What's a good cheap 135mm to look out for?

stevebrot · 06-30-2009, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by raymeedc

No reason to look for any lens other than a Pentax. As mentioned above, Pentax 135-m is commonly available on Ebay in excellent condition for about $50. I picked up one myself a few months ago in mint condition for $46 on Ebay.

There are quite a few reviews of the M 135/3.5 in the lens review database:

Pentax Lens Review Database - 135mm F3.5

Steve

(Surprised no one has suggested the Tair 11A 135/2.8...)

FotoPete · 06-30-2009, 07:56 PM

The tair is a good one. the Carl Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 is another one you can look out for, sharp as a tack.

stevebrot · 06-30-2009, 08:38 PM

For the OP:

I guess you have probably figured it out that most manual focus 135s are pretty good performers and that almost all are pretty cheap as well. Historically, there have probably been more 135mm telephotos made for 35mm cameras than any other focal length other than 50/55mm and the makers were very good at making them.

You might want to check out your local camera repair shop or "old-style" camera store to actually handle a few in person. They may even be willing to negotiate on price if you find one that just feels right in your hands. That is how I ended up with my Vivitar 135/2.8. Careful though...exposure to quality old glass is addictive.

Steve

Blue · 06-30-2009, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Rikenon-P/Sears P as well as third-party lenses labeled KR, PK/R, KA/R, etc. have a spring-loaded "pin" on the mount face that can jam into the AF drive gear of a Pentax AF body. In the worst case, the lens may have to be cut off the camera. Best case is that it causes no problems (certain designs only). These lenses can be distinguished by the presence of the pin and the "P" setting on the aperture ring.

XR Rikenon, Rikenon, and M42 screw mount Auto-Rikenon don't have this problem (all without the "P" setting on the aperture ring). Think "P" is "pin" is bad. There are illustrations on the Web (Google "Ricoh pin") that show the pin along with instructions on how to (hopefully) get remove your stuck lens.

Steve

In the event of a Ricoh pin getting stuck on an AF body, a thin feeler gauge can be slipped in between the lens and camera mount and worked until the pin can be freed up. However, the pin Ricoh pin can be removed if someone likes the lens well enough to want to use it.

Mike Cash · 07-01-2009, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

I've got the 'Takumar' Bayonet 135 2.5, which is sometimes findable even cheaper, but due to less-sophisticated coatings, is probably a lot less consistent. Fun, though, and that's really why I grabbed one:entertainment value and potential quirkiness. They can come cheap (There are SMC versions that are more expensive, generally.)

I just auctioned mine. Needed the money and I practically never used the thing. I started it out at about $30, which is what I paid for it. You could have knocked me over with a feather when it fetched $75! Probably helped that I sold it in Japan and, as best I can tell, the lens was never sold here in the home market. They're very rare here.

georgweb · 07-01-2009, 05:06 AM

Hi Joey,
I 2nd stevebrot's last comment. You can hardly go wrong with ANY 135mm lens.

One thing that's not been mentioned is the nice handling of a sliding hood. It is really very much better to use than a fixed hood, much more compact.

Of all those lenses already mentioned here's my pick in terms of likely-to-get and cheap (apart from Pentax lenses):
Vivitar lenses serials #22xxx and 28xxx
Any Sears lens (as far as I can tell)
Any Chinon lens
Any Cosina lens

My big fave is the already-mentioned Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 3.5/135, but it's out of the price range I'm afraid. The MC Jupiter 37A(M) is a remake of this lens.
You could get one of these cheaply maybe if you are patiently looking for Praktica or Zenith cameras and those lenses coming with it.

CZJ MC Sonnar on K100D, no PP JPG + crop. 3.3ft near distance and sliding hood :-)

Good luck in hunting, Georg (the other)

raymeedc · 07-01-2009, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

I just auctioned mine. Needed the money and I practically never used the thing. I started it out at about $30, which is what I paid for it. You could have knocked me over with a feather when it fetched $75! Probably helped that I sold it in Japan and, as best I can tell, the lens was never sold here in the home market. They're very rare here.

This lens sometimes goes for more than it's worth because I suspect there are many"not so knowledgeable" photographers out there who haven't done their homework & don't realize that the Takumar version is inferior to & cheaper than the SMC version. Consequently, they think they've stumbled onto a good deal.

Ratmagiclady · 07-01-2009, 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

I just auctioned mine. Needed the money and I practically never used the thing. I started it out at about $30, which is what I paid for it. You could have knocked me over with a feather when it fetched $75! Probably helped that I sold it in Japan and, as best I can tell, the lens was never sold here in the home market. They're very rare here.

Interesting.

Maybe in Japan they never heard the howls of indignance and general uproar about Pentax calling these Takumars.

