Confused! So many 135mm 2.5 lens variations!

Mirrie Dancer · 06-11-2014, 11:09 AM

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

I would really like one of these or one very similar in rendering:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/47876-legen...ormance-8.html

I love the pixie dust/old film look about the sample shots I've seen.

But! I can't seem to find lenses in the uk that have that exact description and the more listings I find the more I get lost in the world of various pentax 135mm 2.5 lenses that all seem to NOT be the one I'm after! Some are not 'smc' and some are bayonet or M42 and some are 'K' and some are 'M' then I end up in the f3.5s without realizing and then I give up. A little guidance about buying the right 'version' would be appreciated.

Thank you

**jatrax** · 06-11-2014, 11:28 AM - **1 Like**

Mirrie if you want the 'K' version of this lens here is the lens review: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Note that there really is no 'K' series of lenses, they were just marked 'SMC Pentax', the Pentax community has generally called them 'K series' because they were the first for K-mount. This series was followed by the 'M' series and then by the 'A' series. The ones market 'Bayonet' are a cheaper line that can be decent lenses if used right but lack the SMC coating so are generally not looked after so much, but they are cheap.

Here is a link to the Pentax lens database: Pentax Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database maybe it will help you to understand the Pentax lens a little more.

bassek · 06-11-2014, 11:29 AM

Hi!

If it says "M" or "bayonet" on the lens or it has a M42 mount then you are looking at something else.
There is never a "K" on the K-series lenses. The value should be over £100 unless you are bidding.
On the other hand the M135/3.5 is a really good lens for the price it goes at.

Seb

Mirrie Dancer · 06-11-2014, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by bassek

If it says "M" or "bayonet" on the lens or it has a M42 mount then you are looking at something else. There is never a "K" on the K-series lenses. The value should be over £100 unless you are bidding. On the other hand the M135/3.5 is a really good lens for the price it goes at. Seb

Ok thank you I will try and apply these rules to my search on ebay.

---------- Post added 06-11-14 at 07:56 PM ----------

Originally posted by jatrax

Mirrie if you want the 'K' version of this lens here is the lens review: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Note that there really is no 'K' series of lenses, they were just marked 'SMC Pentax', the Pentax community has generally called them 'K series' because they were the first for K-mount. This series was followed by the 'M' series and then by the 'A' series. The ones market 'Bayonet' are a cheaper line that can be decent lenses if used right but lack the SMC coating so are generally not looked after so much, but they are cheap.

Thank you, that was helpful. I was so confused!

**jatrax** · 06-11-2014, 12:18 PM

And do keep in mind that just because someone lists something on Ebay does not mean they have a clue about what it is. Many descriptions are just plain wrong or so generic as to be useless. Make sure the name plate is clearly shown in the pictures and go by that not the description. If it's not shown ask for a picture or just pass.

Mirrie Dancer · 06-11-2014, 12:27 PM

Ok cheers jatrax..

Is this one?

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131208483924?_trksid=p2055120.m1438.l2649&ssPageNa...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

**Just1MoreDave** · 06-11-2014, 12:55 PM

Yes, that's it. That is the second production run, and it looks like it comes with all the original stuff: case, cap and hood. I think the price is pretty good, though I'm not aware of the current market value for these. That's about what I sold mine for, a few years ago.

**jatrax** · 06-11-2014, 01:09 PM

Yes, that looks like it. Has all the goodies with it too. Not sure if the hood is original, it looks plastic and I do not know if that lens came with metal or plastic hood. Should not matter except to collectors. The hood is really important on those older film lenses, the coatings are not as flare resistant so the hood improves the image quite a bit.

Cannot help with the price either I don't watch 'K' series lenses.

**jrpower10** · 06-11-2014, 01:15 PM

I bought one about a year ago, paid $275 if I remember right, so the price isn't bad.

**RKKS08** · 06-11-2014, 01:23 PM

Well, a personal preference thing, but I would rather look for a SMC Pentax-A 2.8/135.

It's not only a bit smaller and lighter, tests in German photo blogs showed it is optically better in all respects. Not only the SMC coatings, which got at least 3 generations of improvements.
eBay prices in Germany are on average lower than for the K, but with auctions you never know. Here the A is offered only 4-5 times a year, and so the price sometimes is going through the roof as well.

