 135/3.5.

In the stated condition I don't think the price they're asking is especially attractive.

 

[RobLewis]

yes, upon further review, it's F2.5, not 2.8

 

[Dave Wooten]

Rob it is a good lens, I do use it and have one a couple of decades old....some of those Takumars were rare earth glass and I have used them for years....as noted for portrait for head and shoulders you might have to move back a bit but for full face it is great. Personally I like it and for the money you cant beat it....note the quality of this lens when you get it, the barrel mounting etc. also the lens is glass, many today are plastic, yep and it is not always noted....I also still shoot my original pentax spotmatic with the 50 1.4 I purchased in 1971..it has never been in the shop and today some of those photos are my favorite. the zoom 80 to 200 is great also and as noted fills a really good niche....go for it and post some prints...

by the way, that Pentax was the first really good camera I owned and it is still my favorite...I got it just up the road from you in Chicago at the old Marshall Fields store...

 

[BradS]

The specific lens listed has a filter ring dent - it has been dropped. No way is it worth that kind of money. Pass.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

I picked up a Sears 135mm 2.8 for pennies. It's a nice lens but limited. I wonder if the addition of a 1.5 tele-converter would help? Just a thought.

Mike

 

[Oren Grad]

OK, just to set the record straight, it turns out there was a 135/2.8 Bayonet Takumar as well as a 135/2.5. And both of the 135 Bayonet Takumars did have simpler optical designs and non-SMC coating, compared to the corresponding K and A series lenses.

For Pentax K trivia of all kinds, check out Bojidar Dimitrov's extremely informative website.

 

[buze]

Hold on, "K" is a bayonet mount, so how do you differenciate "bayonet" and "K" in your message?

I have a 135mm f2.5 "K" SMC and it's fantastic; very light, built in lens hood, excellent image quality...

 

[Nick Zentena]

Ya but the Tak are a different line from the SMC. Aren't they? Same K mount but built to a different price point.

 

[John Koehrer]

I thought the Taks were screw mt and the pentax-m etc were bayonet.
I've got 7 lenses in front of me & the only one that's a Tak is screw mt

 

[Oren Grad]

Nick is right. Takumar was the name on screw-mount Pentax lenses, but a few years after the K-bayonet was introduced, they started using the name "Bayonet Takumar" for a small series of bargain priced K-mount lenses.

 

[Elox]

Pentax also sold some Takumar-A lenses, primarily consumer zooms, that were also built to a cheaper price point. A local camera store used to sell the K1000 with the Takumar-A 28~80 zoom at an attractive price. There were also some Takumar-F autofocus lenses.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

On a value for money basis, it's well worth looking at Tamron Adapt-All lenses (primes rather than zooms). I bought quite a few recently, excellent quality, mint condition and generally priced at between £8 and £25 on e-bay (the only one I had to pay more for was a 17 mm f3.5, at £100).

 

[Mick Fagan]

David, I had the Tamron 17 mm f3.5 many years ago and loved it.

However, there was one problem with it when I started to use and enlarge colour negs. Colour fringing occurred so I moved it on and procured a beautiful Sigma 18 mm f2.8 which has been modified to take a 72mm filter.

That said, the 17 mm was really cheap for the bang it gave, I onsold it to a young photographer who was overjoyed with her new ultrawide.

The beauty of the Tamron lenses is the adapt-all mount. Once you have the mount for your camera, any adapt-all lens will fit any camera (within reason)..