Reaction by Paul Fox on the 135/2.5 mailthread
Hi all, this is from Paul Fox who had an excellent response. He may join us, but for the moment couldn't work out how to join. I showed him the way... :-) Paul Delcour From Paul Fox: I just found the thread on pentax discission forum but I don't know to reply.. Anyway : 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 First : The 1.8 is the best of them all but nearly noone will sell it (by good reason !). The second best is the K 2.5 (that U mentioned being on ebay) 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... (and they support my opinion about the K 2.5 being one of the best 135 in the world and the 3.5 being good but not phantastic). The A 2.8 is really not a good lens ! 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. 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... o.K. : I've been making indoor sport shots with it and portraits as well and this lens lens was very good in both cases. I just sold it because I could get the K 2.5 and that is really heavy ! - but for indoor sports a little bit better (even not THAT much !). 40 EUR is a fair price for the Takumar ! The K 2.5 mostly sells for 60-90 Euro on ebay. You have to decide whether this extra money is it worth for you ! 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 ! Kind reagrds Paul Fox
Re: Reaction by Paul Fox on the 135/2.5 mailthread
Hi, now there's only missing the F/FA 135/2.8[IF] in his comparison! What do we know about it? All the best Thomas Hi all, this is from Paul Fox who had an excellent response. He may join us, but for the moment couldn't work out how to join. I showed him the way... :-) Paul Delcour From Paul Fox: I just found the thread on pentax discission forum but I don't know to reply.. Anyway : 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 First : The 1.8 is the best of them all but nearly noone will sell it (by good reason !). The second best is the K 2.5 (that U mentioned being on ebay) 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... (and they support my opinion about the K 2.5 being one of the best 135 in the world and the 3.5 being good but not phantastic). The A 2.8 is really not a good lens ! 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. 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... o.K. : I've been making indoor sport shots with it and portraits as well and this lens lens was very good in both cases. I just sold it because I could get the K 2.5 and that is really heavy ! - but for indoor sports a little bit better (even not THAT much !). 40 EUR is a fair price for the Takumar ! The K 2.5 mostly sells for 60-90 Euro on ebay. You have to decide whether this extra money is it worth for you ! 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 ! Kind reagrds Paul Fox
Re: Reaction by Paul Fox on the 135/2.5 mailthread
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