The step from F2.5 to F2.8 is less than half a stop, so this should not be an argument. The SMC-M 3.5/135 was a budget lens, quite small for its reach, but the step from F2.8 to F3.5 is roughly twice as big as from F2.5 to F2.8.

The A series lenses you can use on every Pentax DSLR just like the actual lens range (except for the missing AF, of course).

I am using a Takumar 2.8/135 Bayonet of a late series, where the (multi)coatings are quite near to SMC. It is 30% of the price of the A, and despite its simpler optical design, resolutionwise it is not worse. Just a little bit less contrast, which is easily (and automatically) fixed in post.
Simpler optical designs are not necessarily less sharp. Most of the (flatfield) macro lenses, which are the sharpest lenses you can buy, have a really very simple lens arrangement compared with non-macros.

**monochrome** · 06-11-2014, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

Not sure if the hood is original, it looks plastic and I do not know if that lens came with metal or plastic hood. Should not matter except to collectors

I agree with you about the rendering of the K135/2.5. The plastic hood is OEM. As these go that looks like a nice example. US$275 was a very good price as shown about 10 years ago when these lenses were more in demand.

It is true the SMC coating formula changed around the time 'M' lenses were introduced, making the output noticeably cooler (especially on the 50's) and again slightly for the 'A' lenses, but I prefer the coating on these over later versions. The real issue with any of the manual focus lenses on our digital Pentax cameras will be reflections back off the sensor and CA or purple fringing in digital images. CA is easily repairable in post, sensor ghosts (less common) less repairable. 'Digital' lenses are coated on the rear element (and have another formula for the front elements) to reduce or eliminate sensor ghosts. Pentax branded theirs 'Ghostless Coating' for a few years.

None of which really matters - the K135/2.5 is an exceptionally good lens.

Mirrie Dancer · 06-11-2014, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by RKKS08

Well, a personal preference thing, but I would rather look for a SMC Pentax-A 2.8/135.

That's a nice lens too! In fact, I think I might prefer it to the f2.5.

**jatrax** · 06-11-2014, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Mirrie Dancer

That's a nice lens too! In fact, I think I might prefer it to the f2.5.

I can vouch for that I have the 'A' 135 f/2.8 and it is quite nice. I cannot compare it to the 'K' model as I've never owned one but I am happy with the one I have. And the convenience of having the camera auto meter is worth the slight loss in light the f/2.8 has over the f/2.5

DSims · 06-11-2014, 03:26 PM

The 'A' was pretty good - I had one. The FA is even better. And the F is slightly better than that (assuming you like the rendering A and F glass tends to have). Note that this is one of those cases where the F and FA share the same optical formula - unlike some others where the A and F share the same formula. So the A135/2.8 is truly a unique lens. While it's sometimes criticized as "not being good enough," I think I'd still choose it over the older glass (I had the Takumar 135/2.5 and M135/3.5). But if 100mm works the M/A100/2.8 (non-macro) beats them all. Of course the F/FA135 comes close, and I use my FA135/2.8 more than the A100/2.8 because of the AF (and sometimes because of the FL, which is just different enough from my FA*85 at times).

The surprise benefit of the AF on the F/FA135 is it turns out it's also one of the best, fastest-focusing sports lenses available for Pentax.

Kendigitize · 06-11-2014, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

I can vouch for that I have the 'A' 135 f/2.8 and it is quite nice. I cannot compare it to the 'K' model as I've never owned one but I am happy with the one I have. And the convenience of having the camera auto meter is worth the slight loss in light the f/2.8 has over the f/2.5

I was going to sugest the A135 2.8 also for the same reasons as above. I have a Takumar 135 2.5mm that I don't touch anymore because the A135 is such a joy to use and much sharper and has the coatings. And the 100 2.8 is just as nice and a tad sharper.

