Porst Tele MC Auto D 135mm 2.8 vs M 135mm 3.5

HoBykoYan · 11-15-2010, 09:54 PM

Dear All,

Which one is better IQ wise and Bokeh.

Any experiences with Pentacon 135 they call bokeh monster?

Need help asap, i wanted this range.

Thanks

m42man · 11-16-2010, 03:21 AM

I don't know anything about the Porst, other than what I read here:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-beginners-corner-q/108320-regardin...nual-lens.html

You may find this helpful.

Regarding the M135/3.5, I have one of these, amongst several other 135s, and really like the fact that it's much smaller and lighter than the others. This makes it a popular choice for putting on my camera!

I'm happy with the IQ of this lens (I haven't any images which have "awkward" bokeh situations), but would expect my S-M-C Takumar, Pentax K and Carl Zeiss Jena versions of 135/3.5 to outperform it in a controlled comparative test (which I haven't yet got round to doing).

Just to summarise the salient features of the 135s I mentioned:

M135/3.5: very compact and lightweight
K135/3.5: excellent IQ, slightly heavier to focus
S-M-C Tak: excellent IQ, wonderful smooth focusing, lovely build quality, but M42
CZJ: excellent IQ, all controls heavier, poorer build quality, M42 of course

If you're after nice soft bokeh, I'm thinking that the CZJ might be your best (but most expensive) option:

Bokeh Test

Do note that it can be difficult to provoke "bad bokeh" in real-life situations, and that a lens which is known for "bad bokeh" may actually perform satisfactorily most of the time. And bokeh is a subjective thing, anyway.

joe8 · 01-23-2019, 04:57 AM

The best PORST 2.8/135 is the Auto N, because of its 5/4 elements contruction. auto D has only 4/4 lenses and is not so extremely sharp as AUT N !!! Auto D is fequerntly found, Auto N is very rare !!!

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-24-2019, 05:08 AM

A very long time ago, I did a comparison between 3 different 135mm lenses

I shot with a Pentax 135/3.5, a rikenon 135/2.8 and a tele lentar 135/2.8 preset.

What I noticed was with the preset lens, I suspect due to optical formula and aperture placement much more forward, that while depth of field at any aperture was the same, the rendition of the farther subjects away from the plane in focus was markedly different than more modern lenses where the aperture is much closer to the rear of the optical group.

Check out the discussion posted in 2010 in the 135 mm lens club, around post 250 in the thread. My comparative photos are still there.

11-15-2010, 09:54 PM	#1
HoBykoYan Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: HCMC Posts: 271	Porst Tele MC Auto D 135mm 2.8 vs M 135mm 3.5 Dear All, Which one is better IQ wise and Bokeh. Any experiences with Pentacon 135 they call bokeh monster? Need help asap, i wanted this range. Thanks

01-23-2019, 04:57 AM	#3
joe8 New Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 14	Porst AUTO N or AUTO D ? The best PORST 2.8/135 is the Auto N, because of its 5/4 elements contruction. auto D has only 4/4 lenses and is not so extremely sharp as AUT N !!! Auto D is fequerntly found, Auto N is very rare !!!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Regarding Porst 135mm f2.8 PK Manual Lens	gut1kor	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	05-27-2020 02:37 AM
Tokina Tele-Auto 135mm f2.8. Can anyone tell me something about it?	fikkser	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	11-08-2010 12:12 AM
Auto Tele Lentar 135mm 1:3.5	Swift1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	03-17-2010 09:22 AM
Weltblick auto tele 135mm f2.8?	ducdao	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	12-10-2009 09:04 PM
For Sale - Sold: Porst 135mm/1.8 MC for Pentax K	pspentax	Sold Items	18	03-17-2009 04:43 PM

11-16-2010, 03:21 AM	#2
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 623	I don't know anything about the Porst, other than what I read here: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-beginners-corner-q/108320-regardin...nual-lens.html You may find this helpful. Regarding the M135/3.5, I have one of these, amongst several other 135s, and really like the fact that it's much smaller and lighter than the others. This makes it a popular choice for putting on my camera! I'm happy with the IQ of this lens (I haven't any images which have "awkward" bokeh situations), but would expect my S-M-C Takumar, Pentax K and Carl Zeiss Jena versions of 135/3.5 to outperform it in a controlled comparative test (which I haven't yet got round to doing). Just to summarise the salient features of the 135s I mentioned: M135/3.5: very compact and lightweight K135/3.5: excellent IQ, slightly heavier to focus S-M-C Tak: excellent IQ, wonderful smooth focusing, lovely build quality, but M42 CZJ: excellent IQ, all controls heavier, poorer build quality, M42 of course If you're after nice soft bokeh, I'm thinking that the CZJ might be your best (but most expensive) option: Bokeh Test Do note that it can be difficult to provoke "bad bokeh" in real-life situations, and that a lens which is known for "bad bokeh" may actually perform satisfactorily most of the time. And bokeh is a subjective thing, anyway.

01-24-2019, 05:08 AM	#4
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	A very long time ago, I did a comparison between 3 different 135mm lenses I shot with a Pentax 135/3.5, a rikenon 135/2.8 and a tele lentar 135/2.8 preset. What I noticed was with the preset lens, I suspect due to optical formula and aperture placement much more forward, that while depth of field at any aperture was the same, the rendition of the farther subjects away from the plane in focus was markedly different than more modern lenses where the aperture is much closer to the rear of the optical group. Check out the discussion posted in 2010 in the 135 mm lens club, around post 250 in the thread. My comparative photos are still there.