[revinhood]

135mm which is better?
pentax 135 f2,5
pentax 135 f2,8
pentax 135 f3,5
I'm looking for the best optical quality, not the greatest brightness.
thanks

[Big Dave]

I think that the 135/3.5 is best with the 2.8 second. Look for SMC lenses.

Dave

135mm which is better?
pentax 135 f2,5
pentax 135 f2,8
pentax 135 f3,5
I'm looking for the best optical quality, not the greatest brightness.
thanks

[Zewrak]

I recommend a non pentax . And even a singlecoated one .

Schneider-Kreuznach Edixa-Tele-Xenar 135mm 1:3,5f M42.

My test pictures with it, shot in raw, straight from camera and converted to JPG, no sharpening or anything put on them.
7848976 - a set on Flickr

[ftpaddict]

pentax 135 f3,5 gets another vote on IQ.

[revinhood]

ok, 135mm f/3,5. k or M??
I want to mount K is not m42
thanks for the responses.
I hope that goes well with a converter x2.

I have the SMC Takumar 135/3.5 M42. The image quality is very good in terms of resolution, I also like the bokeh (of course it's a subjective matter) and the color and contrast reproduction but the CA is pretty high in some cases . It would be very nice to see a DA 135/3.5 LTD with some optical improvements, compact and not too expensive ...

Radu

[wavecurrent]

I recommend the Pentax K 135mm F2.5, it's a great lens performance wise.

Mike

[Syb]

One more hurray for the smc 135/2.5 K lens. The short DOF wide open is really helpful, IQ is great!

[revinhood]

it´s this??

[muustuus]

it´s this??

No this is the inferior takumar bayonet version and isn't even smc coated.

SMC 135/2.5 seems to be an excellent lens. But it doesn't focus very close and is fully manual.

F and FA 135/2.8 are quite good. Very solid construction and fully automatic. Wide open CA in some situations.

M 135/3.5 is good and cheap.

A 135/2.8 doesn't have a very good reputation. Although I think it is better than the takumar bayonet.

[NaClH2O]

Another vote for the Pentax SMC 135mm F2.5 Yes it is fully manual but it is a) relatively small for a F2.5 lens and b) pretty darn good flare and CA control. And the IQ is to die for.



NaCl(with IQ like this who cares if it's manual?)H2O

[JJJPhoto]

No this is the inferior takumar bayonet version and isn't even smc coated.

SMC 135/2.5 seems to be an excellent lens. But it doesn't focus very close and is fully manual.

F and FA 135/2.8 are quite good. Very solid construction and fully automatic. Wide open CA in some situations.

M 135/3.5 is good and cheap.

A 135/2.8 doesn't have a very good reputation. Although I think it is better than the takumar bayonet.

Ugh... I'm amazed at how many people absolutely despise the Takumar bayonet 135mm f2.5 lens. Granted, it's not the hands-down best 135mm lens on the market ... but it's NOT junk.

The fundamental thing to keep in mind with any lens that lacks good optical coating is that you MUST use a hood even in situations where you typically don't think you'll need one.

Lenses that lack anti-reflection and ultraviolet coatings tend to be more vulnerable to reflection and refraction resulting in poor color fidelity and increased flare and ghost images/halos.

Add a lens hood and avoid pointing the lens DIRECTLY at a light source and you don't have to worry about the lack of optical coatings. Some of the greatest lenses ever made didn't have optical coatings ... and they still create amazing images today.

I took this image with the Takumar 135mm f/2.5 wide open:



Sure, it's not the best lens (and that's not the world's best sample image) but the point is that the Takumar 135 isn't junk.

[revinhood]

you can show me a picture of him.
I would like to see it.

[jsherman999]

Ugh... I'm amazed at how many people absolutely despise the Takumar bayonet 135mm f2.5 lens. Granted, it's not the hands-down best 135mm lens on the market ... but it's NOT junk.

.....

Sure, it's not the best lens (and that's not the world's best sample image) but the point is that the Takumar 135 isn't junk.

I completely agree, I used to own one, and if I was careful with flare conditions I was able to get some really great shots from it. It's very far from 'junk'.

When I was doing a bit of research on it, I ran across a quote from someone in Steve's digicams, DPreview, someplace like that where they said, to paraphrase, "I know this lens is supposed to be not so hot, but it does have 2 or 3 magazine covers to it's credit."

Anyway, Pentax made some great 135mm's, I'd vote for the M 135 f/3.5 or Super Multicoated Takumar 135 f/3.5, which has rich colors/contrast and great sharpness. I've never shot with the K, but it's supposed to maybe be the best of the bunch.

[wavecurrent]

Another vote for the Pentax SMC 135mm F2.5 Yes it is fully manual but it is a) relatively small for a F2.5 lens and b) pretty darn good flare and CA control. And the IQ is to die for.

NaCl(with IQ like this who cares if it's manual?)H2O

I totally agree with you!!
Yes, it's big and heavy compared to some of the F2.8 designs out there.
But the IQ is very very good, sharp wide open and very sharp at 5.6.

Here it is with attached hood

Mike