[lotech]

Hi there,

I am looking for a budget 135mm lens for shooting flowers and insects to be used with my K3, I've got a nice Jupiter 37A already but it is m42 and no AE, I found it quite slow to use especially in stop down metering, and it is slightly soft to my taste, I want to get rid of m42 with something semi auto like the Pentax-M/A series. I am also looking for the Tamron 135/2.5 that I used long time ago, I found it very sharp and bright, but I never own a Pentax 135 so can't decide between them. AFAIK most Pentax 135 use 5 elements but the Tamron use 4 only but with a thick convex element at the front, and use high refractive glasses to make the lens very compact, so I believe it will work equally well as 5 elements design, if I remember right the Tamron has shorter MOD than the Pentax that suit my needs more, so that I am biase to the Tamron, but still want to know how they compare, any comment ?

---

Last edited by lotech; 04-21-2021 at 06:01 AM.

[DeepThrob]

M 3.5

[brainwave]

I think the Tamron one is likely to outperform the Pentax version in sharpness, while Pentax one gives better color rendition. Sure, color rendition can be fixed in post processing but a good image out of the camera greatly reduces the postprocessing time. However, that is just my experience of having witnessed 2 of these lenses and neither were in good shape.

[lotech]

I think the Tamron one is likely to outperform the Pentax version in sharpness, while Pentax one gives better color rendition. Sure, color rendition can be fixed in post processing but a good image out of the camera greatly reduces the postprocessing time. However, that is just my experience of having witnessed 2 of these lenses and neither were in good shape.

Right I think the same, I remember my copy of Tamron was tick sharp just too sharp for portrait, and generally Pentax produces warmer and pleasant images, but I'm not sure how many aperture blades the Tamron has the Pentax M has 8.

[kypfer]

The Tamron Adaptall-2 135mm f/2.5 has nine aperture blades and a minimum focus of 4ft-1.2m. It has a built-in sliding lens hood, a 58mm filter thread and weighs 470gm with a PK/A adaptor fitted.
When used in conjunction with extension tubes it's a very capable close-focus lens, ideal for flowers, with a slightly more "natural" perspective than the ever-popular (and rather more expensive) Tamron 90mm.
Just my findings and opinions from very many years of owning and using both lenses

[lotech]

Yeah, 1.2m is about the right distance without to scare the bugs away ha ! since I already have the adapter to save some money I will definitely go for that, Tamron is always my 2nd brand to use if originals are too expensive.

[GUB]

Don't forget the Takumar Bayonet group.
I have the 135 2.5 and rate it better open than My M 135 3.5. Others in the reviews state this too.
Haven't put it up against my FA yet tho.
I generally agree with all the positive comments in the reviews.
It is interesting how the earlier reviews tend to be more negative than the later ones.
Takumar 135mm F2.5 Bayonet Reviews - Non-SMC Pentax Prime Lenses - Pentax Lens Reviews & Lens Database

---

Last edited by GUB; 04-21-2021 at 04:23 AM.

[southlander]

Another option, the M120/2.8 is quite a nice lens as well and the difference in FOV to 135mm is pretty minor. A little soft at F2.8 but performs nicely at F4.

[bdery]

Don't forget the Takumar Bayonet group.

I was going to mention this. Both the 135 F2.5 and F2.8 are quite good. from my experience, the F2.8 gives a fairly neutral rendering, easy to work with in post-processing but maybe not as punch as others. Sharpness is pretty good, however, I've used it often for portraits.

[Papa_Joe]

M 3.5

For Flowers and insects you have to add a set of extension tubes, as the M 1:3.5 135 mm has 1.5 mtr. nearest focusing distance.
And you have to stop it down to 1:5.6 at least. The K 2.5/135 mm is much better wide open, but not so cheap.


I would think about a telezoom with a better focusing distance as the A 70-710/4.0 or its successor the F 70-210/4-5.6. With a minimum focusing distance of 1.2 mtr. and 200 mm focal lenght you get into 1:4 without any additional equipment and you have an lens supporting all the automatics.
The A 70-210 is available and inexpensiv.

[lotech]

The reason I am considering the Tamron is it is a close focusing lens by design, adding extension tube will not worsen the image quality unlike what I get with my Jupiter 37A, I believe the Pentax also less than good with extension, if I go for the Pentax I would get the A model instead for ease of use.

[TwoUptons]

I have a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 “close focusing” lens that’s not bad, though I don’t know if it came in a KA variant.

I also used to have a JCPenney marketed 135mm with similar capability. I think I paid $15 for it... it was much better than I expected.

I really like having the A setting for what it does with flash compatibility when shooting up close.

-Eric

[MossyRocks]

Don't forget the Takumar Bayonet group.
I have the 135 2.5 and rate it better open than My M 135 3.5. Others in the reviews state this too.

I also have the 135/2.5 Takumar Bayonet and for non astro useses it seems to be a good lens and would suggest someone who is interested in manual 135mm lenses to consider. Good deals can be hand on them if one looks. I got mine to see how it performed for astro shooting before I got a great 135mm astro lens and it does really bad with astro so I'm not really big into that lens, more so since I like how my old Series 1 Vivitar 135/2.3 renders during the day better (it is awful for astro too) and my Rokinon 135/2 UMC is a fantastic astro lens even if I find it a bit sterile for daytime shooting.

The Series 1 Vivitar 135/2.3 is close focusing and I think it gets to 1:4 or 1:3 magnification so it may be something worth considering but it isn't the cheapest 135 and is somewhat hard to find. As an added bonus this lens is cool looking with a big front element, 72mm filter size, and it is cone shaped

[stevebrot]

the Tamron has shorter MOD

Forgive my ignorance, but what is MOD?


Steve

[Kwong]

Hi there,

I am looking for a budget 135mm lens for shooting flowers and insects to be used with my K3, I've got a nice Jupiter 37A already but it is m42 and no AE, I found it quite slow to use especially in stop down metering, and it is slightly soft to my taste, I want to get rid of m42 with something semi auto like the Pentax-M/A series. I am also looking for the Tamron 135/2.5 that I used long time ago, I found it very sharp and bright, but I never own a Pentax 135 so can't decide between them. AFAIK most Pentax 135 use 5 elements but the Tamron use 4 only but with a thick convex element at the front, and use high refractive glasses to make the lens very compact, so I believe it will work equally well as 5 elements design, if I remember right the Tamron has shorter MOD than the Pentax that suit my needs more, so that I am biase to the Tamron, but still want to know how they compare, any comment ?

i have a pentax a series 135 f2.8 and ricoh 135 f2.8 no A setting. Both i find have great image quality and are well built. I would recommend either one.