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

dankoBanana · 07-02-2009, 02:17 AM

i'll be getting my first 135mm soon (M42 meyer optik 135mm f/2.8 for 17 $

) ... I've read its pretty good

Duck Dodgers · 07-02-2009, 04:55 AM

Do you guys swap the m42-to-K adapter back and forth among lenses, or do you have one for each lens?

joeyc · 07-02-2009, 05:12 AM

Thanks all. I'm sorry that I don't have an opportunity to respond to everyone. Lots of great info here. Because of the thread, I have my eye on about three different makes. Like people have said, most are pretty good, some are just better than others.

kuuan · 07-02-2009, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by Duck Dodgers

Do you guys swap the m42-to-K adapter back and forth among lenses, or do you have one for each lens?

the M42 > K adapter locks into the camera's mount, it stays put on the camera, and you screw in and out the various M42 lenses.
If changing to K mount lenses the adapter has to be removed from the camera first.

Some people buy one adapter for each M42 lens and keep the adapter attached to the lens, making it into a K mount lens. One must remove the lock of the adapter so it does not lock into the camera and so that the lens can be removed with the adapter staying on it. That also saves having to put and remove the adapter on the camera when switching between K mount and M42 mount lenses.

GeneV · 07-02-2009, 06:58 AM

On a slightly off-topic note, I think that all of these off-brand but decently performing 135mm lenses are getting more popular (and costly) with the smaller digital sensor. I may be in the minority, but I never had much use for a 135mm on film. However, on aps-c, its FOV is close to the 200mm I used for 30+ years on film. It's like I have the fast 200 I could never afford.

To the original topic, the M-series 135mm at under $200 and the SMC Tak at a bit more are still a screaming bargain to me, even if they cost more than the dirt cheap Sears or other off-brand 135s. The M-series 200mm/f4 is a ridiculous bargain at the $50-100 you find on Ebay.

Duck Dodgers · 07-02-2009, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

On a slightly off-topic note, I think that all of these off-brand but decently performing 135mm lenses are getting more popular (and costly) with the smaller digital sensor. I may be in the minority, but I never had much use for a 135mm on film. However, on aps-c, its FOV is close to the 200mm I used for 30+ years on film. It's like I have the fast 200 I could never afford.

To the original topic, the M-series 135mm at under $200 and the SMC Tak at a bit more are still a screaming bargain to me, even if they cost more than the dirt cheap Sears or other off-brand 135s. The M-series 200mm/f4 is a ridiculous bargain at the $50-100 you find on Ebay.

I've been holding back on picking up any M lenses, since I use a K10D and its metering on those lenses is somewhat "variable."

But I recently picked up a cheapo Chinese split-prism screen, so perhaps that's changed; I'll have to check (may have to go with the LL-60).

stevebrot · 07-02-2009, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Duck Dodgers

Do you guys swap the m42-to-K adapter back and forth among lenses, or do you have one for each lens?

Both...

I have two adapters that live semi-permanently on the Jupiter-9 and on the Vivitar 135/2.8. I swap them off if I want to use one of the other M42 lenses.

Steve

stevebrot · 07-02-2009, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by kuuan

the M42 > K adapter locks into the camera's mount, it stays put on the camera, and you screw in and out the various M42 lenses.
If changing to K mount lenses the adapter has to be removed from the camera first.

This is true, though Pentax's explanation of the best way to use the adapter has changed through the years. The manual for my KX (back when the adapters were first made) says to mount the adapter to the lens and then both to the camera. On the other hand, my first adapter (purchased about two years ago) came with instructions that said to mount to the body first and then screw the lens into the adapter.

Either way, unless you modify the adapter for permanent mounting on the lens*, you eventually have to slip it off separate from the lens to remove it from the camera.

Steve

* Modifications for permanent mounting involves:

Removing the retention spring from the adapter
Notching/drilling the lens base to engage the K-mount retaining pin
Some users will add a drop of Loktite to the threads to make the modification truly permanent

Note that such modifications are not recommended for any lens you might want to sell.

PrimeObjectif · 07-02-2009, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

On a slightly off-topic note, I think that all of these off-brand but decently performing 135mm lenses are getting more popular (and costly) with the smaller digital sensor. I may be in the minority, but I never had much use for a 135mm on film. However, on aps-c, its FOV is close to the 200mm I used for 30+ years on film. It's like I have the fast 200 I could never afford.

