[jumbleview]

Does anybody has an experience with both lens and can tell difference and similarity between them. I did read reviews on the forum. They both are favorable against M-135 3.5 but it is not clear how they look if compared to each other.
Thanks in advance for any input.

[Just1MoreDave]

The SMC Pentax 135/2.5 was too big for me. If I had to think of other "flaws", it has the type of fringing common to the K series telephotos, and a 1.5m/5ft minimum focus distance. And the hood isn't awesome. But it is a very good lens. Probably you have to look to the F or FA series to get better; I've never used these. I still miss mine a little.

I got good price on the SMC Pentax-A 135/2.8, which is smaller, 1.2m MFD, has a slide-out hood and is easier to use. I deliberately did not directly take test shots to compare it to the K135/2.5. I just took enough shots to see if it was good. I know it is amazingly awesome compared to the DA 18-135 at 135mm, because the DA is weak and slow at 135mm. If you get fringing, it's the more common purple. I like the convenience of the KA lenses. It works better for me. I can't quite get over knowing there are only 4 elements - how could it possibly be any good with 4 elements? I don't know, but it is.

[Gerbermiester]

I've had two copies of the K 135mm f/2.5, one copy of the M 135mm f/3.5, a copy of the FA 135mm f/2.8, and a copy of the A 135mm f/2.8.

I sold all of them less one copy of the K series lenses. I shoot it on my K2's and my K-1 with a swapped microprism focusing screen with great results on both film and digital.

Both of the K lenses I had were tack sharp wide open and showed minimal people fringing whereas the M, A, and FA lenses were noticeably softer and had greater fringing until around f/4. From f/4 and higher, each of the lenses were great performers. I also prefer the bokeh of the K lens.

That being said, the K and M series lenses don't communicate aperture info to your camera body, so if you're using a hotshoe mounted flash, you can kiss P-ttl goodbye.

To be clear, though: none of these lenses are stinkers. Whatever you buy will yield good to excellent results with practise and patience.

Hope this helps!

[Gary H Perth]

To be honest, I have skipped the 135mm lenses, and have a Pentax-M 150mm. It's great, sharper than my old M135 f3.5 and lighter than any f2.5s.

[Kerrowdown]

If it's the 135mm focal length your after, have you considered the option of the Pentax-A*135mm F1.8... it's truly a fine piece of Pentax glass, that I can throughly recommend without any hesitation.

[ChristianRock]

When I had the SMC-A 135mm f/2.8 it got me good pictures but I wasn't terribly impressed with it, especially if any sun got on the front element, it flared like crazy. And it was sharp but my SMC-A 70-210mm f4 was sharper at any shared apertures - so I sold the A 135. Eventually ended up buying a Takumar Bayonet 135 2.8 that is just as good if not better (to my eyes it's better wide open, which is probably just copy variation). But I don't use it that much.

Now my SMC-M 100mm f/2.8 gets a lot more use and is a much better lens. I also have the SMC-M 135mm f/3.5 and I also don't find it quite as good as the 100mm, the colors and contrast especially aren't quite as nice.

Do you shoot with FF or APS-C? I find 100mm is a very sweet spot for medium tele on APS-C, but if you shoot with the K-1 you probably want something longer.

[jumbleview]

Thanks everybody for responses. I like all of them, especially @Kerrowdown regarding A*135mm F1.8. But > $1000 for piece of optics is too much for me. I will look for something in 100-200 range. As of now I shoot KP mostly but think about getting K-1 in the future.

[stemked]

I have the 135mm f2.8 A lens. I think it is actually a pretty decent lens, but I admit I haven't really used it since I got a Pentax 80-200 FA f2.8. When I did use it I took a REALLY nice shot of my daughter on stage with it. I am not sure this is the right place, but for a reasonable price I think I could part with it.

[gofour3]

I've got five 135mm lenses and would rate them as follows:

1) A*135/1.8
2) K135/2.5
3) F135/2.8
4) K135/3.5
5) Super Takumar 135/3.5

Note I'm using these lenses on Pentax film cameras.

Phil.

[ChristianRock]

Thanks everybody for responses. I like all of them, especially @Kerrowdown regarding A*135mm F1.8. But > $1000 for piece of optics is too much for me. I will look for something in 100-200 range. As of now I shoot KP mostly but think about getting K-1 in the future.

If you can stretch that budget just a little bit and find a copy of the SMC-F 135mm f/2.8, it has a better optical formula than the SMC-A version (4 elements in 4 groups, a very simple optical formula that usually appears in "budget" lenses, and is the exact same as the cheap Takumar Bayonet 135mm lenses). It would be worth it. The SMC-F 135mm f/2.8 has 8 elements in 7 groups - in other words, double the glass, which means a much better corrected lens.

Or, just get the SMC-M 100mm f/2.8 or the SMC-M 120mm f/2.8, that would be my suggestion. The SMC-M 150mm f/3.5 is also worth considering but it's f/3.5 and not f/2.8 - and it's not as sharp and contrasty wide open, at least my copy, so I don't usually use it below f/5.6. The SMC-M 100mm f/2.8 is perfectly usable wide open (my SMC-A 135mm f/2.8 wasn't, if there was any strong light in the picture).

[Kerrowdown]

especially @Kerrowdown regarding A*135mm F1.8. But > $1000 for piece of optics is too much for me

Ok that's understandable, I just wanted to mention it in case...

[Kerrowdown]

I've got five 135mm lenses and would rate them as follows:

1) A*135/1.8 2) K135/2.5 3) F135/2.8 4) K135/3.5 5) Super Takumar 135/3.5

Note I'm using these lenses on Pentax film cameras. Phil.

Glad to see that my Lady Luck is number one on your list too.

[gofour3]

Glad to see that my Lady Luck is number one on your list too.

Yep the A*135/1.8 is in a league of its own...

Phil.

[Just1MoreDave]

...
Do you shoot with FF or APS-C? I find 100mm is a very sweet spot for medium tele on APS-C, but if you shoot with the K-1 you probably want something longer.

On APS-C I think minimum focus distance is important for these lenses. They are fast enough to use indoors, but at 5 feet/1.5 meters (for a lot of 135s) a good sized room is necessary.

I like your suggestions about the other M lenses. The M120/2.8 is very nice but difficult to find. Usually a less-common lens has a higher price, but it seems like the M120/2.8 is so uncommon, people don't know what price to use. Some sell for less than the super-common M135/3.5.

[AggieDad]

I have the Pentax-A 135mm f2.8 and enjoy using it. I find it easy to handle and focus. I also find it very sharp – see the photos below.


This was taken from a distance of approx. 30-40 feet through a chainlink fence at a nearby electric substation. Below is the detail outlined in the red rectangle. Cropped and enlarged, it is more than sharp enough to read the numbers and bar code clearly.