I tend to agree with most of what Paul has passed on to us. > I have made my expperiences with many Pentax 135 lenses : > The 1.8 A, K2.5, K-Takumar 2.5, M42-Takumar 2.5, A 2.8, M 3.5
My 135mm experience is similar, except for the M 135/3.5, where my 135/3.5 is the K 135/3.5 (which is a different design). > First : The 1.8 is the best of them all but nearly noone will sell > it (by good reason !). Indeed. > The second best is the K 2.5 (that U mentioned being on ebay) Agreed. I have sometimes (here on the PDML) referred to the SMC K 135/2.5 as "the poor man's A* 135/1.8". Glass-wise, it shares the same optical design as the K 200/2.5 and the A* 200/2.8 (the only three Pentax lenses to share their particular configuration), and that's "pretty good company" to be in - <g>. > The 3.5 is not THAT good (in my opinion) - and that is supported > by a big 135 lens test in german ColorFoto magazin in the early > 80's. There were nearly all 135mm lenses... The ~K~ 135/3.5 that I have is quite good, but, similar to what Paul said about the M 135/3.5, maybe not ~that~ good. In any event, I would tend to usually take the K 135/2.5 over the K 135/3.5. > The A 2.8 is really not a good lens ! I had one of these a number of years ago - briefly - <g> - and I was surprised at how much better the "4 elements in 4 groups" design of the K 135/3.5 worked, compared to the "4 elements in 4 groups" A 135/2.5. > The M42-Takumar 2.5 I have is an SMC one and really great - but > not on same level as K 2.5 (maybe because it's older and the SMC > has been improved then). I use it with adaptor ring on my Canon > EOS that I'm using too. I used to have a screwmount SMC Takumar 135/2.5, and (from memory) I thought it was about the same as the SMC K 135/2.5 - not surprisingly, after all, since they are both basically of the same optical design - but I didn't own them both at the same time, so my comparison here may be a little weak in value. > The K Takumar is really not bad ! It's made quite fine, has > built-in lens hood (the K 2.5 and M42-Takumar or 1.8 don't have ! > you have to screw a lens shade on), is lighter, you have to beware > of flare - you should leave the sun behind you - not in front, > otherwise... The Takumar Bayonet is really not that bad a lens, within its non-SMC limitations, and should probably be rated as a "Consumer Reports Best Buy" - <g>. Well, except that those silly multicolored barrel markings always tend to "bug me" - <g>... > One thing : If you want to take portraits the K 2.5 may even be > too sharp and contrasty - every line in the face can be seen. > There the K-Takkumar is even smoother - many people liked > portraits with the K-Takumar even better ! In the past, I think that one or two PDML-ers might have said that they didn't find the SMC K 135/2.5 to be overly sharp, but my experience has been that it is quite sharp. But I tend to like sharp portraits (even though my subjects don't always agree - <g>)... Fred
