This test is for the 135mm macro that is SMC and Takumar with the metal focusing ring. I believe they went to the rubber grip(Pentax) in 1990? Optically, the Takumar is the same design as the current Pentax with the rubber grip. The 135 uses a 5 element Dynar design, composed of two achromats surrounding a negative element. The design is nearly symmetical, which is known to be best for close focus situatons. The focusing is very smooth and seems to be more effortless than the other lenses that I own. This lens requires either auto tubes, bellows or helicoid to do any close up work. Close focus without tubes is .75 meters. The lens seems to be built like a tank and is fairly heavy for its size. The 135 does well for infinity work and has the added f/32 DOF. This lens is optimized for close work but when stopped down for infinity work, has no problem with sharpness. F/4 infinity work could be a problem with sharpness but that is not how I use this lens and I doubt many users would either. In macro situations this lens does just fine. It gives some serious stand off distance that I don't always feel I need, but then again, Pentax also has a 100mm macro for less stand off. Certain subjects(snakes, lizards etc) will not allow either macro lens to be used and therefore higher magnification, non-macro lenses are needed with tubes. The sharpness of the 135 in macro work is quite good but what is more of a concern is the DOF. The depth seems paper thin when this lens is extended out quite far. This fact limits composition and that is why using a 35mm camera w/macro is so much easier. The magnification of the 135 with no tubes is .32x and with all three tubes it is 1.04x. The Pentax 100mm macro with f/32 should be worth owning. Anyone care to do a field test on this one? The 135 Macro does well in many situations, both at infinity and in close up work. My final test report on this lens will follow in several months. SR

-- Steve Rasmussen (srasmuss@flash.net), May 21, 2001