Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-03-2007, 01:36 PM   #1
Veteran Member
codiac2600's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Posts: 2,030
SMC 135mm 2.5 crispness (mostly for alvin)

Alvin wanted to know how crisp the 135mm 2.5 was so I took some sample shots today and here is what I have to show off:







I hope these images help people and I'm still getting used to this lens, it's super touchy with the focus so probably a great portrait lens, not so much for nature photography in my opinion.

04-03-2007, 03:07 PM   #2
Site Supporter
slip's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 2 hours north of toronto ontario canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,515
that is a sharp lens. I don't think my SMC M 135 3.5 is as sharp as your 2.5

thanks for posting

randy
04-03-2007, 08:15 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Alvin's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,530
Thanks for keeping me in mind, Codiac!

I agree with Randy. I just got the 3.5 and it's good but that's a big difference. Were these shot wide open?
04-04-2007, 06:28 AM   #4
Veteran Member
FotoPete's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,710
I haven't used my dad's M135 as often. But this recent debate shall inspire me to use it a bit more. That 2.8 on the Rikenon is helluva tempting though.

Haha stop trying to giving Alvin, buyers remorse. :P jkjk. Don't worry, I'll show you some M135/3.5. (Soon. Gotta get some assignments finished.)

04-04-2007, 07:12 AM   #5
Veteran Member
codiac2600's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Posts: 2,030
Original Poster
Yes those are all taken wide open, I'll take some more later today when the darkness breaks out here at different stops if nayone is interested.
04-04-2007, 08:01 AM   #6
Veteran Member
Alvin's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,530
QuoteOriginally posted by FotoPete Quote
I haven't used my dad's M135 as often. But this recent debate shall inspire me to use it a bit more. That 2.8 on the Rikenon is helluva tempting though.

Haha stop trying to giving Alvin, buyers remorse. :P jkjk. Don't worry, I'll show you some M135/3.5. (Soon. Gotta get some assignments finished.)
Pete - who said I had any remorse? I may just hand someone my 135/3.5if the price is right for the 2.5 - The extra aperture stop will come in handy this summer. Then I might just grant you that wish and you'll have your second 3.5!

Thanks, Codiac! I wonder - What's the dimensions of the 2.5 lens? The 3.5 was a lot smaller than I thought it would be (about 2/3's the size of my Sears lens).
04-04-2007, 09:07 AM   #7
Veteran Member
codiac2600's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Posts: 2,030
Original Poster
Gosh... I actually didn't bring my bag with me today and to give u a rough guestimate it weighs like 90 million pounds and is nineteen feet long. It's about 5 pounds (seriously, it's a heavy piece of steel and glass) and it's just shy of the length of a tamron 75-300mm. Hope that helps, but I'll give you exact info when I get back to the house later tonight.
04-05-2007, 01:27 PM   #8
Veteran Member
Piotr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Warsaw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 337
QuoteOriginally posted by codiac2600 Quote
I hope these images help people and I'm still getting used to this lens, it's super touchy with the focus so probably a great portrait lens, not so much for nature photography in my opinion.
I'm not sure what does mean nature photography but I tried it last Sunday and personally like what it did.





and here 4 shots stiched together (black and white)



04-05-2007, 02:14 PM   #9
Veteran Member
codiac2600's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Posts: 2,030
Original Poster
I was mostly talking about moving creatures like birds or squirrels since it's such a toucy lens and the dof is very punchy at times making a decent crisp focus on the fly very tricky. Nice pics by the way! Oh my mom is from Warsaw or maybe it's a small town outside of warsaw, i'll have to ask her again.
04-05-2007, 02:57 PM   #10
roy
Inactive Account
roy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: D/FW area, Tx.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,712
which model 2.5 are we talking about. i know of at least 2.
04-06-2007, 03:07 AM   #11
Veteran Member
Piotr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Warsaw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 337
I'm talking about Pentax smc 135mm f/2.5 with 58mm diameter.
04-06-2007, 08:43 AM   #12
Senior Member
guillermovilas's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hasselt , Belgium
Posts: 224
I didn`t know this lens , when does it date from ?

I saw a few days ago in a shop a secondhand 135mmf/2.8 (dates from 1991) for 300 euro , is this a good deal ?

Do they still make these and at what price ?
04-06-2007, 10:08 AM   #13
roy
Inactive Account
roy's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: D/FW area, Tx.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,712
QuoteOriginally posted by Piotr Quote
I'm talking about Pentax smc 135mm f/2.5 with 58mm diameter.
thanks piotr,
i had the non-smc version, 52mm, for awhile. i did not need another paperweight so i sold it.
04-06-2007, 11:50 AM   #14
Veteran Member
Alvin's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,530
QuoteOriginally posted by codiac2600 Quote
Gosh... I actually didn't bring my bag with me today and to give u a rough guestimate it weighs like 90 million pounds and is nineteen feet long. It's about 5 pounds (seriously, it's a heavy piece of steel and glass) and it's just shy of the length of a tamron 75-300mm. Hope that helps, but I'll give you exact info when I get back to the house later tonight.
That's a big lens! Nothing like the couple hundred grams and small dimensions of this M135/3.5.
04-06-2007, 12:30 PM   #15
Veteran Member
Piotr's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Warsaw
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 337
QuoteOriginally posted by guillermovilas Quote
I didn`t know this lens , when does it date from ?
according to B.Dimitrow page it is:
Exact Name smc PENTAX 1:2.5 135mm
Color black
Years of Production 1977 ~ 1985
Sold with Hood
Sold with Case hard case: smc PENTAX 2.5/135


cost on ebay is about 200 usd.

it looks to be quite sharp from f2.5, my 'tests' are here
Pentax SMC 135mm 1:2.5 Photo Gallery by Piotr Sobolewski at pbase.com
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
135mm, alvin, k-mount, lens, pentax lens, slr lens, smc 135mm
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale - Sold: K 24mm 2.8, M 28mm 3.8, SMC Tak 135mm 2.5, SMC Tak 135mm 3.5 jsherman999 Sold Items 19 12-14-2009 02:20 PM
For Sale - Sold: SMC-K 135mm/3.5, SMC-M 135mm/3.5 and 80-200mm/4.5 TimB Sold Items 4 08-03-2009 12:06 AM
For Sale - Sold: M42 Lenses - SMC 50mm F1.4 | SMC 135mm | 135mm barbosas Sold Items 8 02-17-2008 11:49 AM
A page from Alvin (family shots) codiac2600 Post Your Photos! 9 05-23-2007 08:26 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:52 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top