Which 135mm?

scribble · 04-29-2007, 10:53 AM

Alright, Im looking into this, and what is the big difference between the F/2.8 and F/3.5 versions?

Thanks
Steven

**jfdavis58** · 04-29-2007, 11:04 AM

About 1/2 stop. I would assume that the 2.8 is built to somewhat higher standard as to material and construction-but that's a weak assumption.

FotoPete · 04-29-2007, 11:22 AM

I don't think you can really go wrong with any Pentax 135mm. The M135/3.5 is a solid lens and is very cheap. If you want one that falls nicely into your nice a$$ collection of primes, from a collectors viewpoint, I'd try to find the A*135/1.8.

| 21mm F/3.2 | 31mm F/1.8 | 40mm F/2.8 | 50mm F/1.2 | 77mm F/1.8 | 135mm F/1.8 |

Would look better than a 135/3.5 or 2.8. But all 135mm coming from Pentax are very nice.

scribble · 04-29-2007, 12:53 PM

ha! Well thanks Pete, but im looking mainly for one thats small and light. Thats where the question really comes from. I have heard such great things about the F/3.5 version, and not too mucha t all form the F/2.8 version, but the size differential is so small, you know?

As for the lens itself, its going on an LX, so I can build a small and relatively light kit for treking it out in the rockies. As great as the K10 is, its just large, and I would feel horrid if I busted that doing something stupid. As for an LX, I found one for $25 in a bit of rough shape (Yard Sale), but the shutter is still sound, and teh meter is acurate, so it would work perfect for climbing boulders and going through rivers.

Thanks for any imput into this matter! Im quite lost on which one to get for this.

GaryML · 04-29-2007, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by scribble

Alright, Im looking into this, and what is the big difference between the F/2.8 and F/3.5 versions?

There have been many Pentax 135mm lenses. Assuming we are discussing the ones made by Pentax, and not the third-party brands, then look at following Web site for a complete list of the Pentax lenses:

Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Equipment Page

The following is my experience with Pentax 135 lenses:

SMCP-FA 135mm f2.8 [IF]: Probably the best of the 135mm f2.8/3.5 lenses (not including the SMCP-A* 135mm f1.8, which is probably the best, most expensive and heaviest Pentax lens in this focal length). I have the FA 135mm lens and I like it a lot. Highly recommended. The SMCP-F 135mm f2.8 [IF] is the same optical formula with only cosmetic differences, and it is also recommended.

SMCP-M 135mm f3.5: A good lens that I used with film bodies. It is manual exposure and manual focus. I have also used the M 150mm f3.5 and it also gave good results.

Takumar A (Bayonet) 135mm f2.5: I had this lens and it was disappointing. A 4 element design. I would avoid the 4 element 135 mm lenses, including the A 135mm f2.8 and the K 135mm f2.8.

K 135mm f2.5: I haven't tried this lens but I've read favorable reports. This lens would be preferred over the 4 element lenses listed above, and possibly preferred over the M f3.5.

Skorzen · 04-29-2007, 02:08 PM

I have never used but have seen great results from the K 135 2.5 (not the Takumar bayonet cheep version) My impression is that this is basically the SMC Takumar 135 2.5 in the K mount.

Artymous · 04-29-2007, 02:49 PM

A rough and tumble beast that would handle any of the mountaineering you throw at it. Built-in lens hood, fantastic construction.

Downside is that it's fully manual... although that's almost what an LX needs

kjao · 04-29-2007, 04:00 PM

Hi Steven

I have got K135/2.5 and FA135/2.8 and used to own M135/3.5. Here is my take on them:

Portability (ie from smallest to biggest):
M135 > FA135 > K135

Sharpness (from sharpest to less sharp):
K135 > FA135 > M135
The K135 is a tad sharper than FA135 wide-open.

Ease of use (from easiest to less easy):
FA135 > M135 >= K135

Anyway here is two very unscientific test shots I have got with K135 and FA135:

FA135

K135

cheers
Kenny

jthommo · 04-29-2007, 04:28 PM

I have the M135/3.5 - lovely manual lens, small, light, well put together with a built-in hood and very sharp. I found one on eekbay for about 50 bucks I think.

DAP · 04-29-2007, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by GaryML

I would avoid the 4 element 135 mm lenses, including the A 135mm f2.8 and the K 135mm f2.8.[/B].

