[Mirton]

That explains its amazing sharpness and bokeh.
Proof is in the attachments (Original + Cropped)

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[lytrytyr]

The latest versions of the 100/2.8 macro are closest,
but like the earlier versions have 9 elements in 8 groups:


while the F135/2.8 has 8 elements in 7 groups:


(Diagrams from Boz Dimitrov)

[Mirton]

The latest versions of the 100/2.8 macro are closest,
but like the earlier versions have 9 elements in 8 groups:


while the F135/2.8 has 8 elements in 7 groups:


(Diagrams from Boz Dimitrov)

thank you for the info, didn't mean to troll the forum. I got one of these recently and i'm very impressed with the lenses resolution. I'm cropping the images heavily and there seems to be a lot of detail.

[reeftool]

Many of the older Pentax 135's were exceptional lenses and a lot of us wonder why they no longer make one.

[Andi Lo]

Many of the older Pentax 135's were exceptional lenses and a lot of us wonder why they no longer make one.

IMO 135mm prime isnt a very useful range in APSC, it's very restrictive. Not long enough for wildlife, not short / bright enough for portraits.

Technically Pentax consider it to have been replaced by the DA70, FA77, and DA 50-135mm. I would agree.

[normhead]

IMO 135mm prime isnt a very useful range in APSC, it's very restrictive. Not long enough for wildlife, not short / bright enough for portraits.

Technically Pentax consider it to have been replaced by the DA70, FA77, and DA 50-135mm. I would agree.

I'm with Andy on this one... the 100 macro is the 135 of APS-c.... as often as I've wondered why they don't have a 135... I've also thought, "I wouldn't buy one."

[dragonfly]

IMO 135mm prime isnt a very useful range in APSC, it's very restrictive. Not long enough for wildlife, not short / bright enough for portraits.

It's an awesome lens, so it must be good for something. I like it for concert photos when I shoot from the audience.

[normhead]

It's an awesome lens, so it must be good for something. I like it for concert photos when I shoot from the audience.

True that, if you own a lens, you find out what it's best at, and they're all good for something... now, if someone wants to give me one....

[reeftool]

IMO 135mm prime isnt a very useful range in APSC, it's very restrictive. Not long enough for wildlife, not short / bright enough for portraits.

Technically Pentax consider it to have been replaced by the DA70, FA77, and DA 50-135mm. I would agree.

The main reason my M135/3.5 spends more time in my bag than on my camera is the lack of auto focus. With it's small size and weight along with a 49mm filter size, I would happily buy one.

[ChristianRock]

I like my A 135 2.8 quite a lot, and it wasn't considered a good lens back in its day. When the F version came out, it was a huge improvement. But my A isn't that bad, even though it has its issues, especially wide open on a bright day it is almost useless, but at f4 it's perfect and it works great for far away portraits and candid shots. Indoors it's a wonderful detail lens even at f2.8. The only problem is that my A 70-210 is as good as the 135 prime at f4 so I've been using that instead...

Back in the film days they sold a lot of 200mm lenses and the 135 is the APS-C version of that.

[dadipentak]

not short / bright enough for portraits.

I use my F135/2.5 almost exclusively for candid portraits. It's long enough so I don't have to get up in the subject's face and so compact (and ugly) that nobody pays any attention.

[Andi Lo]

I use my F135/2.5 almost exclusively for candid portraits. It's long enough so I don't have to get up in the subject's face and so compact (and ugly) that nobody pays any attention.

You're right, every photographer is different I'm usually happier with the flexibility of zoom at that range, but no doubt the 135 would be smaller and less obstrusive.

[dadipentak]

no doubt the 135 would be smaller and less obstrusive.

Some of my subjects are very skittish ;~)

[Mirton]

You're right, every photographer is different I'm usually happier with the flexibility of zoom at that range, but no doubt the 135 would be smaller and less obstrusive.

Many people who own the (insert superlative here) Pentax primes will attest to the pure pleasures of shooting with a fixed lens. Physically framing the shot with you body not only improves your circulation and makes healthy invidudials, but it makes you look seriously cool. I've been using the -F 135mm f2.8 for only a few weeks and i find it an exceptional performer for candid portraiture. It's very small ( 2/3rd the size of the 50-135 zoom and Da* 200) In addition unlike the aforementioned lenses, It's also great at taking pictures of fast moving objects (I'm referring to my mischievous little nieces who don't ever stay still for more than half a second). I own the Da 50-135mm but the SDM lazy *& sluggish AF performance compared to the old screw drive is not on par in terms of speed. (I prefer the HSM speed of the Sigma EX DG 70-200mm f2.8 Macro II) Hope the updated 135mm f2.8 (and/or the legendary f1.8) is put back in the road map once Pentax confirms its release date for the FF camera.

I use my F135/2.5 almost exclusively for candid portraits. It's long enough so I don't have to get up in the subject's face and so compact (and ugly) that nobody pays any attention.

I read F135mm/2.5, as in F-series f2.5. Thanks for aggravating my chronic LBA, I've been in remission for a while, It's unfortunate that Pentax never made one.

[Andi Lo]

Many people who own the (insert superlatives here) Pentax primes will attest to the pure pleasures of shooting with a fixed lens. Physically framing the shot with you body not only improves your circulation and makes healthy invidudials, but it makes you look seriously cool. I've been using the -F 135mm f2.8 for only a few weeks and i find it an exceptional performer for candid portraiture. It's very small ( 2/3rd the size of the 50-135 zoom and Da* 200) In addition unlike the aforementioned lenses, It's also great at taking pictures of fast moving objects (I'm referring to my mischievous little nieces who don't ever stay still for more than half a second). I own the Da 50-135mm but the SDM lazy *& sluggish AF performance compared to the old screw drive is not on par in terms of speed. (I prefer the HSM speed of the Sigma EX DG 70-200mm f2.8 Macro II) Hope the updated 135mm f2.8 (or F2) is put back in the road map once Pentax confirms its release date for the FF camera.



I read F135mm/2.5, as in F-series f2.5. Thanks for aggravating my chronic LBA, I've been in remission for a while, It's unfortunate that Pentax never made one.

A proper, up to date 135mm f/2 on FF might make me go back pentax again Nikon doesnt make one that's not riddled with issues...