I remember a few of these coming through a shop where I worked back in the 80's, as I recall, the zooms were dreadful, (Ran across one this year, and it was practically falling apart, even, ) but this actually seems pretty well made. But, it was pretty slim pickings last night on Ebay when I peeked, and someone was trying to get that kind of money for one of these. And the M's were crazy.

kuuan · 07-01-2009, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by georgweb

Hi Joey,
I 2nd stevebrot's last comment. You can hardly go wrong with ANY 135mm lens.

and I 'third' that

135mm lenses must have been the easiest to make, they had been cheap but excellent performers, there harddly are any bad 135mm lenses. If they come cheap enough one may just buy any and may be in for a very positive surprise.

So it happened to me with a socalled 'Berolina 135/2.8' an old preset lens in M42 which I got for 2 or 3 USD off ebay:

sorry, currently I have only this single sample available to show here :

A socalled Tele-Kominar 135mm f3.5, another old preset in M42 I had found for 2 USD in a trash box in Osaka is also very good:

and a sample ( there are more at a set dedicated to this lens at my flickr site )

I prefer both the above mentioned over my S-M-C Takumar 135mm f3.5 and the also acclaimed Pentacon 135mm f2.8

atiratha · 07-01-2009, 12:21 PM

IMO Pentacon 135 is vastly overrated, had one, made some nice images, quite nice colors but the sharpness was terrible all over the aperture ring. Sold it and got a Porst 135/2.8 which is a great improvement compared to the Pentacon.

Mike Cash · 07-01-2009, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Interesting.

Maybe in Japan they never heard the howls of indignance and general uproar about Pentax calling these Takumars.

My guess is that they had better sense than to try it. There are certain things manufacturers here will flog on what they perceive as a less discerning overseas market that they wouldn't even bother trying to sell to the folks at home.

Case in point: The K110D. That was strictly an export model.

Ratmagiclady · 07-01-2009, 03:48 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

My guess is that they had better sense than to try it. There are certain things manufacturers here will flog on what they perceive as a less discerning overseas market that they wouldn't even bother trying to sell to the folks at home.

Case in point: The K110D. That was strictly an export model.

Hrm, that would have the same effect, though, I suppose. Now they have a false sense of trust in the name Takumar over there?

Was that 110D all that bad? Kind of just an academic question cause I never checked them out. I'd noticed they were going very cheap back when I thought I'd be using an entry level DSLR as a transitional thing (upgrade from the Lumix bridge which had been the first digital anything I could get hold of that I could stand: if I was gonna get entry-level, I wasn't going to commit a lot. D40 or something) ....till I noticed the price of a used K10d was becoming doable... by the time I got saving toward that, I discovered these pawnshop Nikkors, bought those, and traded em for a new K20d. So I skipped a step. This is part of why I insist I feel ahead of the game, whatever anyone may say.

)

Anyway, I probably would have found out in short order if those really sucked, but I never did look.

(Oh, but, yes, Kuuan, the classic 135mm designs are really easy to make well: they don't require a lot of lens elements. If you get a lousy 135mm, chances are it was poorly assembled or the barrel wasn't machined well. In the heyday of these lenses, people did just tend to expect that heavy metal construction, too, so a lot of what may have been a relative cheapie a few decades ago, people might actually admire, now.

**Just1MoreDave** · 07-01-2009, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Was that 110D all that bad?

It's a K100D without SR. The price difference vs. the K100D was never enough to make sense. I guess if you intended to always use a tripod, or were not sure SR was reliable, or couldn't possibly spend a few dollars more, it might have made some sense. I think they were more likely sold to people who did not understand how useful SR could be.

ovim · 07-01-2009, 10:14 PM

My only 135mm is an M42 Russian Jupiter 37A 3.5/135mm which I find very sharp wide open and it produces nice colors. I've had two 3.5/135mm Super-Taks but they were ordinary (not good, not bad) in comparison to 37A.

I don't know how to describe it but all my Russian lenses (Helios 44, Jupiter 37A, 3M-5A 8/500mm mirror) have sort of vintage look to their color rendering which I find very nice and it makes even the not-so-good images (which I have a lot of

) a bit more interesting.

lithos · 07-01-2009, 11:58 PM

The K f3.5 135mm ain't all bad, either, and will no doubt come cheaper than even the M version (it's a cheaper lens to begin with - four elements instead of five.)

Four elements, four groups, but does well. Incidentally, the A version's formula has more in common with the K than the M.

Only downside of the K is the six-bladed aperture:

Somewhat chunky bokeh. I don't find it annoying, others might.

