[jeztastic]

Hi,

I have read the bad reviews (and a few OK reviews) of this lens - but there is one in my local camera shop for £40, so I think it's worth a pop. From the reviews, I am guessing that it may be helped by a coated filter and a big lens hood. I am a bit of a newbie, so please could I have some recommendation/thoughts about good choices - also about whether this will make enough of a difference...

Thanks,

Jez

[Lowell Goudge]

look at B&W metal hoods from germany go for the 960 series, a little pricy, but very well made

[jeztastic]

Great, thanks. What about filters? I am looking at the HOYA UV(0) HMC Multi Coated - or that kind of thing?

[Mike Cash]

If memory serves correctly, the lens has a built-in hood. Have you tried using that?

[jeztastic]

Yes it does, but I was wondering whether it's big enough. I am going to be using it with a K10D, and the crop factor increases the focal length. So - a bigger lens hood than the built in one? I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but that's why I posted in the first place.

[unixrevolution]

Yes it does, but I was wondering whether it's big enough. I am going to be using it with a K10D, and the crop factor increases the focal length. So - a bigger lens hood than the built in one? I may be barking up the wrong tree here, but that's why I posted in the first place.

With the crop sensor increasing the focal length, you can actually use a narrower lens hood than what's reccomended, because even if it encroaches on the edges, you won't notice till the dark corners reach the cropped area.

I use mine with a screw-in 52mm rubber hood. it does okay at beating some flare but if I had my choice I'd get a long, narrow hood, or a screw in flower petal hood designed for a Tele lens. What I might consider is a step-down ring to 49mm, and a metal lens hood from a Takumar 135 f/3.5. In fact, i may try that as I have the appropriate gear to test it.

[jeztastic]

Thanks for the useful reply, I'd appreciate it if you let me know how the test goes. I think a flower petal lens sounds like a good option. Could you tell me your opinion of this lens? Have you reviewed it anywhere?

---

Last edited by jeztastic; 11-20-2010 at 04:17 AM.

[unixrevolution]

Thanks for the useful reply, I'd appreciate it if you let me know how the test goes. I think a flower petal lens sounds like a good option. Could you tell me your opinion of this lens? Have you reviewed it anywhere?

I have not officially reviewed it, but I think this lens is excellent. It's very fast, it has great bokeh especially wide open, beautiful color rendering and it's very sharp, all while being relatively small and lightweight for such a fast lens. The only downside is its tendancy to flare in bright light, which is fixable (as you surmised) with the right lens hood, something long but narrow, and possibly with a multicoated UV filter.

I paid $17 for mine on ebay, found out it was basically junk, then paid $60 to have it put right. If the one you see in that shop is 40 pounds, I'd say jump on it.

[unixrevolution]

I don't actually have the necessary stepping rings to go from 52mm threads to a 52mm filter, but I can tell you this. The metal lens hood for a 135 f/3.5 Takumar would not encroach on the image circle on APS-C, and possibly not on 35mm, and it would provide more sun protection than either the built-in telescope hood or a rubber hood. All you'd need is the hood and a 52mm lens to 49mm filter adapter. Because it's a Tele lens you wouldn't ever notice the narrower gap at the end.

As I said earlier, but don't think i've quite made perfectly clear...a hood that goes as far past the end of the lens as possible, while remaining as narrow in diameter as possible, is definitely best.

If I happen by a camera shop that carries stepping rings I"ll get a 52 to 49 and test my theory properly, with sample shots.

[freewheeler]

I would certainly not reccomment placing any filter because in my opinion they will never increase the quality of the picture. A good lenshood is always important, especially when using not the most modern lenses. As already stated a 49mm hood will work better than a bigger one and a lenshood for 200mm lens is better when using on aps-c.
All that said, I would never buy that lens at all.
The m135/3.5 is better and not more expensive....

[unixrevolution]

I would certainly not reccomment placing any filter because in my opinion they will never increase the quality of the picture. A good lenshood is always important, especially when using not the most modern lenses. As already stated a 49mm hood will work better than a bigger one and a lenshood for 200mm lens is better when using on aps-c.
All that said, I would never buy that lens at all.
The m135/3.5 is better and not more expensive....

I couldn't help but notice you have the K135 2.5. How do you like it? It's basically the same lens without a multi-coating.

