Which Pentax (K) 135mm for Film Bodies

kb244 · 03-09-2017, 02:53 AM

The reason for the rather specific question is because I'm in the market for a Pentax 135mm, there's a couple out there such as the SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5, as well as the Pentax-M 135/2.8 and Pentax-A 135/2.8.

However I've seen a couple posts mention the Pentax-A suffers quality issues on film yet seems rather nice for DSLRs. But that's the only one of the 135s I see mentioned with that difference between film and digital so when I'm searching thru sample archives, most of them are off of DSLRs and doesn't really give me a point of reference of clarity with a film body (guessing based on how the light falls).

I've seen the Pentax-M 135/3.5 go for around $30 to $50, and the Pentax-M 135/2.8 around $90 and up. But not sure if the price bump is just because it's ~2/3rd of a stop faster, or if it has better contrast/clarity.

I'm trying to aim at $100 or less for a telephoto (120mm+) prime to use on my MX as I already have a Pentax-M 28/3.5, Pentax-M 50/1.4, Rokinon 85/1.4, and a Tamron SP Adaptall-II 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Lifesize Macro.

**Skodadriver** · 03-09-2017, 03:48 AM

If you would consider another make than Pentax you will find your options of finding a "good" 135mm lens that has reviews on film cameras. Makinon (macro version, not macro but has "A" setting on apertures), Chinon and Cosina made and are pretty good for budget priced lenses. Reviews of images taken on film cameras are likely to be pretty sparse though for any old 135mm lens.
If you are willing to go with a M42 to K adapter, I usually like the Pentacon preset 135mm F2.8 (great bokeh) and the CZJ 135mm F3.5 with A/M switch (sharper) better than my Super-Tak 135mm F3.5. Though I sold both copies of my CZJ's and kept the Super-Tak....
I see a lot of Pentax-M 135mm F3.5 on Ebay that have sold at a price where you can think of getting another Pentax (with F2.8) and still come in around your $100 budget with a bit of luck!

climit · 03-09-2017, 03:53 AM

I am quite pleased with my K 135/3.5. I am generally pleased with my K primes. I only have the 40/2.8 and 85/2 of the M series. They are both nice lenses but I suspect the K series are in generally superior to the M counterparts.

**pepperberry farm** · 03-09-2017, 04:10 AM

I'll throw a curve in here:

Sears (Samyang) 135mm f2.8 with Macro Zone

I had this (along with a M135/3.5 and sold them both - don't care for the focal length) and it was a surprisingly good lens - they are solidly-built, have outstanding color rendition, and are usually cheap cheap cheap...

my flickr album of mine:

Sears 135mm f2.8 Macro | Flickr

kb244 · 03-09-2017, 04:41 AM

The main reason I did not consider brands like sears, jcpenny, cosina, Vivitar, etc is because I'm not sure if results from one is relatively close to a copy of another least with the Pentax, the lens of one series shown could reasonably be considered the same as another of the same lens in the series. That and considered them to be much softer wide open.

Sandy Hancock · 03-09-2017, 04:46 AM

I have owned the K135/2.5 and FA135/2.8. For bokeh quality and build quality, the former wins. For compactness, built in hood and auto focus (if your film body allows it, or if you want to use it on a DSLR), the latter wins.

D1N0 · 03-09-2017, 05:04 AM

This one: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database. There is also a Takumar version if you don't mind using the m42 adapter. Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm F2.5 (model 2) Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR/Super-Takumar 135mm F2.5 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database (mind the model 2).

pschlute · 03-09-2017, 05:50 AM

There is no M-series 135mm 2.8. In the M-series for 135mm there is only the 3.5. I have this lens and it is a great performer for its price. The reason they are so cheap on ebay is there were loads of them produced.

Have a look here http://stans-photography.info/

The comments all relate to the lenses on film.

TaoMaas · 03-09-2017, 06:41 AM

I'm going to vote for the M135mm f3.5. I would place it next to the 50mm f1.7 as the "best-bang-for-the-buck" manual focus Pentax lens. That's not to say other 135mm lenses might not be better...but you're going to pay for the advances.

**monochrome** · 03-09-2017, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

I'm going to vote for the M135mm f3.5. I would place it next to the 50mm f1.7 as the "best-bang-for-the-buck" manual focus Pentax lens. That's not to say other 135mm lenses might not be better...but you're going to pay for the advances.