06-11-2014, 11:09 AM	#1
Mirrie Dancer Junior Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Shetland Posts: 36	Confused! So many 135mm 2.5 lens variations! Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here. I would really like one of these or one very similar in rendering: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/47876-legen...ormance-8.html I love the pixie dust/old film look about the sample shots I've seen. But! I can't seem to find lenses in the uk that have that exact description and the more listings I find the more I get lost in the world of various pentax 135mm 2.5 lenses that all seem to NOT be the one I'm after! Some are not 'smc' and some are bayonet or M42 and some are 'K' and some are 'M' then I end up in the f3.5s without realizing and then I give up. A little guidance about buying the right 'version' would be appreciated. Thank you

06-11-2014, 01:23 PM	#10
RKKS08 Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Frankfurt am Main Posts: 1,241	Well, a personal preference thing, but I would rather look for a SMC Pentax-A 2.8/135. It's not only a bit smaller and lighter, tests in German photo blogs showed it is optically better in all respects. Not only the SMC coatings, which got at least 3 generations of improvements. eBay prices in Germany are on average lower than for the K, but with auctions you never know. Here the A is offered only 4-5 times a year, and so the price sometimes is going through the roof as well. The step from F2.5 to F2.8 is less than half a stop, so this should not be an argument. The SMC-M 3.5/135 was a budget lens, quite small for its reach, but the step from F2.8 to F3.5 is roughly twice as big as from F2.5 to F2.8. The A series lenses you can use on every Pentax DSLR just like the actual lens range (except for the missing AF, of course). I am using a Takumar 2.8/135 Bayonet of a late series, where the (multi)coatings are quite near to SMC. It is 30% of the price of the A, and despite its simpler optical design, resolutionwise it is not worse. Just a little bit less contrast, which is easily (and automatically) fixed in post. Simpler optical designs are not necessarily less sharp. Most of the (flatfield) macro lenses, which are the sharpest lenses you can buy, have a really very simple lens arrangement compared with non-macros. Last edited by RKKS08; 06-11-2014 at 01:25 PM. Reason: typing

06-11-2014, 03:26 PM	#14
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	The 'A' was pretty good - I had one. The FA is even better. And the F is slightly better than that (assuming you like the rendering A and F glass tends to have). Note that this is one of those cases where the F and FA share the same optical formula - unlike some others where the A and F share the same formula. So the A135/2.8 is truly a unique lens. While it's sometimes criticized as "not being good enough," I think I'd still choose it over the older glass (I had the Takumar 135/2.5 and M135/3.5). But if 100mm works the M/A100/2.8 (non-macro) beats them all. Of course the F/FA135 comes close, and I use my FA135/2.8 more than the A100/2.8 because of the AF (and sometimes because of the FL, which is just different enough from my FA85 at times). The surprise benefit of the AF on the F/FA135 is it turns out it's also one of the best, fastest-focusing sports lenses available for Pentax. Last edited by DSims; 06-11-2014 at 03:35 PM.*

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
So how many GB have you used so far this year?	Iksobarg	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	12-06-2013 10:40 AM
Upgrading from kit, so many options, which is right for me? 135mm 200mm?	SlyClockWerkz	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	08-21-2013 04:02 PM
So Confused.. K-5 IIs or K-30???	Racerdew	Pentax DSLR Discussion	53	12-07-2012 10:07 PM
Hands-on w/ SMC DA 18-135mm/3.5-5.6 Lens (Many Photos)	frank	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	53	06-20-2011 07:11 AM
Confused about Pentax 70-2?0 variations	scottax1	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	10-29-2007 05:52 AM

06-11-2014, 11:28 AM - 1 Like	#2
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Mirrie if you want the 'K' version of this lens here is the lens review: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Note that there really is no 'K' series of lenses, they were just marked 'SMC Pentax', the Pentax community has generally called them 'K series' because they were the first for K-mount. This series was followed by the 'M' series and then by the 'A' series. The ones market 'Bayonet' are a cheaper line that can be decent lenses if used right but lack the SMC coating so are generally not looked after so much, but they are cheap. Here is a link to the Pentax lens database: Pentax Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database maybe it will help you to understand the Pentax lens a little more.

06-11-2014, 11:29 AM	#3
bassek Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2011 Photos: Gallery Posts: 706	Hi! If it says "M" or "bayonet" on the lens or it has a M42 mount then you are looking at something else. There is never a "K" on the K-series lenses. The value should be over £100 unless you are bidding. On the other hand the M135/3.5 is a really good lens for the price it goes at. Seb

06-11-2014, 11:55 AM	#4
Mirrie Dancer Junior Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Shetland Posts: 36 Original Poster	Originally posted by bassek If it says "M" or "bayonet" on the lens or it has a M42 mount then you are looking at something else. There is never a "K" on the K-series lenses. The value should be over £100 unless you are bidding. On the other hand the M135/3.5 is a really good lens for the price it goes at. Seb Ok thank you I will try and apply these rules to my search on ebay. ---------- Post added 06-11-14 at 07:56 PM ---------- Originally posted by jatrax Mirrie if you want the 'K' version of this lens here is the lens review: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database Note that there really is no 'K' series of lenses, they were just marked 'SMC Pentax', the Pentax community has generally called them 'K series' because they were the first for K-mount. This series was followed by the 'M' series and then by the 'A' series. The ones market 'Bayonet' are a cheaper line that can be decent lenses if used right but lack the SMC coating so are generally not looked after so much, but they are cheap. Thank you, that was helpful. I was so confused!

