| Author: | | Showing Reviews 1-14 of 14 | | Site Supporter Registered: September, 2010 Location: Northeast Philadelphia Posts: 599
2 users found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: April 17, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $135.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Color, contrast, sharpness, brightness | | Cons: | A little bit of PF in high contrast situations | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I want to give this lens a little bump in rating because I'm fairly sure that a lot of forum users' first impression of any lens review is based on the average rating they see in the list view in each lens section.
There has been a good amount of talk comparing this lens to the Takumar (Bayonet) 1:2.5 135, suggesting that they are the same optically. While they do look alike, my initial impressions of the A 135 f/2.8 don't agree with this assumption. Since I currently own the Takumar, the M 135 f/3.5, and the A 135 f/2.8, I thought I would run a little comparison in high-contrast situations and see what shakes out.
Here are two series of three photos each. I tried to keep the settings the same across all three lenses.
Series 1:
Takumar (Bayonet) 1:2.5 135mm
SMC Pentax-M 1:3.5 135mm
SMC Pentax-A 1:2.8 135mm
Series 2:
Takumar (Bayonet) 1:2.5 135mm
SMC Pentax-M 1:3.5 135mm
SMC Pentax-A 1:2.8 135mm
As you can see, the Takumar is less contrasty than the other two. This is consistent with its non-SMC components. The A has warmer colors, which is comparable to the only other A series lens I own — the 28mm f/2.8. The M has cooler colors, which is consistent with my other M — the 50mm f/1.4. The A has good contrast, at least equal to the M, maybe better. And the A is sharper wide open than the M, in my experience.
I think that the SMC Pentax-A 135 1:2.8 is a highly underrated lens, and I'm not sure why. Maybe the reviewer who gave the lens a 6 got a bad copy. But I need to give this lens a 10 to offset that review.
| | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2011 Location: London UK Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: April 1, 2012 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: N/A |
|
Can I shed a little light on this? The lens was given a real stinker of a review on the now moribund (ie not updated) website http://stans-photography.info which has lengthy reviews and commentary on most of the Pentax lenses of yesteryear. I suspect that is the source of much of the low opinion/esteem in which it is held. I passed-up on buying one several times - though the prices were very reasonable - because of these comments, and I bought the K series SMC 135mm f2.5 instead, although heavier, older, and non-A. This lens (the one I bought) really is tack sharp and has given me some wonderful shots wide open. But maybe I will pick up an A2.8 if I see one now, given the positive comments here. It will have its uses!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2011 Posts: 66
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: January 22, 2012 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $95.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, great colors, build | | Cons: | manuial focus | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
great prime lens, real fun to shoot, really sharp
see some test photos and crops:
100% crop:
Bridge:
three 100% crops from Bridge:
Phone boot and people:
100% crop:
 | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: April, 2010 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 404
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: May 22, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $189.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Size, IQ, colour, contrast, easy focus, fast speed, bokeh | | Cons: | Not AF | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I managed to get a MINT copy of this lens for a very good price, and it is just a dream to use.
IQ is better than my K135/2.5, and also better than my DA* 50-135 at the 135mm FL.
Colour is warm like most other A series lenses, it is sharp from edge to edge at F2.8, CA and PF are undetectable. Razor sharp from F4.
Bokeh is very very good thanks to the 8 blade aperture.
I give this lens a 10, because my copy is in mint condition.
Perhaps others have given lower ratings because their copies are not so good.
Cheers from Jack.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: October, 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 2,131
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: June 25, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $140.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Compact, sharp, easy to focus, build | | Cons: | MF | |
If you compare a tele like this to a Tamron zoom like the 18-250, you would find that the length of this lens is like 1/2 the length of the zoom at this FL. Much lighter, faster and more discrete than any comparable zoom.
The only manual lens i carry. Bokeh is very nice and i find focusing is easy with my Katz eye split focusing screen.
To test my DA50-135 when i bought it, i compared both lens for sharpness at 135mm. I couldn't tell any difference in sharpness between the two at 100% crop, at 200% crop, the A 135 was slightly sharper. And i consider the DA*50-135 a professional quality lens.
Built-in hood is fast and easy to use. Don't know what else to tell you except i just like this lens for its reach, size and IQ.
| | | | | New Member Registered: September, 2009
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: September 25, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $20.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharpness, color, easy to focus, aperture | | Cons: | minimum focusing distance | |
I got this lens for almost free (someone who just wanted to tidy his mess).
It is said to be not as good as the different 135mm f3.5 versions.
However, the lens I have really surprises me each time I use it.
Pictures are very sharp, even wide open. Pictures are colorful, very bright. There is some 'pop' inside.
The lens is relatively compact.
The cons: minimum focusing distance is 1.2m, so it's hard to use it indoors. The focusing ring is very very long. It's quite easy to focus on static objects, but if you want to shoot people or animals, you have to be reactive!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2008 Location: NJ, USA Posts: 96
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: January 3, 2009 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Fast (2.8) and Light | | Cons: | CA | |
Funny thing about this lens... I have had it since 1985 and I thought it was one of the best lenses at this FL. But when the internet showed up, I kept reading about how this lens is one of the biggest disappointments in K mount history. But I still used it for digital imaging since I needed to shoot stage events in dark environments. Then the DA* 50-135 2.8 shows up and everybody says how great this lens is. I buy it and do a comparison to the old A 135 via the newsprint test.
