<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>RetroCamera &#187; m42-lens</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.retrocamera.net/tag/m42-lens/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.retrocamera.net</link>
	<description>Old retrocamera equipment in a digital photography world.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 10:13:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Review of Asahi Super-Takumar 135mm/3.5 M42-lens</title>
		<link>http://www.retrocamera.net/review-of-asahi-super-takumar-135mm35-m42-lens.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.retrocamera.net/review-of-asahi-super-takumar-135mm35-m42-lens.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:12:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Mattias</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Lensreviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[135mm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asahi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[m42-lens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[super-takumar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[takumar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.retrocamera.net/?p=631</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#8217;s any good&#8230; The purchase As usual with these [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;s any good&#8230;</p>
<div id="attachment_632" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 350px"><a rel="lightbox" href="http://www.retrocamera.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/super-takumar-135-angle.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-632" title="super-takumar-135-angle" src="http://www.retrocamera.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/super-takumar-135-angle-340x255.jpg" alt="Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, angleview" width="340" height="255" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, angleview</p></div>
<p><strong>The purchase</strong><br />
As usual with these old manual lenses it wasn&#8217;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 &#8211; 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.<span id="more-631"></span></p>
<div id="attachment_633" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 350px"><a rel="lightbox" href="http://www.retrocamera.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/super-takumar-135-back.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-633" title="super-takumar-135-back" src="http://www.retrocamera.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/super-takumar-135-back-340x253.jpg" alt="Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, mount" width="340" height="253" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, mount</p></div>
<p><strong>The lens</strong><br />
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&#8242;s.</p>
<p>I love the shape and the long focusring with a great grip. It has a switch for Auto/Manual and a small aperturepin &#8211; guessing that is for the Pentaxcameras. I haven&#8217;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.</p>
<div id="attachment_634" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 343px"><a rel="lightbox" href="http://www.retrocamera.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/super-takumar-135-front.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-634" title="super-takumar-135-front" src="http://www.retrocamera.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/super-takumar-135-front-333x340.jpg" alt="Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, front" width="333" height="340" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, front</p></div>
<p><strong>Results</strong><br />
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&#8217;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.</p>
<div id="attachment_635" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 350px"><a rel="lightbox" href="http://www.retrocamera.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/super-takumar-135-side.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-635" title="super-takumar-135-side" src="http://www.retrocamera.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/super-takumar-135-side-340x219.jpg" alt="Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, side" width="340" height="219" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Super Takumar 135mm/3.5, side</p></div>
<p>It is very easy to focus with, smooth and easy to see &#8211; 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 &#8211; wideopen it&#8217;s ok but stopped down even better.</p>
<p>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&#8217;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&#8242;s lens can be in such good shape as ALL the Super-Takumar 135mm I&#8217;ve seen. The Pentax-people take care of their gear.</p>
<p><strong>Images</strong></p>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 343px"><a rel="lightbox nofollow" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/2885945464_488b42eba7_o.jpg"><img title="Wood cranesbill" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3084/2885945464_0e2f6ee4ed.jpg" alt="Wood Cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum)" width="333" height="500" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Wood Cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum)</p></div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 510px"><a rel="lightbox nofollow" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/3016330200_4eb3684282_o.jpg"><img title="Nightime carpark" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/3016330200_1bdd78aa66.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="500" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text"> </p></div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 510px"><a rel="lightbox nofollow" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3146/2982113636_66b7a143bc_o.jpg"><img title="Bohemian waxwings" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3146/2982113636_a5e9a70fae.jpg" alt="Bohemian waxwings" width="500" height="500" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Bohemian waxwings</p></div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 385px"><a rel="lightbox nofollow" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3059/2981363853_7884d8b01c_o.jpg"><img title="Bohemian waxwing, 100% crop" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3059/2981363853_9a9fb03988.jpg" alt="Bohemian waxwing, 100% crop" width="375" height="500" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Bohemian waxwing, 100% crop</p></div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 360px"><a rel="lightbox nofollow" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2982247544_75858f3276_o.jpg"><img title="Portrait" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2982247544_7be3783ed0.jpg" alt="Portrait" width="350" height="500" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Portrait</p></div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 343px"><a rel="lightbox nofollow" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2887178444_5056f62058_o.jpg"><img title="Midsommarblomster" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2887178444_0e8ceaacb0.jpg" alt="Midsommarblomster" width="333" height="500" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Midsommarblomster</p></div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 510px"><a rel="lightbox nofollow" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/3143194333_2fbc65b075_o.jpg"><img title="Ice" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3244/3143194333_836a37137c.jpg" alt="Ice" width="500" height="348" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Ice</p></div>
<div class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 343px"><a rel="lightbox nofollow" href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/2886344075_e82d09913b_o.jpg"><img title="Autumn road" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3088/2886344075_8c9d57754b.jpg" alt="Autumn road" width="333" height="500" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Autumn road</p></div>
<p><strong>Pros<br />
</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #339966;">Easy to focus</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #339966;">Sharp</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #339966;">Good bokeh</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #339966;">Nice colours</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #339966;">Good construction</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #339966;">Cheap (well&#8230; depends of your luck of course)</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #339966;">Easy to find</span></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Cons<span style="color: #ff0000;"><br />
</span></strong></p>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #ff0000;">Definately needs a hood, preferably original of course!</span></li>
<li><span style="color: #ff0000;">Contrast can be a bit lower then other Takumars in some circumstances, but that can be good thing.</span></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Reading</strong></p>
<p><a title="On Pentaxforums" href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/showproduct.php?product=277&amp;cat=24" target="_blank">Reviews on Pentax-forums</a><br />
<a title="On Mflenses" href="http://www.mflenses.com/index.php/Asahi-Pentax-Takumar/Asahi-Pentax-Super-Takumar-135mm-f/3.5-Lens-Review.html" target="_blank">Review on MFlenses</a><br />
<a title="On Pbase" href="http://www.pbase.com/knickles/tak135" target="_blank">PBase</a><br />
<a title="Jens Jacob at Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jakerollo/sets/72157604903903739/" target="_blank">Jens Jacob at Flickr</a></p>
Similar Posts:<ul><li><a href="http://www.retrocamera.net/review-asahi-super-multi-coated-takumar-55mm18.html" rel="bookmark" title="February 4, 2009">Review of Asahi S-M-C Takumar 55mm/1.8</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.retrocamera.net/review-pentacon-electric-135mm-f28-m42.html" rel="bookmark" title="August 9, 2008">Review of Pentacon Electric 135mm f2.8 M42</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.retrocamera.net/review-of-asahi-auto-takumar-85mm18.html" rel="bookmark" title="December 8, 2008">Review of Asahi Auto Takumar 85mm/1.8</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.retrocamera.net/review-of-pentax-super-takumar-35mm35.html" rel="bookmark" title="August 21, 2008">Review of Pentax Super Takumar 35mm/3.5</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.retrocamera.net/review-of-yashica-ml-50mm2.html" rel="bookmark" title="November 16, 2008">Review of Yashica ML 50mm/2</a></li>
</ul><!-- Similar Posts took 4.680 ms -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.retrocamera.net/review-of-asahi-super-takumar-135mm35-m42-lens.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

