|
|
|
-
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.
-
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.
-
 Originally Posted by darinwc
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.
-
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
-
Thank you very much. I have some of the oldest K mount Pentax body (KX's) and they didn't come with Takumar lens.
-
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
-
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
Always under construction. Currently:
Nikon: F5, F4, F2AS x2, F, FM2n, Nikomat FT2, FTn*, D200 (yes, off-topic) - cameras marked with a * are chrome - the rest are black
Lenses (Nikkor unless otherwise marked): 24/2.8 AF, 28/3.5 H, 35/2 O & AIS, 50/1.8 AF x2, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/1.4 S, 50/1.4 AI, 85/1.8 K, 135/3.5 Q, 200/4 Q, Samyang 18-28/4-4.5
My FB - My flickr stream
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
|
|
Adv Reply