Much to my surprise  , the A 135 lens at 2.8 had better edge peformance and about equal sharpness at the center. However, by f4 the DA* seems to surpass, but not by much. On other dimentions, the DA* did better (contrast, color, CA, etc). The A 135 has a bit of PF on digital. Ironically, my assement (not scientific) was consistent with the results on photozone for the 135 f2.5 -> even performance across the frame.
Not bad for a 25 year old lens that has not been designed for digital.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: May, 2007 Location: Singapore Posts: 3,721
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: May 11, 2008 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Pretty compact. Large focusing ring | | Cons: | Moderate sharpness wide open | |
This lens isn't that easy to find and has the very useful A setting that allows full auto exposure control at every mode. This lens seems to be underrated at some reviews but my copy is acceptably sharp. At maximum aperture, it can appear a little soft but image quality improves when stopped down. Build quality is first rate and it makes for a useful focal length on DSLRs due to the crop factor.
| | | | | Moderator
Site Supporter Registered: May, 2007 Location: East Coast Canada Posts: 9,714
1 user found this helpful
| | Lens Review Date: November 19, 2007 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Size, large focus ring image quality | | Cons: | a little CA a bit soft at wide open | |
I thought I'd add a review of this lens as there are none here. I no longer own it (I got the FA version) but it served me well on both film and digital. Some don't like the lens for some reason but I found it a good lens overall. It's fast although there are faster primes around (77mm, 85mm etc) that are sharper wide open. The lens was always sharp above f4. Showed great bokeh and was easy to focus in both formats. Images were nice and bright in the viewfinder.
It did exhibit a bit of CA on a DSLR with high contrast scenes. The CA is easily correctable but the softness at wide open requires some stopping down.
Good but not the best prime lens from Pentax.
| | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2012 Posts: 8 | | Lens Review Date: April 19, 2012 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $130.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | small, light auto aperture, super sharp | | Cons: | purple fringing is bad without a hood | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K01
| |
This is a small gem of a lens, seriously. its much lighter than i expected, having 4 elements instead of the 6 in the K135. it is sharp, almost as sharp as normal digitally optimised lenses surprisingly (compared to tamron 1750 @ f4), on film it is even better. details are very good, though contrast wide open is a little less than i like, though tt can be solved by processing or stopping down. same thing for purple fringing too. f4 is excellent for most portraits, but 2.8 is jus fine too. bokeh is smooth and round thanks to the 8 aperture blades, and i love the rendering of this lens. plus u save on a lens hood cos its built in i believe its worth at least a 9, so i'm putting a 10 for this to balance it out | | | | | Senior Member Registered: July, 2011 Posts: 212 | | Lens Review Date: October 12, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $14.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Color, bokeh, contrast, easy to focus, | | Cons: | Some aberations | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
I think this lens is much better than its reputation. It's great for taking portraits from a safe distance. I'm always amazed by the photos this lens produces. Wonderful colors, great contrast and beautiful bokeh. The build quality is good and solid. Because of the long focus ring precise focusing is very easy.
On the con side: In high contrast situations there is some CA and PF.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: May, 2010 Location: Hong Kong / Irvine, CA Posts: 256 | | Lens Review Date: July 24, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 9 |
|
I think this is also one of the underrated lens.
@f2.8, it is as sharp as M135@f3.5.
The color of the lens is wonderful.
 | | | | | New Member Registered: February, 2009 Posts: 7 | | Lens Review Date: June 28, 2011 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: N/A
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Very sharp and contrasty from f/2.8 | | Cons: | reputation, minimum focusing distance, long focusing | |
I agree with the two last reviews : I don't understand that someone gives 6 to this lens ! I'm sure in this case the glass has some deap layer of dust or haze ...
It's one of the very best of the A primes ! Very sharp and colorful, very contrasty from wide open, it's unbelievable with such a simple 4 elements design ! And I have two copies of this lens ...
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: March, 2009 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 482 | | Lens Review Date: September 16, 2010 | I can recommend this lens: Yes |
Price: $100.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Size, built | | Cons: | IMQ, color, not what I expected from a Pentax prime. | |
Bought it out of curiosity and would like to see the lens by myself. Spend an afternoon with it. After getting back home and reviewing the photos, I was surprised by the lens. It reminded me one of those lenses that I have sold. But I could not figure out which one. It is CERTAINLY not what K135 f2.5 looks like.
After reviewing kmp.bdimitrov.de, I suddenly realized what it was. It was Takumar Bayonet 135mm f2.5, which was sold a long time ago. Because they have the same optical formula, they produced almost the same images.
The color is a bit washed off. Contrast is a bit low at f2.8. CA is apparent at f2.8. It is very sensitive to lighting and the environment. The image is just less crisp and more "loose" than images from other typical Pentax lenses. It is not the Pentax "soapy" effect that I normally expect at the largest aperture. While SMC helps, the lens suffers a bit from excessive glare at f2.8.
Although I like the build quality and the size, I can not wholeheartedly recommend this lens. It reminds me of earlier generation Sigma zoom lenses that I used to have. I do not recall that I have used any Pentax fixed focal lens that produce such images. Can I say this is the worst Pentax prime (K-limited) that I have used so far?
I always know that Pentax was pretty bad at marketing. For instance, instead of making Takumar the top of the line in the K mount era, Pentax made Takumar the cheap line. Pentax created the *ist series. I could not find a way to either call the name or search the name in EBay. A bunch of creative geniuses.
But this is the first time I see how Pentax dumb down. Instead of using the K135 f2.5 formula, Pentax relied on the cheap Takumar Bayonet line...  | | |
