Jon,
I have owned the Takumar 135/2.5 once in the past. I bought one new off the shelf in 1982, paid about $80 in 1982 dollars for it. I was so disappointed in it's performance that I sold all my Pentax equipment a few months later. ( I was pressured somewhat in this by my two best friends who swore by Minolta and promised I could borrow any of their substantial collections of glass. ) The lens just wasn't sharp. From what I now know it would probably make a fine portrait lens, but I bought it for outdoor action photography. The f2.5 was nice, I got good fast shutter speeds. But I lost too much quality, it was just plain crippled by the lack of SMC.
By all means buy the lens if you want it, it is better than no 135mm lens at all. Just be aware of it's foibles. I'd offer the camera store the $40 for it, use it for a while to see if you like the focal length. Then I'd go hunting for the M 135/3.5 or the K 135/2.5 and be prepared to shell out a few more dollars for the higher quality.
My $.02 worth.
Mark Gosdin
Who caught a bargain on a >K< 135/3.5 and finds that it is more than good enough...
Jon M wrote:
Yet another reply gets eaten by the list... Attempt #2, here goes.
What about SMC Pentax-M f3.5 vs this non-SMC f2.5? I do want a fairly fast lens. I have a 50mm f2 and love it.
Anyway, this particular Takumar 135/2.5 seems to include a UV filter and Pentax front lens cap. I'm tempted to offer $40 for it if he throws in a rear lens cap as well. A similar lens in excellent condition is on sale at KEH for $45, no caps. I haven't seen a SMC f2.5 (that I've noticed, anyway), only the Pentax-A f2.8 which I want, but is expensive, and the f3.5 versions.
