Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,597   Online: 857
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,050
    Images
    157

    Takumar Bayonet lenses

    Over the years I have handled a few "Takumar Bayonet" lenses for the pentax K mount.

    They all seemed to have terrible build quality, with a scraping sound as they focused or even disconnected mechanisms.
    I remember one lens (a 200mm zoom i think) was new in box, but still did not seem to work correctly.
    The box was labeled Takumar Bayonet and I think it was labeled Korea.
    I dont think it said pentax on it at all.

    Whats the story behind these lenses?
    Were these cheap knock-offs meant to mislead people into thinking they were pentax?
    Or just a 'first version' of pentax K mount lenses that were updated with better design in later years?
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    charleston sc
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    98
    Darin, I believe those are from the 80'2 or 90's when Pentax brought the takamur name back for a budget line of lenses. I think SMC Takamurs was the first k-mount followed by m then K. Build quality on those should be higher than the takamurs from the 80's.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Quote Originally Posted by darinwc View Post
    Over the years I have handled a few "Takumar Bayonet" lenses for the pentax K mount.

    They all seemed to have terrible build quality, with a scraping sound as they focused or even disconnected mechanisms.
    I remember one lens (a 200mm zoom i think) was new in box, but still did not seem to work correctly.
    The box was labeled Takumar Bayonet and I think it was labeled Korea.
    I dont think it said pentax on it at all.

    Whats the story behind these lenses?
    Were these cheap knock-offs meant to mislead people into thinking they were pentax?
    Or just a 'first version' of pentax K mount lenses that were updated with better design in later years?
    I don't think there were those lenses from Pentax. May be they are knock-offs? I think all Pentax K mount lenses are SMC Pentax only the M42 are Takumars and they are both of very high quality.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Medicine Hat
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    139
    No there were K mount Takumars and they were indeed budget lenses. Think they were all zooms . They were not the first K mount lenses which are considered K lenses and those were followed with the M series

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takumar

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Aurora, IL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    Thank you very much. I have some of the oldest K mount Pentax body (KX's) and they didn't come with Takumar lens.

  6. #6
    John_Nikon_F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Duvall, WA, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,447
    Images
    2
    The K-mount Takumars were also available in a 135mm focal length. Nothing to write home about, unlike the old Taks from the M42 years. The SMC Pentax lenses (original K mount lenses) were mostly based on the M42 mount Takumars. I'm not sure if the original SMC Pentax 50/1.4 had thorium in it, like the Super-Tak and SMC Tak versions that preceeded it, though.

    -J
    APUG: F4, F2AS, F, Nikomat FTn
    DPUG: D200
    Nikkors: 18-70/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX (f/D200), 24/2.8 AI, 50/1.4 AI, 85/1.8 K, 180/2.8 ED AIS, 300/4.5 ED AI

    My FB - My flickr stream
    My SmugMug

  7. #7
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    As I said in another thread recently, the Takumar (Bayonet) lenses were a disgrace to the Takumar name. I had one come apart in my hand when the tape holding it together failed. I've long been saddened that Pentax, renown for their optics, chose to put their name on numerous cheesy third-party lenses.
    I cannot understand why they resurrected Takumar for some of them either. Anyone who knew the real Takumar lenses would be offended, and to others the name would hold no meaning. They should have just called them K-raptastic and left Takumar alone.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    812
    There was also a 28. I have the 135/2.5. No one seeme to like it. When it's stopped down a little it looks fine. I would like to find a 135/2.5 SMC Pentax. There probably weren't very many made before the change to the M lenses. Luckily I have a 135/3.5 M lens and that seems sharp at all apertures. I can also use an older 135/2.5 Super Takumar with an adapter. Nikon had the E lenses, Konica had the Hexars, Yashica had the Yashikors, Minolta had the Celtics and Asahi had the Takumar Bayonets. They were trying to compete with Vivitar, Soligor, Sigma etc. Some of these less expensive lenses were identical optically to their more expensive counterparts and some were not. Not long ago many people wouldn't consider the less expensive models but the Pentax DSLRs and the MILC cameras gave sparked interest in the more exensive lenses and both kinds have gone up in price.

  9. #9
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,050
    Images
    157
    In the realm of 'consumer' lenses from top-tier companies, the Takumar Bayonets have got to be the worst.
    The Nikon Series E lenses are great lenses except perhaps the 28mm, which is still ok.
    I'm not a minolta user, but the Celtic lenses I've handled seemed well-built.
    Go not to the elves for counsel, for they will say both yes and no.

  10. #10
    rjbuzzclick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    258
    I have the 135/2.5 Takumar Bayonet as well. I've found it OK for some things, but my big complaint is its tendency to flare in strong light.
    Reid

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/

    "If I had a nickel for every time I had to replace a camera battery, I'd be able to get the #@%&$ battery cover off!" -Me

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin