[normhead]

I bought the FA 135 f2.8 because I wanted a light, auto focus lens in this focal length. Obviously it was used, but the cost was about 300 dollars, which I thought was a good deal. I do think the reason for the cost of the 135 f2.8 has a lot to do with the rarity of it. The Samyang 135 f2 is probably sharper and has decent bokeh and is quite a bit cheaper. On the other hand, it won't keep its value the way the A 135 f1.8 will because there are no new copies of the 135 f1.8 being made. I think we all know this, but it is the same reason that a rare stamp from the 1800s will be worth thousands of dollars while a prettier stamp from last year is worth almost nothing.

Kerrowdown has shown that with some skill (I don't manual focus much at all), you can produce excellent images with the 135 f1.8, even wide open. That said, it isn't image quality that is driving this market and if you buy a copy, it is because you want a collectors item and have the money for it, not because you need the image quality it offers.

And here I would have thought it was because the older glass has different style of rendering that helps it's images stand out from images taken with modern everyday lenses.

[UncleVanya]

And here I would have thought it was because the older glass has different style of rendering that helps it's images stand out from images taken with modern everyday lenses.

Can I just say you need to warn me before I see something like this? I nearly did a spit take on my computer. Well said. LOL.

[monochrome]

Is this lens really worth 2000$+ ? All the lenses listed on eBay are going for this. Collectors item? Or is it miles ahead of the Pentax FA 135mm 2.8 and Pentax F 135mm f2.8 in performance? Or is it both? Damn this lens got my interest.

Is a FA43/1.9 Limited, serial number 0000831, with the box and everything that was in the box when new - worth $1,000*?

That’s 2x what a new one costs on Amazon.

[cyberjunkie]

I think you are not discussing AF vs MF but build quality. And yes I agree that build quality can demand a surcharge. With regards to lens prices I don't expect the broader market to value this at more than +10-15% though. It might even be a downside for some. See the weight discussions.

No opinion is "nonsense". All are respectable.
Though if you compare an A Star with a DA with non-working AF it's a bit apples and oranges
The increase in price from an average prosumer AF build to an old-style MF build is much more than 15%.
It's not my guess or your guess, just check the price of Zeiss and Voigtlander objectives (which I suspect are not on par with the mechanics of the A*).
Building a similar lens nowadays would probably cost a lot of money. If sold to the public with the same kind of profit typical of premium AF lenses, it would be very expensive to the customers.
My point is that being MF does not implicitly reduce the value (intended as cost) of the lens.
The main point is if the performance (considering build, ergonomics, ease of manual focusing, aesthetics) deserves such high prices.
Also considering the relative rarity of the lens, and its price when it was sold new, I'd say that the price is excessive, but not completely crazy.

....... here you clearly need a direct visual comparison against peers. In PK-mount there are Porst 135/1.8 peers costing 250 EUR used and Samyang 135/2 costing 490 EUR new. If someone can show a direct comparison with exact same subject where the A* is much better then this would be fine. Only there is absolutely nothing of this type of evidence.
I have owned both the Samyang and the Porst and can say that their bokeh certainly was nothing to criticise.

Maybe one day I will buy the Samyang. I believe it's a very good lens, and from the charts I see that the optical performance is at the same level of the cream of the crop (read Zeiss).
I own four recent Samyang objectives, so I have also an idea of the downsides.
The build is decent but not exceptional, and the quality control is lacking.

I bought one new and three used, and all in all I'm satisfied. Two are very good (24mm and 35mm) and two good enough (14mm and 85mm).
The 14mm could be better. I considered that others had horror stories and decided to keep it.

You see... there are other aspects other than sharpness. I think the Samyang is conveniently priced, taking into account its performance. However it can't be denied that is another kind of objective.
There are not so many choices available in PK mount, and even considering screw mount lenses the possible choices are limited.
The Porst is a specialty lens, it has a funky rendering and nice bokeh but lacks sharpness.
I own another f/1.8, the Raynox Polaris. It's older than the Porst, has better sharpness and beautiful bokeh, but has M42 mount and definitely is not the sharpest lens.
The Tokina-made Soligor C/D P 2/135mm is much better: good build, sharp enough and nice bokeh. Though has a screw mount, and was never made in PK bayonet. Not very practical, much slower and limited than a PKA.
There is one on eBay now, at half what I consider the appropriate price. Strangely it didn't sell immediately. Maybe because few people know about its qualities.
I like it a lot, though if I had to express my educated guess I'd say that it is the best of my fast 135mm's but still quite far from the A Star.
Few fast vintage 135mm lenses are available in the second hand market. I believe it is one of the causes of the high price of the A*.
The 1.4/85mm, one of the best Pentax lenses ever (IMHO), is definitely cheaper because there are other alternatives.

I agree that it would be nice to see the same subject shot wide open with both the A* 1.8/135mm and the Samyang 2/135mm.
Can't wait to satisfy my curiosity.

I have no idea what to expect...

---

Last edited by cyberjunkie; 11-02-2018 at 05:02 AM.

[Digitalis]

135mm lenses have been a contentious issue for reasons that continue to mystify me. It's a focal length I hardly ever use on full frame or even on APS-C : too short for wildlife - too long for portraiture. I've used the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 more than I have ever used any 135mm lens.

Leitz Canada Summicron 2/90mm @f/2 on K-1 full frame

That flute player is going to have problems with his right hand wrist with a thumb position like that...the thumb should be under the index finger for proper balance.

[dadipentak]

It's a focal length I hardly ever use on full frame or even on APS-C : too short for wildlife - too long for portraiture.

Maybe not optimal for formal portraiture but a good choice for candid portraiture--and the 1.8 especially in low light conditions.

I defer to you on flute technique.

[pleo]

For me the 135 mm-focal length is perfect for my indoor sports photos - preferably Badminton.
Before I used 85 mm but had too much surroundings - and the K 2.5/135 as well as / even more the A* 1.8/135 are much sharper than the 85 mm or the 80-200!
Perhaps the new Pentax 2.8/70-200 is sharper though?

@beholder
As far as I know you cannot buy the Samyang 2.0/135 new any more - at least here in Germany.....
Ah ... and the Porst 1.8/135 goes for more on eBay than the Price you value the A* ....

[cyberjunkie]

135mm lenses have been a contentious issue for reasons that continue to mystify me. It's a focal length I hardly ever use on full frame or even on APS-C : too short for wildlife - too long for portraiture. I've used the Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6 more than I have ever used any 135mm lens.


That flute player is going to have problems with his right hand wrist with a thumb position like that...the thumb should be under the index finger for proper balance.

Yes, 135mm's are a love or hate thing
Personally I've always liked them back in film times, and I even forced myself to use the focal on APS-C!
The result were a mixed bag. One time I did a flash mob with a 135mm and it was definitely a bit too much, most of the portraits were a bit too tight!
Doing concerts it played much better. I did portraits of the singer/musicians from under the stage, or either half figure or full figure portraits when I couldn't reach a better position. Having the same field of view of a 200mm on FF allows to take pictures of the performers even when it's practically impossible to get close to the stage.
I remember in particular two times, when I really forced myself to use a vintage M42 prime even if I had better (and easier to use!) PKAF zooms or PKA primes!
I had them at hand and ready to be used, but I wanted to extensively test two humble 135mm's and see how they would fare.
In the end both lenses showed much better performance than expected. Unfortunately it's not always possible to back off and zoom with one's feet... so I ended up with some shots that were tighter than I wanted them to be.
Btw, the two humble M42 135mm's were a Porst 2.8/135mm (Sun-made, silver, four elements) and a late Enna 2.8/135mm (black, partly plastic version).
Both performed decently wide open, and quite well stopped down a little (when there was enough light). The performance of the K-01 at high ISO is not outstanding, so I always tried my best to keep the sensitivity of the sensor as low as possible.

Today I use almost exclusively the full frame format, and I love the focal. I often use a 135mm on my K-1, for example for portraits.
I think that 135mm is not excessive for portrait use. On average it's better than 85mm and worse than 100/105mm.
It flattens the face if used from too far, but I like tight portraits, so I shoot from close enough to be happy with the result.
On most occasions a 135mm meets my tastes more than a FL of 85mm.


Regarding the flute player... I guess it is common to have a bad handling of the instrument if you are self-taught (not sure about that but very probable).
He played well though. Thai people are predisposed to learn music, and many youngsters play an instrument, in most cases self-taught.
I love live music, and I'm very happy there is plenty of it in Thailand.

Cheers
Paolo

[gofour3]

It all depends on what you are used to. I started with a 135mm lens as my only telephoto, when I got my first SLR kit back in 1975. I used it for everything from people to flowers and everything in between including landscape shots.

You get used to what the FL is capable of and for me 135mm is a perfect focal length for an all purpose telephoto. Of course the focal length fell out of favor in the 1990's, as zoom lenses improved, so many people never clicked with this FL.

Phil.

[Kerrowdown]

Kerrowdown has shown that with some skill (I don't manual focus much at all), you can produce excellent images with the 135 f1.8, even wide open.

Thank you for your kind comment.