I recommend the K135/3.5 if you come across one, but I would seek out the K135/2.5 as the best IQ/$ value, though pricier than the M.

Any of the three manual 135's except the Takumar Bayonet (avoid that) will be wonderful and affordable.

**gofour3** · 03-09-2017, 08:54 AM

Another vote for the K135/3.5 for a film camera. Good optics and you should be under the $100.00 mark. (The K135/2.5 & K120/2.8 are also excellent but cost way more)

Phil.

Ontarian50 · 03-09-2017, 09:35 AM

I tested a bunch of 135mm lenses a couple of years ago on my K-01. I ended up liking, and keeping, the Ricoh XR 135mm 2.8.

Trouble is, it's probably a bit harder to find in most locales, than the Pentax lenses. Around here, Ricohs came with basic 50mm lenses, but most got kitted out with "house brand" zooms after that.

klkitchens · 03-09-2017, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by monochrome

Any of the three manual 135's except the Takumar Bayonet (avoid that) will be wonderful and affordable.

Ouch... that's the one I have!

**monochrome** · 03-09-2017, 10:36 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by klkitchens

Ouch... that's the one I have!

It isn't a bad lens per se, it just doesn't have SMC coating so it is more subject to flare and veiling than the SMC coated 135's.

K-mount Page entry.

kb244 · 03-09-2017, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by gofour3

Another vote for the K135/3.5 for a film camera. Good optics and you should be under the $100.00 mark. (The K135/2.5 & K120/2.8 are also excellent but cost way more)

Phil.

Is the "K" the one marked as SMC Pentax-M ... or something else?

03-09-2017, 02:53 AM	#1
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372	Which Pentax (K) 135mm for Film Bodies The reason for the rather specific question is because I'm in the market for a Pentax 135mm, there's a couple out there such as the SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5, as well as the Pentax-M 135/2.8 and Pentax-A 135/2.8. However I've seen a couple posts mention the Pentax-A suffers quality issues on film yet seems rather nice for DSLRs. But that's the only one of the 135s I see mentioned with that difference between film and digital so when I'm searching thru sample archives, most of them are off of DSLRs and doesn't really give me a point of reference of clarity with a film body (guessing based on how the light falls). I've seen the Pentax-M 135/3.5 go for around $30 to $50, and the Pentax-M 135/2.8 around $90 and up. But not sure if the price bump is just because it's ~2/3rd of a stop faster, or if it has better contrast/clarity. I'm trying to aim at $100 or less for a telephoto (120mm+) prime to use on my MX as I already have a Pentax-M 28/3.5, Pentax-M 50/1.4, Rokinon 85/1.4, and a Tamron SP Adaptall-II 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Lifesize Macro.

03-09-2017, 03:48 AM	#2
Skodadriver Site Supporter Join Date: May 2015 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 892	If you would consider another make than Pentax you will find your options of finding a "good" 135mm lens that has reviews on film cameras. Makinon (macro version, not macro but has "A" setting on apertures), Chinon and Cosina made and are pretty good for budget priced lenses. Reviews of images taken on film cameras are likely to be pretty sparse though for any old 135mm lens. If you are willing to go with a M42 to K adapter, I usually like the Pentacon preset 135mm F2.8 (great bokeh) and the CZJ 135mm F3.5 with A/M switch (sharper) better than my Super-Tak 135mm F3.5. Though I sold both copies of my CZJ's and kept the Super-Tak.... I see a lot of Pentax-M 135mm F3.5 on Ebay that have sold at a price where you can think of getting another Pentax (with F2.8) and still come in around your $100 budget with a bit of luck! Last edited by Skodadriver; 03-09-2017 at 04:14 AM. Reason: Added information

03-09-2017, 05:50 AM	#8
pschlute Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Surrey, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,198	There is no M-series 135mm 2.8. In the M-series for 135mm there is only the 3.5. I have this lens and it is a great performer for its price. The reason they are so cheap on ebay is there were loads of them produced. Have a look here http://stans-photography.info/ The comments all relate to the lenses on film. Last edited by pschlute; 03-09-2017 at 05:57 AM.