06-11-2014, 12:18 PM	#5
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	And do keep in mind that just because someone lists something on Ebay does not mean they have a clue about what it is. Many descriptions are just plain wrong or so generic as to be useless. Make sure the name plate is clearly shown in the pictures and go by that not the description. If it's not shown ask for a picture or just pass.

06-11-2014, 12:27 PM	#6
Mirrie Dancer Junior Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Shetland Posts: 36 Original Poster	Ok cheers jatrax.. Is this one? http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/131208483924?_trksid=p2055120.m1438.l2649&ssPageNa...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

06-11-2014, 12:55 PM	#7
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Yes, that's it. That is the second production run, and it looks like it comes with all the original stuff: case, cap and hood. I think the price is pretty good, though I'm not aware of the current market value for these. That's about what I sold mine for, a few years ago.

06-11-2014, 01:09 PM	#8
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Yes, that looks like it. Has all the goodies with it too. Not sure if the hood is original, it looks plastic and I do not know if that lens came with metal or plastic hood. Should not matter except to collectors. The hood is really important on those older film lenses, the coatings are not as flare resistant so the hood improves the image quite a bit. Cannot help with the price either I don't watch 'K' series lenses.

06-11-2014, 01:15 PM	#9
jrpower10 Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Richland, Washington, USA Posts: 935	I bought one about a year ago, paid $275 if I remember right, so the price isn't bad.

06-11-2014, 01:39 PM	#11
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by jatrax Not sure if the hood is original, it looks plastic and I do not know if that lens came with metal or plastic hood. Should not matter except to collectors I agree with you about the rendering of the K135/2.5. The plastic hood is OEM. As these go that looks like a nice example. US$275 was a very good price as shown about 10 years ago when these lenses were more in demand. It is true the SMC coating formula changed around the time 'M' lenses were introduced, making the output noticeably cooler (especially on the 50's) and again slightly for the 'A' lenses, but I prefer the coating on these over later versions. The real issue with any of the manual focus lenses on our digital Pentax cameras will be reflections back off the sensor and CA or purple fringing in digital images. CA is easily repairable in post, sensor ghosts (less common) less repairable. 'Digital' lenses are coated on the rear element (and have another formula for the front elements) to reduce or eliminate sensor ghosts. Pentax branded theirs 'Ghostless Coating' for a few years. None of which really matters - the K135/2.5 is an exceptionally good lens.

06-11-2014, 02:00 PM	#12
Mirrie Dancer Junior Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Shetland Posts: 36 Original Poster	Originally posted by RKKS08 Well, a personal preference thing, but I would rather look for a SMC Pentax-A 2.8/135. That's a nice lens too! In fact, I think I might prefer it to the f2.5.

06-11-2014, 02:52 PM	#13
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by Mirrie Dancer That's a nice lens too! In fact, I think I might prefer it to the f2.5. I can vouch for that I have the 'A' 135 f/2.8 and it is quite nice. I cannot compare it to the 'K' model as I've never owned one but I am happy with the one I have. And the convenience of having the camera auto meter is worth the slight loss in light the f/2.8 has over the f/2.5

06-11-2014, 03:31 PM	#15
Kendigitize Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 324	Originally posted by jatrax I can vouch for that I have the 'A' 135 f/2.8 and it is quite nice. I cannot compare it to the 'K' model as I've never owned one but I am happy with the one I have. And the convenience of having the camera auto meter is worth the slight loss in light the f/2.8 has over the f/2.5 I was going to sugest the A135 2.8 also for the same reasons as above. I have a Takumar 135 2.5mm that I don't touch anymore because the A135 is such a joy to use and much sharper and has the coatings. And the 100 2.8 is just as nice and a tad sharper.