[Ephraim]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Good evening folks

Has anyone ever compared images from something like a Vivitar, Sears or whatever 135mm (The ones you buy for 20$) vs the 135 setting of an M-Zoom or a Vivitar Series 1 Zoom?

I'm interested to know, as someone who isn't collecting lenses but trying to get one good performer for each focal length at a minimal budget.

I know there isn't much reason to NOT get lenses that cost 15 dollars, but mentally, I prefer to only have one on the shelf, helps me map my brain better than seeing a thousand lenses

I will say that I do have the M Zoom SMC 75-150, and that the question is, what am I missing but not getting one of the many 135 f2.8 primes.

Thanks !

[Lowell Goudge]

I have several 135’s.
M135/3.5 K 135/2.5, SMC Tak 123/3.5, Super Tak 135.3.5, and tele lentar 135/2.8 preset. I also had but junked a Ricoh 135/2.8 M42 mount

All the Pentax lenses are really sharp, overall I like the K135/2.5 out of the Pentax lineup the most, but it is definitely NOT a $20 lens.

The Ricoh lens was a total disappointment, it had a shiny black anodized ring securing the rear element that led to reflections off the sensor, and it’s light transmission was so poor, that for any given shot and lighting condition, it was one full stop slower than either my super Tak or tele lentar 135’s. I took the M42 mount off it to convert a nikkor 300/4.5 to screw mount.

But having said that, there is something different and special about the tele lentar 135/2.8 preset, in terms of how it rendered the out of focus areas, which seemed to provide some different level of separation between subject and background isolation compared to any of the Pentax lenses at equivalent f-stop.

I find this observation consistent with most preset lenses. I think, but can’t be 100% certain, that it is related to the lens design and the aperture being much closer to the front element, as opposed to automatic aperture lenses that seem to be placed further back towards the lens mount.

[kypfer]

… one good performer for each focal length at a minimal budget.

Tamron Adaptall-2 … 'nuff said

… what am I missing but not getting one of the many 135 f2.8 primes?

Depth of field control … improved low light performance … low weight?


I'm a long-time fan of the "do-it-all" wide range zooms IN GOOD LIGHT! … but when the light gets low the primes get going

[Bob 256]

Tamron Adaptall-2 … 'nuff said

Ditto. I also have the Tamron 135mm f2.8 with K mount (adaptall-2). It's a pretty fair lens but with some chromatic issues. Fairly sharp wide open and great closed down a bit. Used full manual with my K-1. Good for astrophotography. Good portrait lens. Can be adapted to other mounts (assuming you can find the adaptall mount needed).

Tamron 135mm F2.8 BBAR Multi C. Prime Lens Adaptall Mount for SLR Cameras | eBay

Tamron Adaptall 2 (Pentax K) Lens Adapter at KEH Camera

The following are x5 crops from an f2.8 and an f8 exposure, respectively.

Attached Images

   

---

Last edited by Bob 256; 03-03-2023 at 04:21 PM.

[EssJayEff]

I have the Super Takumar Zoom 70-150mm f/4.5, Super-Takumar 135mm f/2.5, and Soligor C/D 78-210mm f/3.5, so I guess I could do a test of those three lens, but I do not have a "whatever" 135mm, which was at the root of your question.

[RICHARD L.]

In the "old days" (around 1970s), primes used to be much sharper and more uniform than zooms, being of simpler optical make-up. Nowadays, a good zoom is optically the equal of primes. I used to utilise Minolta cameras and lenses in the film era. I had first a big Minolta MC 300 mm f/4.5 telephoto that I found often disappointing (quite sharp but extremely prone to flare). Then I found a newer Minolta MD 300 mm f/4.5 that proved to be even worse than my first MC lens. Just before turning decidedly digital with Pentax material, I finally purchased a Minolta MD 100-300 mm f/5.6 that proved "stellar" at 300 mm FL.

So, newer zooms may be even better than older primes. Computer design plus better coatings and interior baffling worked wonders over time.

Regards

[whojammyflip]

A great manual zoom for this is the Kiron 70-150, which can be found for cheap....there is one on ebay right now which has been there for months. Its bonkers sharp at the short end.

I tested all my lenses using MTF Mapper a while back, and another sleeper is the Tamron 278d 80-210:

Tamron 278D AF 80-210mm F4.5-5.6 Lens Reviews - Tamron Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

it was the sharpest by far of any lens I have at 135mm. Bonkers. Again, you can pick this up for next to nothing. This was against the Vivitar S1's, various Kiron lenses, Tamron SP's, Pentax A/M 80-200, Tamron 135/2.5, Pentax M 135 etc etc.