I had the Takumar-K 135/2.5 and SMC-Pentax FA135/2.8 at the same time and did a bunch of comparison testing with them. Wide open, there was no competition at all: the Tak-K was junk compared to the FA135. Stopped down to f/8 or smaller, the difference was mostly gone other than the Tak-K's propensity to flare. For a Pentax DSLR, you need a *deep* lens hood to kill the flare. The only thing the Tak-K did better than the FA135 was manual focus (the FA135's internal focusing mechanism always felt loose and imprecise). I paid $27 for the Tak-K. For that money, it performs well, but that's not a lot of money.
Much later, with both of those lenses long gone, I acquired a Pentax SMC-Takumar 135mm f/3.5 lens in M42 screw mount. This is a better performer than either of the above, wide open, and is what I use today on a mount adapter with the E-1 or G1 bodies. I even use it on a 1.4x teleconverter with superb results (making a 190mm f/4.9 lens, a nice very-long lens for FourThirds format, 35mm Equivalent FoV around 380mm focal length). Less chromatic aberration, better corner sharpness, etc, than either of the above two lenses. A friend of mine gave it to me, rescued from the garbage bin at the local Good Will. Far as I'm aware, the SMC Takumar 135/3.5 and the Pentax-M SMC 135/3.5 are both super performers although they do not share lens designs at all. That's what I'd buy ... if I couldn't get a Pentax-A* 135/1.8, that is. ;-) -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
