Best 135mm f2.8 MF Lens

**Lowell Goudge** · 06-12-2012, 05:49 AM

Rio

I am the cause of the bad review of the XR Rikenon 135/2,8 and there are a few things I can offer here, that will influence the decision on that specific lens.

First, this is an M42 lens, and note that Ricoh did not make their lenses, rather others made them for ricoh.
Second, there are multiple variants of this lens. At the time I posted my results, others have posted their lens had an 8 blade aperture, where as mine has 6. So not the same lens at all.

As for the defects. the biggest single issue was a reflection off the rear lens group retaining ring, which was shiny black anodized, It took me a while to track this down, but once found, and painted to eliminate the reflection the lens performed better, and I increased my rating up to where it is now.

For my other comments, I ran an informal shoot out, and posted the results for all to see, in the 135mm user's club. The rikenon I own has a strong color cast, when compared to the takumar and tele lentar lenses I put it up against. It also (and consider these are all M42 lenses shot using Av mode) required, at any selected F stop, 2 times the shutter speed, for the same exposure (confirmed by histogram) compared to the Takumar and tele lentar lenses.

The quality of the lens manufacture is also somewhat less than desireable, where the aperture blades do not close down uniformly, and the aperture collapses to a triangle, with the points cut off, as opposed to a hexagon. Since every second blade closes down to the same, but the two triplets do not close equally, this is clearly a design defect, as the lens cannot wear so symmetrically to produce this type of behavior.

SHarpness wise it is acceptable, as is any 135, they are all simple designs.

The whole point here, is most 135's are quite good and produce acceptable results, but there are a whole lot of them out there to pick from. I would recommend staying away from a rikenon with 6 blades, and also test / inspect for sources of internal reflections. Cosmetically this lens is very very similar to a lot of the cheap M42 lenses out there, with a built in hood that extends a whopping 12 mm or so, and is virtually useless.

RioRico · 06-12-2012, 06:49 AM - **1 Like**

@Lowell,
I just edited my post to reflect your observation on Rikenons. Thanks!

And the conclusion remains: We must go out of our way to find bad 135s! Avoid those that have been bashed-in. Almost all the rest are pretty good.

I like an oddball that I still see on eBay for around US$20 NIB, an M42 Hanimar Preset 135/3.5 (13 iris blades). This isn't a tele, just a long lens: an empty tube with glass at one end, weighing just 250g. No, it hasn't the coatings of the S-M-C Talumar 135/3.5 (6 blades, 330g) and its close-focus of 3.3m without extension added is awful. But the optics are clean and sharp, and it's a many-bladed two-ring preset. I like its 'period' feel, especially with some slight extension to pull-in the working distance. And it is my fave for reverse-stacking short lenses.

mdodrill · 06-12-2012, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

I suppose since you don't want to hear about f/3.5 or f/2.5 lenses, you probably also don't want to hear about the M120/2.8, but I'd put it against any 1352.8 I've seen.

I am still kicking my self for selling the 120/2.8 when I sold all my non-digital stuff

**Lowell Goudge** · 06-12-2012, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by RioRico

I like an oddball that I still see on eBay for around US$20 NIB, an M42 Hanimar Preset 135/3.5 (13 iris blades). This isn't a tele, just a long lens: an empty tube with glass at one end, weighing just 250g. No, it hasn't the coatings of the S-M-C Talumar 135/3.5 (6 blades, 330g) and its close-focus of 3.3m without extension added is awful. But the optics are clean and sharp, and it's a many-bladed two-ring preset. I like its 'period' feel, especially with some slight extension to pull-in the working distance. And it is my fave for reverse-stacking short lenses.

is this part of your super light kit?

sounds like a candidate.

RioRico · 06-12-2012, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Originally posted by RioRico:

I like an oddball that I still see on eBay for around US$20 NIB, an M42 Hanimar Preset 135/3.5 (13 iris blades). This isn't a tele, just a long lens: an empty tube with glass at one end, weighing just 250g.

is this part of your super light kit?

sounds like a candidate.

Oh, it's much too heavy for that! But I have a little Rochester Optical 162/5.6 that only weighs 130g...

**Kerrowdown** · 06-12-2012, 02:33 PM

You didn't say no to F1.8.

My SMC Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8 is cracker, shame it's not in the same price banding as many of the other lenses already mentioned.

