The worst lens I've ever had.


mowog

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 19:25
Yesterday, I did a sharpness test of three 135mm lenses, by photographing a large weight chart. The three lenses were: SMC-M 135. f3.5,. Zeiss Jena 135.f3.5,. And Takumar bayonet 135. f2.5.

The first two performed pretty well, with the Zeiss Sonnar being a little better than the M, at all stops. Pretty much as I'd expected. What I didn't expect, was just how bloody awful the Takumar is!. It is a terrible lens. Soft as hell wide open, and only very slightly better at the supposedly best stops of f5.6 and f8. - A pity, because It's a lovely looking lens. Heavy and well made. I bought it a few months ago, but only got round to puting it on a camera, yesterday.

I do not recommend my fellow members here, to buy one. Especially this one, when It goes back on ebay, soon!
No man is worth his salt, who has not been banned from at least one Forum, and two Flickr groups.

Mowog.

Daniel Bridge

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 19:50
I assume you haven't got any filters on the lenses. Not doubting that there's the possibility of this lens being awful, but just checking.

Dan
K-3, a macro lens and a DA*300mm...

mowog

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 20:11
No filters. All very scientific it was... Tripod, remote release, exact distance from target, and all that.

If you want your DA*300mm tested... Send it to me, and I'll return it in a couple of years, with a full report.
No man is worth his salt, who has not been banned from at least one Forum, and two Flickr groups.

Mowog.

Dangermouse

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 20:16
That sounds like the general opinion on the other site's review section...

Many on ebay seem to confuse it with the K 135mm f2.5, which is a completely different lens and by all accounts a much better performer.
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.

mowog

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 20:41
Ah!.. Didn't know about that! - Could have saved myself the trouble, then.

One interesting quirk that I discovered, is that the M seems to be sharper wide open, than at f8!? Very odd.
No man is worth his salt, who has not been banned from at least one Forum, and two Flickr groups.

Mowog.

stu49

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 20:45
Been dismantled perhaps !? and wrongly reassembled !!

Stu - K10D | DFA 100/2.8 Macro | DA 55-300 | AF-360FGZ |

So much to learn... So little time !

mowog

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 21:14
Possible, I suppose, but this one doesn't look like it's ever been apart.
No man is worth his salt, who has not been banned from at least one Forum, and two Flickr groups.

Mowog.

thoughton

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 22:18
I accidentally bought a Takumar bayonet 135mm f2.5 once, the seller was specifically advertising it as a Pentax 135 f2.5. No mention of the word Takumar anywhere. I eventually got a refund for misdescription, but I did try the lens out and it didn't seem especially terrible, I just didn't think it was worth the 70 I had paid. Perhaps yours had something else wrong with it?
Tim
AF - Pentax K5, Sigma 10-20/4-5.6, Tamron 17-50/2.8, Sigma 30/1.4, Sigma 70-200/2.8, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6
MF - Vivitar CF 28/2.8, Tamron AD2 90/2.5, MTO 1000/11
Stuff - Metz 58 AF1, Cactus v4, Nikon SB24, Raynox 150, Sigma 1.4x TC, Sigma 2x TC, Kenko 2x macro TC, Redsnapper 283 tripod, iMac 27, Macbook Pro 17, iPad, iPhone 3G
Flickr Fluidr PPG Street Portfolio site
Feel free to edit any of my posted photos! If I post a photo for critique, I want brutal honesty. If you don't like it, please say so and tell me why!

johnriley

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 22:52
It's a perfectly acceptable lens, so there is every chance that the "terrible" lens in question was a damaged example.
Best regards, John

JonSchick

Link Posted 15/08/2010 - 23:05
I've seen some decent enough shots out of the Takumar - it's not as good as the SMC-K, but it shouldn't be terrible. Sounds like something is wrong with it.
Jon

Some occasional random stuff at The Photographers Block: link

mowog

Link Posted 16/08/2010 - 00:11
Yes, I thought there must be something wrong with it, too. I dismantled it to see if there was anything obviously wrong. It is as simple a lens as you are likely to find. Just four elements. Nothing can be put back wrongly. Nothing was broken, or loose. I cleaned each element and reassembled. Still terrible! What could go wrong with such a simple lens? Nothing is in the wrong place. Indeed, it would be physically impossible to put it back together in any other way than the way it's supposed to go. I have dismantled and cleaned many more complicated lenses than this, without affecting the optical performance of them.

There must be something, though, eh!. Surely they wouldn't let a lens this bad out of the factory?
No man is worth his salt, who has not been banned from at least one Forum, and two Flickr groups.

Mowog.

Dangermouse

Link Posted 16/08/2010 - 00:26
I'm always a little dubious about the reviews over there, as they've rubbished a couple of lenses that I rather like (the M 40-80mm for one). Some of the comments are things like "I won't give this full marks because it isn't a Ltd" or complaints about the way a lens handles, which have nothing to do with the image quality.
Matt

Shooting the Welsh Wilderness with K-m, KX, MX, ME Super and assorted lenses.

Pwynnej

Link Posted 16/08/2010 - 08:43
I once owned a Tak bayonet 135 f2.5... I didn't think it was so bad...

Sold onto another Pentax User (not on here) because... you can see from my sig why....
Z-1p, K-1, P50
F50 1.7. FAs 24, 35, 50 1.4, 85, 135. DFA15-30, DFA24-70, D-FA*70-200. D-FA 100 (gone now!). The SMC-FA Limited Trinity.
Metz 45 CL-4, AF500FTZ. AF540FGZ.
Some Mamiya and some Nikon

Algernon

Link Posted 16/08/2010 - 09:20
mowog wrote:
Ah!.. Didn't know about that! - Could have saved myself the trouble, then.

One interesting quirk that I discovered, is that the M seems to be sharper wide open, than at f8!? Very odd.

Sounds like there might be something wrong with the type of test you are doing or possibly the lens isn't stopping down.

Are you sure the Takumar stopped down correctly? I've seen some decent shots with that lens. It was very cheap though sold in just a white box with no markings.
Half Man... Half Pentax ... Half Cucumber

Pentax K-1 + K-5 and some other stuff

Algi

sam-joseph

Link Posted 16/08/2010 - 10:43
I've got a Tak, and it seems to be pretty good, when I keep it indoors, or in low light. Flare is a major problem, due to the lack of SMC coatings, otherwise, use the hood every time, and don't look directly at bright areas.
Regards
Sam-Joseph
Pentax K7, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 APO EX, Sigma 70-300 APO, Sigma 1.4x TC, Vivitar 2x TC. Takumar 135mm f2.5, SMC Pentax A 50mm 1:1.7, SMC Pentax -M 1:4 200mm, Pentax X70
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.