I wouldn't put all the 4 element designs in the same category - the K135/3.5 is sharper than the M135/3.5 and it is a 4 element design. The only problem with it is its size (way bigger than the M version). Definately a high quality bargain though

FotoPete · 04-29-2007, 07:01 PM

OMG LX for $25...ARGH. Why does everyone stumble on the goods and I never do!

I just got sniped out of a Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm today on ebay and I have a feeling it was someone on this forum LoL...grrr

rfortson · 04-29-2007, 08:59 PM

I have the SMC-A 135 f/2.8, which doesn't get a lot of love from the general crowd, but I really like it. It's great for indoor events, such as concerts, since it's small, has decent reach, and fairly fast. Oh, and it's also cheap! I paid ~$100 at a camera store, and you can find them online for less.

Personally, I think ANY of the 135 f/2.x are bargains. That 1/2 stop can come in handy, and it doesn't cost that much. Here's a shot taken with it from a couple of months ago, f/2.8, ISO800, 1/100s, handheld.

For the price, you can't beat the performance in my book.

redcurl · 04-30-2007, 05:27 PM

Hi, I use the Pentax-M, 135mm,f/3.5 and it is a very good lens, makes nice shots and is cheap to buy.

scribble · 05-01-2007, 04:10 PM

Well thanks guys! This makes the decision much easier!

volosong · 05-02-2007, 11:24 AM

Got a copy of the M135/3.5 and it is an excellent lens. Best about it is the size. Cute as a button. Also recently acquired a K135/2.5 and it is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the M version. Optical quality is a tad better than the 3.5, but because of the relative sizes, the M usually gets the call if I have to lug one around on foot, especially if light isn't an issue.

04-29-2007, 10:53 AM	#1
scribble Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Kentville, NS Photos: Gallery Posts: 208	Which 135mm? Alright, Im looking into this, and what is the big difference between the F/2.8 and F/3.5 versions? Thanks Steven

04-29-2007, 02:49 PM	#7
Artymous Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Sechelt, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 229	I just picked up the M-135mm f/3.5 A rough and tumble beast that would handle any of the mountaineering you throw at it. Built-in lens hood, fantastic construction. Downside is that it's fully manual... although that's almost what an LX needs

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 28-80mm, 35-135mm and sears 135mm	YJD	Sold Items	5	07-15-2009 01:42 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 50-135mm SMCP-DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 ED IF SDM	mmzymxf	Sold Items	1	10-28-2008 01:01 PM
For Sale - Sold: SuperTak 35mm f/3.5, Soligor 135mm f/2.8, Hanimex 135mm f/2.8 (M42 lens)	hinman	Sold Items	14	01-14-2008 11:36 AM
Mid Range Zoom - Tamron 24-135mm or Pentax F 35-135mm?	Khukri	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	06-26-2007 02:02 AM
For Sale - Sold: Make Offers: Haminex 135mm f/2.8, Sears 135mm f/2.8, Super Albinar 100-200mm f	inneyeseakay	Sold Items	1	06-23-2007 02:05 AM

04-29-2007, 11:04 AM	#2
jfdavis58 Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: 13 S 0357397-3884316 Photos: Gallery Posts: 887	About 1/2 stop. I would assume that the 2.8 is built to somewhat higher standard as to material and construction-but that's a weak assumption.

04-29-2007, 11:22 AM	#3
FotoPete Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,774	I don't think you can really go wrong with any Pentax 135mm. The M135/3.5 is a solid lens and is very cheap. If you want one that falls nicely into your nice a$$ collection of primes, from a collectors viewpoint, I'd try to find the A*135/1.8. \| 21mm F/3.2 \| 31mm F/1.8 \| 40mm F/2.8 \| 50mm F/1.2 \| 77mm F/1.8 \| 135mm F/1.8 \| Would look better than a 135/3.5 or 2.8. But all 135mm coming from Pentax are very nice.

04-29-2007, 12:53 PM	#4
scribble Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Kentville, NS Photos: Gallery Posts: 208 Original Poster	ha! Well thanks Pete, but im looking mainly for one thats small and light. Thats where the question really comes from. I have heard such great things about the F/3.5 version, and not too mucha t all form the F/2.8 version, but the size differential is so small, you know? As for the lens itself, its going on an LX, so I can build a small and relatively light kit for treking it out in the rockies. As great as the K10 is, its just large, and I would feel horrid if I busted that doing something stupid. As for an LX, I found one for $25 in a bit of rough shape (Yard Sale), but the shutter is still sound, and teh meter is acurate, so it would work perfect for climbing boulders and going through rivers. Thanks for any imput into this matter! Im quite lost on which one to get for this.