What you say about the filter makes sense...I don't think a MC filter will greatly reduce glare even with a single-coated lens to work against. But hey, it's worth a try right?

I have gone out and taken some sample shots in bright sun on my K10D with the 135 2.5 Takumar lens, MC UV filter and cheapo rubber lens hood. I think the results speak for themselves.

Remember, this is about the lens, not the photographer. I know I suck....but the lens is another story.

Takumar Bayonet Sample Shots - a set on Flickr

In particular I have two shots, one with hood and filter and one without...that demonstrate what it does to glare. namely, not much.

With Hood and Filter:



And bare-glass-naked :



A difference, perhaps. But a small one at best.

[freewheeler]

Well, it's certainly not basically the same lens.
There was a six element version of the m42 smc takumar with the same optical formula.
The K mount takumar is a 4 element lens wich is very different and not very good optically.
My K135/2.5 is a lens I like very much. Its sharp from F4 on and has a great rendering.
I also own a m135/3.5 wich is quite good and is reported to bee better than the K-mount Takumar but is nowhere as good as the K135/2.5. The colors are a bit muddy and its only reasonally sharp. The only reason I did not sell it, is that it is very tiny.

[unixrevolution]

Well, it's certainly not basically the same lens.
There was a six element version of the m42 smc takumar with the same optical formula.
The K mount takumar is a 4 element lens wich is very different and not very good optically.
My K135/2.5 is a lens I like very much. Its sharp from F4 on and has a great rendering.
I also own a m135/3.5 wich is quite good and is reported to bee better than the K-mount Takumar but is nowhere as good as the K135/2.5. The colors are a bit muddy and its only reasonally sharp. The only reason I did not sell it, is that it is very tiny.

I didn't realize the K-mount Takumar wasn't the same formula. Thanks for the information. I still find that it produces good results, though.

[m42man]

Hi,

I have read the bad reviews (and a few OK reviews) of this lens - but there is one in my local camera shop for £40, so I think it's worth a pop. From the reviews, I am guessing that it may be helped by a coated filter and a big lens hood. I am a bit of a newbie, so please could I have some recommendation/thoughts about good choices - also about whether this will make enough of a difference...

Thanks,

Jez

Firstly, the price: £40 is a little on the high side, I would say, but I suppose you have the convenience of being able to go to a local shop and inspect it minutely (and presumably, try it out). If it's in mint condition and works perfectly, then fine. Don't expect sharp results wide open, though - stop it down for decent sharpness. And don't expect contrast and colours to be in the same class as a modern Pentax lens.

Regarding filters: by all means get a UV filter (and the Hoya HMC would be an excellent choice) for protection purposes, but don't expect a filter to help compensate for the lack of multi-coating within the lens. Apart from blocking UV (which almost certainly isn't necessary anyway in a modern DSLR), a filter can only add to image degradation.

Personally, I think the built-in hood is a great convenience, and wouldn't bother with an additional one. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find one which had the correct dimensions for any significant improvement over the built-in hood, in my view.

Lastly, don't forget there is a plethora of affordable, decent 135s out there - they were the popular telephoto in the 70s and 80s, and they were made in large numbers, many of them very good too. If you don't mind M42 mount (i.e. you'd need an adaptor) you could try for a S-M-C Takumar 135 f3.5, or for something very similar in K-mount, an SMC 135 f3.5 (usually referred to as the "K 135 f3.5"). The SMC M 135 f3.5 has also been mentioned, and I love mine because it's so small. Expect to be able to buy any of the above, in good condition, for £25 to £35, on Ebay (but only if you're patient!!).

[jeztastic]

Thanks for the useful replies everyone. This is clearly one of those rare forums where people care and want to be helpful. I posted on the manualfocus forums recently and immediately the thread was closed because I asked the wrong question. Most unwelcoming.

Unixrevolution - nice pictures. There is a difference between the photos above - the lettering is a good deal more readable in the second picture, but still not great. I like the flickr photos, bokeh is nice, as others have said, but the limitations of the lens are clearly the problem - not the photographer. I really like the woodpile picture.

M42man - I agree, £40 is a bit much. I am going off the K-Mount Tak idea. There is/was a Cosina 135 2.8 on ebay I am going to go for instead I think. Better reviews and a cheaper price!