[mikesbike]

I like my little "M" 135mm f/3.5, which I bought used over 15 years ago for around $65 in mint condition. I like it for one thing because it is small but very well built. Its focusing is smooth as silk. No doubt the "A" f/1.8 version would be much larger, but how great to have f/1.8 available at that FL and with such performance wide open! Even so, I also think rarity is the main reason for the ridiculous cost of $1,000 used. I would not mind if my "M" lens became rare, maybe it would be then "worth" $800! I have noticed my little kit lens of 18-50mm f/4-5.6 has become rather rare, not being offered in a kit lately. I got it for just a few bucks over the cost of my K-S2 alone. Who knows- in time, its rarity may increase making it "worth" much more, so I'll be able to sell it for $800!

I like the 135mm focal length, both for 35mm film use for which I originally acquired it, and also for APS-C use. On these DSLR bodies, one gets a similar result as a 202mm lens on FF. Actually with Pentax it's 1.53x as I recall, so more like 207mm. Not too bad having f/1.8 with fine performance in a 207mm telephoto image! Hello, Pentax, this lens looks like a top notch formula, how about a re-issue with DC WR! With a 1.4 TC the APS-C equivalency would approach 300mm at f/2.5, and still at a reasonable weight for handling.

[pleo]

yes - handling of the M 3.5/135 is a joy!
The A* requires a bigger handgrip for handling.
When using my Q I would never think about the A* but with the M 3.5 (which gives 742 mm equiv. !!!) it's really quite good!

Even with my trusty Ds I prefer only smaller lenses.

[cyberjunkie]

I like my little "M" 135mm f/3.5, which I bought used over 15 years ago for around $65 in mint condition. I like it for one thing because it is small but very well built. Its focusing is smooth as silk. No doubt the "A" f/1.8 version would be much larger, but how great to have f/1.8 available at that FL and with such performance wide open! Even so, I also think rarity is the main reason for the ridiculous cost of $1,000 used. I would not mind if my "M" lens became rare, maybe it would be then "worth" $800! I have noticed my little kit lens of 18-50mm f/4-5.6 has become rather rare, not being offered in a kit lately.

Even if the 1.8/135mm is not properly rare, just uncommon and expensive, I guess that the total number isn't big at all.
I guess that to reach the number of the most common Pentax lenses you have to add three zeros, maybe even four.
Your Pentax-M 3.5/135mm will never be rare (it was one of the most successful Pentax lenses ever, I remember that at the time each and every shop had at least one example for sale), but there is nothing negative in it. It sold well because it was good and relatively inexpensive!
I owned one myself, of course
Fortunately the relationship between price and performance is not linear. It's more a logarithmic one.
For a small increase in speed and build/IQ, we have to pay a huge price premium. Which means that very good lenses can be had for very low prices nowadays, if the goal is good IQ and not rarity.
So if you are not a bokeh enthusiast, or a collector, you have plenty of good reasons to be perfectly satisfied with your lens.
Personally I believe that if you shoot the same picture with the two lenses, yours and the A Star, both at f/8, it would be VERY difficult to tell the difference. Maybe impossible.

Btw, there is an A* that I would define properly rare: the 1200mm. Never seen one with my eyes.
As I've never seen a Quartz Takumar, or any Ultra-Achromatic Takumar.
Back in the time, in a half million city, I had the chance to buy second hand both the 1.8/135mm and the 4/200mm Macro, speaking of A Star's.
I was not interested, but I remember I also saw a 600mm, and I'm almost sure the 2.8/400mm too.
I admit I'd love to own them all, but in all sincerity uncommon/expensive lenses are more a pleasure to own than a pleasure to shoot with.
If you have very valuable lenses you'd find all possible excuses to leave them at home if there is any chance the equipment could get ruined or stolen.
I travel a lot and live in a humid, tropical climate. I always end up carrying the second best, which is a shame... but after fighting fungi with scarce success, and having a lens worth $500/600 infested twice in a row, I decided to play it safe and use my most valuable optics only when I see no risks.
Recently I'm trying to restrain my collector's appetites (kind of successfully), and instead I'm having plenty of fun trying to find uncelebrated lenses that perform much better than expected. It's cheap and very rewarding

[HarisF1]

Here you go guys... enjoy this little sight.

[mikesbike]

Pretty impressive! It would look good on my K-5 IIs also. I certainly am very happy with my compact "M" 135mm f/3.5 with its neat built-in metal lens hood. I am also extremely happy with my FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited's excellent performance, compactness, and handling, with its neat built-in metal lens hood. To stretch a well-built tele prime to a very good-performing 135mm f/1.8 version certainly does entail some size increase! To make an analogy from APS-C to FF use, can one even imagine shooting low light images with a fine-performing wide open 200mm f/1.8 prime lens? Now that would be some serious size and weight!