04-29-2007, 01:02 PM	#5
GaryML Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 441	Originally posted by scribble Alright, Im looking into this, and what is the big difference between the F/2.8 and F/3.5 versions? There have been many Pentax 135mm lenses. Assuming we are discussing the ones made by Pentax, and not the third-party brands, then look at following Web site for a complete list of the Pentax lenses: Bojidar Dimitrov's Pentax K-Mount Equipment Page The following is my experience with Pentax 135 lenses: SMCP-FA 135mm f2.8 [IF]: Probably the best of the 135mm f2.8/3.5 lenses (not including the SMCP-A* 135mm f1.8, which is probably the best, most expensive and heaviest Pentax lens in this focal length). I have the FA 135mm lens and I like it a lot. Highly recommended. The SMCP-F 135mm f2.8 [IF] is the same optical formula with only cosmetic differences, and it is also recommended. SMCP-M 135mm f3.5: A good lens that I used with film bodies. It is manual exposure and manual focus. I have also used the M 150mm f3.5 and it also gave good results. Takumar A (Bayonet) 135mm f2.5: I had this lens and it was disappointing. A 4 element design. I would avoid the 4 element 135 mm lenses, including the A 135mm f2.8 and the K 135mm f2.8. K 135mm f2.5: I haven't tried this lens but I've read favorable reports. This lens would be preferred over the 4 element lenses listed above, and possibly preferred over the M f3.5.

04-29-2007, 02:08 PM	#6
Skorzen Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 95	I have never used but have seen great results from the K 135 2.5 (not the Takumar bayonet cheep version) My impression is that this is basically the SMC Takumar 135 2.5 in the K mount.

04-29-2007, 04:00 PM	#8
kjao Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 423	Hi Steven I have got K135/2.5 and FA135/2.8 and used to own M135/3.5. Here is my take on them: Portability (ie from smallest to biggest): M135 > FA135 > K135 Sharpness (from sharpest to less sharp): K135 > FA135 > M135 The K135 is a tad sharper than FA135 wide-open. Ease of use (from easiest to less easy): FA135 > M135 >= K135 Anyway here is two very unscientific test shots I have got with K135 and FA135: FA135 K135 cheers Kenny

04-29-2007, 04:28 PM	#9
jthommo Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Canberra, Australia Photos: Gallery Posts: 338	I have the M135/3.5 - lovely manual lens, small, light, well put together with a built-in hood and very sharp. I found one on eekbay for about 50 bucks I think.

04-29-2007, 05:54 PM	#10
DAP Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 151	Originally posted by GaryML I would avoid the 4 element 135 mm lenses, including the A 135mm f2.8 and the K 135mm f2.8.[/B]. I wouldn't put all the 4 element designs in the same category - the K135/3.5 is sharper than the M135/3.5 and it is a 4 element design. The only problem with it is its size (way bigger than the M version). Definately a high quality bargain though

04-29-2007, 07:01 PM	#11
FotoPete Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,774	OMG LX for $25...ARGH. Why does everyone stumble on the goods and I never do! I just got sniped out of a Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm today on ebay and I have a feeling it was someone on this forum LoL...grrr

04-29-2007, 08:59 PM	#12
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	I have the SMC-A 135 f/2.8, which doesn't get a lot of love from the general crowd, but I really like it. It's great for indoor events, such as concerts, since it's small, has decent reach, and fairly fast. Oh, and it's also cheap! I paid ~$100 at a camera store, and you can find them online for less. Personally, I think ANY of the 135 f/2.x are bargains. That 1/2 stop can come in handy, and it doesn't cost that much. Here's a shot taken with it from a couple of months ago, f/2.8, ISO800, 1/100s, handheld. For the price, you can't beat the performance in my book.

04-30-2007, 05:27 PM	#13
redcurl New Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Posts: 20	Hi, I use the Pentax-M, 135mm,f/3.5 and it is a very good lens, makes nice shots and is cheap to buy.

05-01-2007, 04:10 PM	#14
scribble Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Kentville, NS Photos: Gallery Posts: 208 Original Poster	Well thanks guys! This makes the decision much easier!

05-02-2007, 11:24 AM	#15
volosong Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: North Idaho Photos: Gallery Posts: 696	Got a copy of the M135/3.5 and it is an excellent lens. Best about it is the size. Cute as a button. Also recently acquired a K135/2.5 and it is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the M version. Optical quality is a tad better than the 3.5, but because of the relative sizes, the M usually gets the call if I have to lug one around on foot, especially if light isn't an issue.