06-30-2009, 07:52 PM	#16
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by raymeedc No reason to look for any lens other than a Pentax. As mentioned above, Pentax 135-m is commonly available on Ebay in excellent condition for about $50. I picked up one myself a few months ago in mint condition for $46 on Ebay. There are quite a few reviews of the M 135/3.5 in the lens review database: Pentax Lens Review Database - 135mm F3.5 Steve (Surprised no one has suggested the Tair 11A 135/2.8...)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's a good, cheap macro lens?	joeyc	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	38	08-24-2009 07:48 PM
A good sharp cheap lens	cupic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	07-01-2008 08:54 AM
good, cheap flash?	JahJahwarrior	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	2	06-20-2007 06:31 PM
Looking for a good cheap wide angle	Finn	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	06-16-2007 08:03 AM
What are some good old cheap MF lenses?	fuzzybabybunny	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	9	11-30-2006 10:38 AM

06-30-2009, 07:56 PM	#17
FotoPete Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,774	The tair is a good one. the Carl Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 is another one you can look out for, sharp as a tack.

06-30-2009, 08:38 PM	#18
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	For the OP: I guess you have probably figured it out that most manual focus 135s are pretty good performers and that almost all are pretty cheap as well. Historically, there have probably been more 135mm telephotos made for 35mm cameras than any other focal length other than 50/55mm and the makers were very good at making them. You might want to check out your local camera repair shop or "old-style" camera store to actually handle a few in person. They may even be willing to negotiate on price if you find one that just feels right in your hands. That is how I ended up with my Vivitar 135/2.8. Careful though...exposure to quality old glass is addictive. Steve

06-30-2009, 09:13 PM	#19
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by stevebrot Rikenon-P/Sears P as well as third-party lenses labeled KR, PK/R, KA/R, etc. have a spring-loaded "pin" on the mount face that can jam into the AF drive gear of a Pentax AF body. In the worst case, the lens may have to be cut off the camera. Best case is that it causes no problems (certain designs only). These lenses can be distinguished by the presence of the pin and the "P" setting on the aperture ring. XR Rikenon, Rikenon, and M42 screw mount Auto-Rikenon don't have this problem (all without the "P" setting on the aperture ring). Think "P" is "pin" is bad. There are illustrations on the Web (Google "Ricoh pin") that show the pin along with instructions on how to (hopefully) get remove your stuck lens. Steve In the event of a Ricoh pin getting stuck on an AF body, a thin feeler gauge can be slipped in between the lens and camera mount and worked until the pin can be freed up. However, the pin Ricoh pin can be removed if someone likes the lens well enough to want to use it.

07-01-2009, 04:23 AM	#20
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady I've got the 'Takumar' Bayonet 135 2.5, which is sometimes findable even cheaper, but due to less-sophisticated coatings, is probably a lot less consistent. Fun, though, and that's really why I grabbed one:entertainment value and potential quirkiness. They can come cheap (There are SMC versions that are more expensive, generally.) I just auctioned mine. Needed the money and I practically never used the thing. I started it out at about $30, which is what I paid for it. You could have knocked me over with a feather when it fetched $75! Probably helped that I sold it in Japan and, as best I can tell, the lens was never sold here in the home market. They're very rare here.

07-01-2009, 05:06 AM	#21
georgweb Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Berlin, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,386	Hi Joey, I 2nd stevebrot's last comment. You can hardly go wrong with ANY 135mm lens. One thing that's not been mentioned is the nice handling of a sliding hood. It is really very much better to use than a fixed hood, much more compact. Of all those lenses already mentioned here's my pick in terms of likely-to-get and cheap (apart from Pentax lenses): Vivitar lenses serials #22xxx and 28xxx Any Sears lens (as far as I can tell) Any Chinon lens Any Cosina lens My big fave is the already-mentioned Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 3.5/135, but it's out of the price range I'm afraid. The MC Jupiter 37A(M) is a remake of this lens. You could get one of these cheaply maybe if you are patiently looking for Praktica or Zenith cameras and those lenses coming with it. CZJ MC Sonnar on K100D, no PP JPG + crop. 3.3ft near distance and sliding hood :-) Good luck in hunting, Georg (the other)

07-01-2009, 06:27 AM	#22
raymeedc Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 951	Originally posted by Mike Cash I just auctioned mine. Needed the money and I practically never used the thing. I started it out at about $30, which is what I paid for it. You could have knocked me over with a feather when it fetched $75! Probably helped that I sold it in Japan and, as best I can tell, the lens was never sold here in the home market. They're very rare here. This lens sometimes goes for more than it's worth because I suspect there are many"not so knowledgeable" photographers out there who haven't done their homework & don't realize that the Takumar version is inferior to & cheaper than the SMC version. Consequently, they think they've stumbled onto a good deal.

