1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

Pentax Super-Takumar 135mm f/2.5 vs Canon FD 135mm f/2.5?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by timothysoong, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    I dont own any of the lens, but I'm looking for opinions. Because I'm planning to get either one of them. If anyone who have read about them or owned them. Please reply here, I'd like to now as much as I can.

    I was also thinking of the Minolta Rokkor-X MD 135mm/2.8 but I'd want more bokeh, so I'd choose the f/2.5, cause its also within my budget.

    I'm siding towards the Pentax cause I'm not a fan of canon, but if canon is really better than the pentax in a lot of ways, I'd go with the Canon.

    Thanks
     
  2. RSilva

    RSilva Mu-43 Regular

    172
    Oct 24, 2011
    Portugal
    I had the 2.5/135mm Tak, it was to soft for me wide open. I bought the 2.8/120 Tak to replace it and it´s a much sharper lens plus it´s really small, I was impressed by it´s size, takes 49mm filters while the 2.5/135 uses 58mm - For m4/3 bodies it's perfect!
     
  3. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    do you have any examples of shots taken by both the lenses you've mentioned? thanks
     
  4. RSilva

    RSilva Mu-43 Regular

    172
    Oct 24, 2011
    Portugal
    Yes, I have some shots I did to compare the 85/1.9 to the 135/2.5 with a tripod. I did some shots with the 120/2.8 handheld and still I found it sharper. The only flaw of the 120/2.8 is that the minimum focus distance is 1,20m. You can find more extensive informations about this lens here:

    Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 120mm F2.8 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

    and here:

    Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR/Super-Takumar 135mm F2.5 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

    There are to 135/2.5 models! Maybe mine is the first model and softer since its only a Super-Takumar.

    I will try to post some photos.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. BarefootPilgrim

    BarefootPilgrim Mu-43 Top Veteran

    517
    Dec 23, 2009
    Westchester, IL
    Bob
    I use the Minolta 135 f/2.8 and find that it is too soft on my E-PL2, so you're probably best off avoiding that one. It was my "always mounted" lens on the SRT-101 and delivered fantastic quality with film. But it seems not to be very digital-friendly. Also very hard to focus without a monopod or tripod, since I cannot hold the thing steady enough to see the focus clearly with the m43 crop factor!

    Other Rokkors seem to do pretty well, but not the 135. For example, my Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 is stunning on the E-PL2 and so is the 35mm f/2.8 ('though I rarely use that focal length.)

    I'm not sure about the Canon, but I've seen shots from the Takumar 135/2.5 on a friend's E-P3 and they're marvelous (though the lens was stopped-down, not wide open).
     
  6. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Too soft? Do you have the MD Tele Rokkor-X version? Because I've seem MC Celtic version producing soft results.

    Hmm.. Takumar 135/2.5 was also being said to be too soft. I need a range from 80-150. But not too sure of which adapted lens to get for my GH2. =S And I'm going by brands, which means if I get an adapter for Takumar, I'm going to go all takumar for the rest of my adapted lens.
     
  7. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    Depends on which Minolta 135/2.8 you have, but indeed they're all a bit soft wide-open. I've had 3 MD 135/2.8 lenses (2 different optical designs) and they're both excellent once stopped down to f/4: no CA, sharp across the frame and punchy contrast.
     
  8. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Well do you have experienced with the Takumar 135/2.5, Takumar 135/2.8 & Canon FD 135/2.5.

    If so, could you tell me the difference of them in comparison with the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor-X 135mm/2.8 cause as for now I'm tempted to get this lens due to some reviews and good quality photos and of course I love the build quality of this lens.
     
  9. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    The difference in depth of field between f/2.5 and f/2.8, even if they're accurate (not likely) is minimal. It would probably be overshadowed by the quality of the out of focus area. The Minolta lenses have a really nice look.

    Fred
     
  10. RSilva

    RSilva Mu-43 Regular

    172
    Oct 24, 2011
    Portugal
    Takumar lens have a m42/1 mount also called the universal mount, there are millions of brands that use this mount: Carl Zeiss Jenna, Helios, Jupiter, Pentacon, Rollei, (Tokina/Cosina/yashica), Fuji, Hoya, Mamiya, etc
    Also, they are the more adaptable 35mm/slr lenses, you can use them in almos t any brand camera except Nikon.
     
  11. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    The adapters from Hongkong/China are so cheap that I found it worthwhile just to buy a bunch of adapters for various lens mounts, in my case that's Minolta/Contax/Olympus/Pentax K/M42/Canon/Konica/C-mount. It would be unnecessarily limiting your options IMHO if you want to stick to one mount/brand. That said, I mostly use Minolta MD lenses because I like them but on occasion I'll use my Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8 (Contax) because it's so good.
     
  12. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    Olympus 100mm f/2.8
     
  13. harrysue

    harrysue Mu-43 Regular

    164
    Mar 12, 2011
    I bought a Canon 135mm FD f2.5 SC for less than $50 from KEH.com two years ago. It's heavy, well made and typical good FD quality. Later non SC versions have more modern coatings. I do have a Takumar 135mm f3.5 that I bought four years ago for $15. It's a lot lighter but it's not your 2.5 version.

    I don't think you will find much difference in the two F2.5 lenses you mentioned. Sample variation may be a bigger factor than brand. Go with best price.

    Adapters are cheap. The FD mount is somewhat fiddly to attach to a lens, so a lot of owners prefer multiple adapters if they have more than one FD lens they like to use. Beats fumbling with them in the field.
     
  14. timothysoong

    timothysoong Mu-43 Veteran

    217
    Aug 10, 2011
    Taipei, Taiwan
    I ended up going with the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor-X 135mm/2.8