Seriously, which ever one you end up with 135mm is a very versatile lens length and I hope you you enjoy it.

drougge · 06-12-2012, 03:44 PM

I'm going to give another vote to the Vivitar (Komine) 135/2.8 Close Focusing. It focuses to 1:2, it's actually f/2.8 as requested, and I like it. Big and heavy though, I tend to use various f/3.5 versions instead in practice because of this. (There are much smaller f/2.8 135s too.)

littledrawe · 06-12-2012, 03:45 PM

Hoya made a 135mm f2.8 along with some of their other lenses in k mount.

**jeffshaddix** · 06-12-2012, 09:59 PM

Yeah the Sears 135 2.8 Macro is an odd beast. Sometimes I'm frustrated with fringing and flare, other times I think it's brilliant. I wouldn't say it's the best 135/2.8, but it's certainly fun (and cheap). I even got lucky and found a KA mount version, but if you decide to get one and it's KA be sure to yank the Ricoh pin!

Here are some shots all wide open @2.8, the first two in full glow, the latter two in no glow mode:

LennyBloke · 06-13-2012, 12:15 AM

The SMC A Pentax 135mm f2.8 is one of the most under-rated lenses I own. The reviews of the lens are quite a mixed bunch (SMC Pentax-A 135mm F2.8 Reviews - A Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database), but my copy seems to produce results similar to those of Wolfie665 in the review. As with any lens I guess there will be variations from copy to copy, but if you get a good one you won't want to let it go

vrrattko · 06-13-2012, 03:38 AM

what about Contax Carl Zeiss 135/2.8 .....I don't have experience with this one, but it's cheap and it's reputation is very good. Other Contax lenses I tried were equal to Limiteds.
If you like Pentax...than K135/2.5 is cheap and good....although very long focus throw....so quite difficult to focus properly...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
135mm lens	pichur	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	01-01-2012 08:22 AM
DA 18-135mm f/3.5 - 5.6 Lens	Ed n Georgia	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	01-18-2011 11:06 AM
18-135mm lens, what's the warranty?	opiedog	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	09-27-2010 10:41 AM
How do I use a 135mm macro lens (manual lens)?	justtakingpics	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-19-2010 08:02 PM
For Sale - Sold: SuperTak 35mm f/3.5, Soligor 135mm f/2.8, Hanimex 135mm f/2.8 (M42 lens)	hinman	Sold Items	14	01-14-2008 11:36 AM

06-12-2012, 05:49 AM	#16
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	Rio I am the cause of the bad review of the XR Rikenon 135/2,8 and there are a few things I can offer here, that will influence the decision on that specific lens. First, this is an M42 lens, and note that Ricoh did not make their lenses, rather others made them for ricoh. Second, there are multiple variants of this lens. At the time I posted my results, others have posted their lens had an 8 blade aperture, where as mine has 6. So not the same lens at all. As for the defects. the biggest single issue was a reflection off the rear lens group retaining ring, which was shiny black anodized, It took me a while to track this down, but once found, and painted to eliminate the reflection the lens performed better, and I increased my rating up to where it is now. For my other comments, I ran an informal shoot out, and posted the results for all to see, in the 135mm user's club. The rikenon I own has a strong color cast, when compared to the takumar and tele lentar lenses I put it up against. It also (and consider these are all M42 lenses shot using Av mode) required, at any selected F stop, 2 times the shutter speed, for the same exposure (confirmed by histogram) compared to the Takumar and tele lentar lenses. The quality of the lens manufacture is also somewhat less than desireable, where the aperture blades do not close down uniformly, and the aperture collapses to a triangle, with the points cut off, as opposed to a hexagon. Since every second blade closes down to the same, but the two triplets do not close equally, this is clearly a design defect, as the lens cannot wear so symmetrically to produce this type of behavior. SHarpness wise it is acceptable, as is any 135, they are all simple designs. The whole point here, is most 135's are quite good and produce acceptable results, but there are a whole lot of them out there to pick from. I would recommend staying away from a rikenon with 6 blades, and also test / inspect for sources of internal reflections. Cosmetically this lens is very very similar to a lot of the cheap M42 lenses out there, with a built in hood that extends a whopping 12 mm or so, and is virtually useless.