07-01-2009, 07:13 AM	#23
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Mike Cash I just auctioned mine. Needed the money and I practically never used the thing. I started it out at about $30, which is what I paid for it. You could have knocked me over with a feather when it fetched $75! Probably helped that I sold it in Japan and, as best I can tell, the lens was never sold here in the home market. They're very rare here. Interesting. Maybe in Japan they never heard the howls of indignance and general uproar about Pentax calling these Takumars. I remember a few of these coming through a shop where I worked back in the 80's, as I recall, the zooms were dreadful, (Ran across one this year, and it was practically falling apart, even, ) but this actually seems pretty well made. But, it was pretty slim pickings last night on Ebay when I peeked, and someone was trying to get that kind of money for one of these. And the M's were crazy.

07-01-2009, 11:04 AM	#24
kuuan Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 405	Originally posted by georgweb Hi Joey, I 2nd stevebrot's last comment. You can hardly go wrong with ANY 135mm lens. and I 'third' that 135mm lenses must have been the easiest to make, they had been cheap but excellent performers, there harddly are any bad 135mm lenses. If they come cheap enough one may just buy any and may be in for a very positive surprise. So it happened to me with a socalled 'Berolina 135/2.8' an old preset lens in M42 which I got for 2 or 3 USD off ebay: sorry, currently I have only this single sample available to show here : A socalled Tele-Kominar 135mm f3.5, another old preset in M42 I had found for 2 USD in a trash box in Osaka is also very good: and a sample ( there are more at a set dedicated to this lens at my flickr site ) I prefer both the above mentioned over my S-M-C Takumar 135mm f3.5 and the also acclaimed Pentacon 135mm f2.8

07-01-2009, 12:21 PM	#25
atiratha Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 121	IMO Pentacon 135 is vastly overrated, had one, made some nice images, quite nice colors but the sharpness was terrible all over the aperture ring. Sold it and got a Porst 135/2.8 which is a great improvement compared to the Pentacon.

07-01-2009, 01:20 PM	#26
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Interesting. Maybe in Japan they never heard the howls of indignance and general uproar about Pentax calling these Takumars. My guess is that they had better sense than to try it. There are certain things manufacturers here will flog on what they perceive as a less discerning overseas market that they wouldn't even bother trying to sell to the folks at home. Case in point: The K110D. That was strictly an export model.

07-01-2009, 03:48 PM	#27
Ratmagiclady Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: GA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,563	Originally posted by Mike Cash My guess is that they had better sense than to try it. There are certain things manufacturers here will flog on what they perceive as a less discerning overseas market that they wouldn't even bother trying to sell to the folks at home. Case in point: The K110D. That was strictly an export model. Hrm, that would have the same effect, though, I suppose. Now they have a false sense of trust in the name Takumar over there? Was that 110D all that bad? Kind of just an academic question cause I never checked them out. I'd noticed they were going very cheap back when I thought I'd be using an entry level DSLR as a transitional thing (upgrade from the Lumix bridge which had been the first digital anything I could get hold of that I could stand: if I was gonna get entry-level, I wasn't going to commit a lot. D40 or something) ....till I noticed the price of a used K10d was becoming doable... by the time I got saving toward that, I discovered these pawnshop Nikkors, bought those, and traded em for a new K20d. So I skipped a step. This is part of why I insist I feel ahead of the game, whatever anyone may say. ) Anyway, I probably would have found out in short order if those really sucked, but I never did look. (Oh, but, yes, Kuuan, the classic 135mm designs are really easy to make well: they don't require a lot of lens elements. If you get a lousy 135mm, chances are it was poorly assembled or the barrel wasn't machined well. In the heyday of these lenses, people did just tend to expect that heavy metal construction, too, so a lot of what may have been a relative cheapie a few decades ago, people might actually admire, now.

07-01-2009, 05:38 PM	#28
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Was that 110D all that bad? It's a K100D without SR. The price difference vs. the K100D was never enough to make sense. I guess if you intended to always use a tripod, or were not sure SR was reliable, or couldn't possibly spend a few dollars more, it might have made some sense. I think they were more likely sold to people who did not understand how useful SR could be.

07-01-2009, 10:14 PM	#29
ovim Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Tre, Finland Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,229	My only 135mm is an M42 Russian Jupiter 37A 3.5/135mm which I find very sharp wide open and it produces nice colors. I've had two 3.5/135mm Super-Taks but they were ordinary (not good, not bad) in comparison to 37A. I don't know how to describe it but all my Russian lenses (Helios 44, Jupiter 37A, 3M-5A 8/500mm mirror) have sort of vintage look to their color rendering which I find very nice and it makes even the not-so-good images (which I have a lot of ) a bit more interesting.

07-01-2009, 11:58 PM	#30
lithos Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Brisbane, QLD, AUS Posts: 3,261	The K f3.5 135mm ain't all bad, either, and will no doubt come cheaper than even the M version (it's a cheaper lens to begin with - four elements instead of five.) Four elements, four groups, but does well. Incidentally, the A version's formula has more in common with the K than the M. Only downside of the K is the six-bladed aperture: Somewhat chunky bokeh. I don't find it annoying, others might.