Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,682   Posts: 1,548,519   Online: 864
      
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Brad Bireley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    572
    Images
    181

    Pentax 135 F2.5 or 3.5 SUPER TAKUMAR ?

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

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Bireley View Post
    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.

  3. #3
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    The f3.5 is wickedly sharp, dirt cheap, and uses the 49mm thread filters that are standard with most other Takumar lenses.
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  4. #4
    Brad Bireley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    572
    Images
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by mhv View Post
    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 ?

  5. #5
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    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.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails SMC Tak 135 f3.5.jpg   Detail.jpg   Detail2.jpg  
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad Bireley View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,293
    Images
    302
    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
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  8. #8
    cao
    cao is offline
    cao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Howell View Post
    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.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by cao View Post
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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