Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-04-2011, 09:43 PM   #16
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Prox-iee Quote
pricewise, the best bang for your buck is the sears 135mm 2.8
Unfortunately, there is no "the" Sears 135, just as neither does "the" Vivitar 200/3.5 exist. I currently have different Sears 135/2.8's in M42 and KM mount. And I had another (different yet) in KM mount with a 'macro' lens-extension feature, which I sold. For US$45, a good price (for me). Sears, like Vivitar and other jobbers, distributed glass made by several leading lensmakers, and these varied over time. Almost all Sears primes I've encountered have been quite good, sometimes extraordinary values. I sold the 135 because it had more fringing than I liked, but the buyer was quite happy with its sharpness.

But as was pointed out, the OP made no mention of a Sears 135, so all this is irrelevant. Bother.


Last edited by RioRico; 03-04-2011 at 09:50 PM.
03-06-2011, 08:25 PM   #17
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: HCMC
Posts: 272
Original Poster
Hi all,

thank you for your time to post here.

I don't have this focal length and i wanted to own 1.
Here's my list of lenses for your reference/info...

M28 2.8
Super Tak 3.5 3.5
A 50 1.4
Super Tak 55 1.8
135??? (last focal length i wanted)
18-55 kit
Sigma 70-300

My priority is really the IQ of the lens but shouldn't go beyond $60. I guess i am still in the range of these lenses except for the CZ which is about 100+ here and the K 135 (have not seen this lens in my life more so the price that goes with this Legend...

I am now leaning on the Super Tak (without the 4 on the aperture ring) and M135 respectively.

I am also including into the list this 2 lenses

Vivitar 135 2.8 and Sears 135 2.8

Thanks
03-06-2011, 09:31 PM   #18
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
OK, from your updated list, here is my opinion/ranking:

* The SuperTak135 and M135 f/3.5 are sharpest
* The Sears, Vivitar, Pentacon and Rikenon may be next best
* The Focal, JC Penny, Revuenon, and Quanteray (Tamron) aren't far behind

Those are all decent lenses. The Pentaxes are slightly slower but probably better for image quality, and will probably cost a little more. The others are probably from the same lensmakers, and will probably all be bargains. It is difficult to find a *bad* 135mm lens. But those Pentaxes are little gems.
03-06-2011, 11:07 PM   #19
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
The M 135 has a longer MFD than other 135s - probably a tradeoff to achieve small size. It also produces PF easily.

I would suggest the Jupiter 37 - an excellent lens all around. Of the original list, I'd maybe pick the Rikenon - I was impressed by the quality of Sears lenses and they are supposedly made by Ricoh for Sears.

03-07-2011, 01:23 AM   #20
Pentaxian
hoanpham's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Strand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,366
M135f3.5 has stunning results between f5.6-f8. Beautiful bokeh, very very sharp, superior color rendition compare to zooms, small and compact size. My to-go lens in this focal in day light.
05-02-2012, 01:37 PM   #21
Veteran Member
bc_the_path's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Ankara, Turkey
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 390
The Jupiter

Just to confuse followers of this thread (!), I would like to mention Jupiter 37A, an M42 Soviet lens (135mm f/3.5) which is said to share its formula with a Leica of the same length. My copy turned out to be a lot better than the ones I compared it (a Takumar and a Pentacon). It is MC and sharp wide open. The rendering of out of focus highlights is simply beautiful. I am planning to test it against my DA Star 50-135mm (with dead SDM) at 135mm. It sure is going to be an unfair test; I just don't know unfair for which!!!
05-03-2012, 05:39 PM   #22
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
rbefly's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Denver, Colorado
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,030
My Choice For $60.00

Here's a football photo taken by panning with the M 135 f/3.5 @ f5.6.
Pentax K10D, M 135 f3.5 @ f5.6 1/350s ISO 100 - rbefly's Album: rbefly photos - PentaxForums.com
There's a slight motion blur on the ballcarrier's hands, but check the I.Q of his face and the insigna on his uniform and helmet. I just wish I'd set it for f4.5 and a half-stop faster shutter speed!
I see these regularly on eBay for under $75.00.
JMO
Ron
05-04-2012, 12:52 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,378
I have the Vitivar 135mm F3.5. Good and quite cheap.

Vivitar 135mm F3.5 - a set on Flickr

05-04-2012, 02:26 PM   #24
Veteran Member
Ikarus's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 471
QuoteOriginally posted by bc_the_path Quote
I would like to mention Jupiter 37A, an M42 Soviet lens (135mm f/3.5)
+1 for the Jupiter, a very fine lens indeed. This is my review. Probably not the best 135 there is (which one is though, and by what metric?), but without a doubt one with a fantastic price/value ratio.
05-04-2012, 03:19 PM   #25
MSL
Pentaxian
MSL's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Greater Toronto Area
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,400
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
AFAIK the takumar and the M series lens are identical optically though the M series lens will be much quicker to use due to it having a K mount attached without having to use the frustrating M42 adapter, The two pentax lenses are likely to be the best of the lot even though they are a 1/3rd of a stop slower.
But the Takumar will let you use Av and TAv modes without stop down metering, so for me that trumps needing an adapter.
I haven't used my SuperTak 135/3.5 much on its own, but I love putting it on extension tubes.
05-04-2012, 11:43 PM   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jimr-pdx's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: 1hr north of PDX
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,553
I had a Rikenon XR 135/2.8 that was quite good but heavy, which I swapped for the M135/3.5. That one was/is quite nice though my copy needs a click or two below wide open to shine. The 'trouble' is my Rikenon XR 70-150 f/4 - its IQ is as good and it's much more versatile for just a bit more bulk, so the 135 stays home. And the zoom cost right around $60.
05-05-2012, 09:48 AM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
TedH42's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Colorado
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 480
QuoteOriginally posted by subtle_goat Quote
It probably won't make any significant difference - 135mm is not a difficult focal length by any means.

I would choose either of the pentax, just for the reliable colour rendering. The m series in particular is a tiny lens with wonderful rendering.

Sam
100% agreement with subtle_goat. 135mm is just not a technically difficult lens. My copy of the M135/3.5 is quite sharp wide open, and I love the small size. It gives me room for another lens in my bag.
05-05-2012, 05:33 PM   #28
Veteran Member




Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Taiwan
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,075
I doubt there is a bad lens in the bunch but I typically pick the older Pentax lenses because all of them are very good and they are compact. The Sears lenses that I have are tanks for example. The M135 is very easy to handhold and as a bonus it contains its own hood. You might want to consider the M100/2.8. 135 is pretty long on APSC. You really need to back up if you want to take anything more than a headshot but I really like it for candids though.

Here is a shot wide open with the M135.




The takumar is also a good lens but it's heavier and M42 isn't that convenient.
05-07-2012, 09:44 PM   #29
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
My gold standard of 135s is the Jupiter-11 135/4, slow and deadly sharp and pretty small. But nothing quite matches the big S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5.
05-07-2012, 11:53 PM   #30
Junior Member
daniel deus's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 26
+1 for the M135 3.5

I picked it up dirt cheap and was plenty surprised with the fantastic IQ.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
135mm, auto, f2.8, k-mount, mc, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Regarding Porst 135mm f2.8 PK Manual Lens gut1kor Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 3 07-23-2010 08:06 AM
How do I use a 135mm macro lens (manual lens)? justtakingpics Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 06-19-2010 08:02 PM
Test results: resurrected Zykkor 135mm Manual Lens ismaelg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 4 09-27-2009 07:36 PM
135mm Takumar manual lens ChrisC Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 6 07-06-2008 01:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:54 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top