06-12-2012, 06:49 AM - 1 Like	#17
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	@Lowell, I just edited my post to reflect your observation on Rikenons. Thanks! And the conclusion remains: We must go out of our way to find bad 135s! Avoid those that have been bashed-in. Almost all the rest are pretty good. I like an oddball that I still see on eBay for around US$20 NIB, an M42 Hanimar Preset 135/3.5 (13 iris blades). This isn't a tele, just a long lens: an empty tube with glass at one end, weighing just 250g. No, it hasn't the coatings of the S-M-C Talumar 135/3.5 (6 blades, 330g) and its close-focus of 3.3m without extension added is awful. But the optics are clean and sharp, and it's a many-bladed two-ring preset. I like its 'period' feel, especially with some slight extension to pull-in the working distance. And it is my fave for reverse-stacking short lenses.

06-12-2012, 06:56 AM	#18
mdodrill Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Ohio Posts: 231	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella I suppose since you don't want to hear about f/3.5 or f/2.5 lenses, you probably also don't want to hear about the M120/2.8, but I'd put it against any 1352.8 I've seen. I am still kicking my self for selling the 120/2.8 when I sold all my non-digital stuff

06-12-2012, 08:11 AM	#19
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,887	Originally posted by RioRico I like an oddball that I still see on eBay for around US$20 NIB, an M42 Hanimar Preset 135/3.5 (13 iris blades). This isn't a tele, just a long lens: an empty tube with glass at one end, weighing just 250g. No, it hasn't the coatings of the S-M-C Talumar 135/3.5 (6 blades, 330g) and its close-focus of 3.3m without extension added is awful. But the optics are clean and sharp, and it's a many-bladed two-ring preset. I like its 'period' feel, especially with some slight extension to pull-in the working distance. And it is my fave for reverse-stacking short lenses. is this part of your super light kit? sounds like a candidate.

06-12-2012, 08:20 AM	#20
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Originally posted by RioRico: I like an oddball that I still see on eBay for around US$20 NIB, an M42 Hanimar Preset 135/3.5 (13 iris blades). This isn't a tele, just a long lens: an empty tube with glass at one end, weighing just 250g. is this part of your super light kit? sounds like a candidate. Oh, it's much too heavy for that! But I have a little Rochester Optical 162/5.6 that only weighs 130g...

06-12-2012, 02:33 PM	#21
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,816	You didn't say no to F1.8. My SMC Pentax-A* 135mm F1.8 is cracker, shame it's not in the same price banding as many of the other lenses already mentioned. Seriously, which ever one you end up with 135mm is a very versatile lens length and I hope you you enjoy it.

06-12-2012, 03:44 PM	#22
drougge Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Malmö Photos: Gallery Posts: 787	I'm going to give another vote to the Vivitar (Komine) 135/2.8 Close Focusing. It focuses to 1:2, it's actually f/2.8 as requested, and I like it. Big and heavy though, I tend to use various f/3.5 versions instead in practice because of this. (There are much smaller f/2.8 135s too.)

06-12-2012, 03:45 PM	#23
littledrawe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Red Rock Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,514	Hoya made a 135mm f2.8 along with some of their other lenses in k mount.

06-12-2012, 09:59 PM	#24
jeffshaddix Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,473	Yeah the Sears 135 2.8 Macro is an odd beast. Sometimes I'm frustrated with fringing and flare, other times I think it's brilliant. I wouldn't say it's the best 135/2.8, but it's certainly fun (and cheap). I even got lucky and found a KA mount version, but if you decide to get one and it's KA be sure to yank the Ricoh pin! Here are some shots all wide open @2.8, the first two in full glow, the latter two in no glow mode:

06-13-2012, 12:15 AM	#25
LennyBloke Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Worcestershire, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 677	The SMC A Pentax 135mm f2.8 is one of the most under-rated lenses I own. The reviews of the lens are quite a mixed bunch (SMC Pentax-A 135mm F2.8 Reviews - A Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database), but my copy seems to produce results similar to those of Wolfie665 in the review. As with any lens I guess there will be variations from copy to copy, but if you get a good one you won't want to let it go

06-13-2012, 03:38 AM	#26
vrrattko Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 753	what about Contax Carl Zeiss 135/2.8 .....I don't have experience with this one, but it's cheap and it's reputation is very good. Other Contax lenses I tried were equal to Limiteds. If you like Pentax...than K135/2.5 is cheap and good....although very long focus throw....so quite difficult to focus properly...