03-09-2017, 07:02 AM	#10
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by TaoMaas I'm going to vote for the M135mm f3.5. I would place it next to the 50mm f1.7 as the "best-bang-for-the-buck" manual focus Pentax lens. That's not to say other 135mm lenses might not be better...but you're going to pay for the advances. I recommend the K135/3.5 if you come across one, but I would seek out the K135/2.5 as the best IQ/$ value, though pricier than the M. Any of the three manual 135's except the Takumar Bayonet (avoid that) will be wonderful and affordable. Last edited by monochrome; 03-09-2017 at 09:59 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How much did film bodies and film-era lenses originally cost?	Outis	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	90	12-30-2015 01:19 AM
Which 135mm Takumar is Better, the 135mm/2.5 or the 135mm/3.5?	zx-m	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	23	08-23-2010 05:59 PM
Two bodies, two lenses- which for which?	NeverSatisfied	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	01-02-2009 10:20 AM
Bodies or bodies with lenses?	demondata	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	5	11-16-2008 12:27 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: 2 Digital bodies, 2 film bodies, 4 nice lenses, 1 p-ttl flash	kafreddy	Sold Items	11	03-28-2008 02:36 PM

03-09-2017, 03:53 AM	#3
climit Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Kalamata Posts: 224	I am quite pleased with my K 135/3.5. I am generally pleased with my K primes. I only have the 40/2.8 and 85/2 of the M series. They are both nice lenses but I suspect the K series are in generally superior to the M counterparts.

03-09-2017, 04:10 AM	#4
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,676	I'll throw a curve in here: Sears (Samyang) 135mm f2.8 with Macro Zone I had this (along with a M135/3.5 and sold them both - don't care for the focal length) and it was a surprisingly good lens - they are solidly-built, have outstanding color rendition, and are usually cheap cheap cheap... my flickr album of mine: Sears 135mm f2.8 Macro \| Flickr

03-09-2017, 04:41 AM	#5
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372 Original Poster	The main reason I did not consider brands like sears, jcpenny, cosina, Vivitar, etc is because I'm not sure if results from one is relatively close to a copy of another least with the Pentax, the lens of one series shown could reasonably be considered the same as another of the same lens in the series. That and considered them to be much softer wide open.

03-09-2017, 04:46 AM	#6
Sandy Hancock Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,272	I have owned the K135/2.5 and FA135/2.8. For bokeh quality and build quality, the former wins. For compactness, built in hood and auto focus (if your film body allows it, or if you want to use it on a DSLR), the latter wins.

03-09-2017, 05:04 AM	#7
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	This one: SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 Reviews - K Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database. There is also a Takumar version if you don't mind using the m42 adapter. Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm F2.5 (model 2) Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR/Super-Takumar 135mm F2.5 Reviews - M42 Screwmount Telephoto Primes - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database (mind the model 2).

03-09-2017, 06:41 AM	#9
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	I'm going to vote for the M135mm f3.5. I would place it next to the 50mm f1.7 as the "best-bang-for-the-buck" manual focus Pentax lens. That's not to say other 135mm lenses might not be better...but you're going to pay for the advances.

03-09-2017, 08:54 AM	#11
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090	Another vote for the K135/3.5 for a film camera. Good optics and you should be under the $100.00 mark. (The K135/2.5 & K120/2.8 are also excellent but cost way more) Phil.

03-09-2017, 09:35 AM	#12
Ontarian50 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 530	I tested a bunch of 135mm lenses a couple of years ago on my K-01. I ended up liking, and keeping, the Ricoh XR 135mm 2.8. Trouble is, it's probably a bit harder to find in most locales, than the Pentax lenses. Around here, Ricohs came with basic 50mm lenses, but most got kitted out with "house brand" zooms after that.

03-09-2017, 10:28 AM	#13
klkitchens Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Allanta, GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 480	Originally posted by monochrome Any of the three manual 135's except the Takumar Bayonet (avoid that) will be wonderful and affordable. Ouch... that's the one I have!

03-09-2017, 10:36 AM - 1 Like	#14
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by klkitchens Ouch... that's the one I have! It isn't a bad lens per se, it just doesn't have SMC coating so it is more subject to flare and veiling than the SMC coated 135's. K-mount Page entry.

03-09-2017, 07:22 PM	#15
kb244 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 372 Original Poster	Originally posted by gofour3 Another vote for the K135/3.5 for a film camera. Good optics and you should be under the $100.00 mark. (The K135/2.5 & K120/2.8 are also excellent but cost way more) Phil. Is the "K" the one marked as SMC Pentax-M ... or something else?