My friend Daniel insisted I should have one of these, so I went and bought one from UK on ebay. Can you have enough of normal or short tele primes? ;) I started collecting Takumar lenses, so of course I needed the 135mm. Lets see if it’s any good…
Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, angleview
The purchase
As usual with these old manual lenses it wasn’t that much hat I payed, £8.50 + shipping £9.00. Later on I also got a hood from ebay, it need an original hood – makes a lot of difference. The hood was £7.95 + shipping £3. So if you buy a lens like this, get a hood too. Since I bought from a good seller in UK, there was no problem with shipping or the purchase. Avarage price on Pentaxforums.com is set to $38.
Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, mount
The lens
The Asahi Super-Takumar 135mm/3.5 is a M42-lens, short telephoto prime. The production year I can find at the moment is 1966, but I guess it was made for several years. Construction is of metal and it feels very well built, like most of the Asahi-lenses from the 60’s.
I love the shape and the long focusring with a great grip. It has a switch for Auto/Manual and a small aperturepin – guessing that is for the Pentaxcameras. I haven’t tried it on my Spotmatic-camera, just on DSLR. The Auto/Manual-switch can be used to stopp the lens down/open it while focusing.
Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, front
Results
My copy is sharp and has good very soft bokeh. Reading the opinions of others on the internet makes me think that there are quality difference in copies. Could also be an error behind the camera though, you never know for sure reading articles or posts on forums if it’s just a crap photographer ;) But as I said, I like the bokeh and sharpness. If you get the right depth of field this can be magic.
Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, side
It is very easy to focus with, smooth and easy to see – which is great for a manual lens with f 3.5, slow manual lenses can often be hard to focus in a small viewfinder like my EOS 350D. The chromatic aberration is not that bad. It can be very sharp – wideopen it’s ok but stopped down even better.
I have this 135mm and a (Carl Zeiss) aus Jena Sonnar 135mm/3.5 in the Zebra version and have a hard time choosing. The Super-Takumar weighs a whole lot less comparing to the aus Jena, and is more tender built. I guess it’s mood of the day that decides which to go with. No doubt the buildquality in the Takumar is superior. I find it amazing how a 60’s lens can be in such good shape as ALL the Super-Takumar 135mm I’ve seen. The Pentax-people take care of their gear.
Images
Wood Cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum)
Bohemian waxwings
Bohemian waxwing, 100% crop
Portrait
Midsommarblomster
Ice
Autumn road
Pros
- Easy to focus
- Sharp
- Good bokeh
- Nice colours
- Good construction
- Cheap (well… depends of your luck of course)
- Easy to find
Cons
- Definately needs a hood, preferably original of course!
- Contrast can be a bit lower then other Takumars in some circumstances, but that can be good thing.
Reading
Reviews on Pentax-forums
Review on MFlenses
PBase
Jens Jacob at Flickr
Looks very good, and some fine images too,as always. I would recommend if you can get one cheap, the Jupiter 37A, and try it against the CZJ and Takumar. I sold my Sonnar cos I felt the Jupiter was better, unfortunately prices are now rising fast. I would love to see your opinion on it compared to the Takumar I think they would complement each other well
http://www.ussrphoto.com/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1150 there are a cuople of my images here
Thanks, I hope I’ll get in the position where I can buy again :) The Jupiter sure looks interesting.
Based on its serial number, 846894, shown in one photo above, this lens has the original Super Takumar 135mm/3.5 lens formula (5 elements in 4 groups). Somewhere around 1967, the design was changed to 4 elements in 4 groups. Possibly, this gave the later design a different bokeh characteristic. I think the original design also had “4″ marked on the aperture ring between “5.6″ and “3.5″, whereas the the later one lacked the “4″.
Wow, great information :) It does have a “4″.