To the original topic, the M-series 135mm at under $200 and the SMC Tak at a bit more are still a screaming bargain to me, even if they cost more than the dirt cheap Sears or other off-brand 135s. The M-series 200mm/f4 is a ridiculous bargain at the $50-100 you find on Ebay.

I agree with you thoughts on the popularity and cost of the 135mm lenses. The prices always seem to be going up on ebay and even craigslist. I have two old 135mm lenses, and I love having a relatively cheap and lightweight 200mm equivalent.

I just got the Tair 11-A, and I think it's an incredible lens, but like others have said, it's hard to go wrong with any older 135mm. I've seen that lens go for as much as $200, yet I know someone who got one for 10 bucks. I think the key is to always have your eyes peeled for MF lenses, and eventually you'll find a steal.

**Just1MoreDave** · 07-02-2009, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by PrimeObjectif

I think the key is to always have your eyes peeled for MF lenses, and eventually you'll find a steal.

It's harder for me to resist buying these than finding a deal. Five of these cost me $50 total before shipping.

Starting in the front row, left:
XR Rikenon 135/2.8 - 55mm filter, 8 aperture blades, aperture ring only clicks at full stops.
Pentax-M 135/3.5 - 49mm filter, 8 blades, small enough to travel, cheap because paint falling out of lettering in front, not a typical issue.
Vivitar 135/2.8 - M42 mount, 55mm filter, 6 blades, Komine, focus ring turns opposite of typical Pentax.
Back row, left:
SMC Pentax 135/2.5 - 58mm filter, 8 blades, heavy, the only one of these with no integral hood but super-cool, you don't want to know how little I paid.
Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 - 52mm filter, 8 blades, battered hood is common, closest minimum focus distance of 4.2 feet.
Vivitar TX 135/2.5 - 58mm filter, 6 blades, longest minimum focus distance of 6 feet, cheap if you have the TX mount.

I plan to test these one day. I've only used the Pentaxes enough to know they're very good; the rest are recent or haven't seen much use. Minimum focus distance is more important than you think for indoor use. Five feet is typical but closer than that can be very useful.

raymeedc · 07-02-2009, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Duck Dodgers

Do you guys swap the m42-to-K adapter back and forth among lenses, or do you have one for each lens?

I use 2 identical bodies, one setup permanently with an adapter to be used exclusively as a dedicated M42 screwmount body.

raymeedc · 07-02-2009, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

.

To the original topic, the M-series 135mm at under $200 and the SMC Tak at a bit more are still a screaming bargain to me, even if they cost more than the dirt cheap Sears or other off-brand 135s.

M series 135s are commonly available on Ebay for about $50. I picked up a mint condition example recently on Ebay for $46. No need to settle for an off brand.

Mike Cash · 07-03-2009, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Ratmagiclady

Was that 110D all that bad?

Same as the K100D, but without the SR feature. I'm sure it is a fine camera. But it would never sell over here.

Overseas consumers might look at the K100D and the K110D and react: "Doesn't have shake reduction? Man, if I can save $50 I don't care about shake reduction!"

Here they expect their electronics to be feature-packed. Leaving off such a selling point as in-body SR when it the feature can be had for just a wee bit more would result in people scratching their heads and having doubts about the sanity of Pentax, then moving on over to the Canon/Nikon section.

stevebrot · 07-03-2009, 07:46 AM

Originally posted by raymeedc

M series 135s are commonly available on Ebay for about $50. I picked up a mint condition example recently on Ebay for $46. No need to settle for an off brand.

Since when is the purchase of an "off-brand", "settling"? My main consideration for a Pentax-M 135/3.5 over the other alternatives would be size, weight, and the SMC coating. Performance compared to a Tamron, Rikenon, or Vivitar of similar vintage would be equivalent with a bit of a nod given to the generally faster maximum apertures on those "off-brand" options.

At least that was my train of thought in 1982 when I was considering my K-mount options.

Steve

Blue · 07-03-2009, 10:49 AM

If the SMC AND speed are both priorities, then the A 135mm f2.8 is the ticket.

07-02-2009, 09:00 AM	#38
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by kuuan the M42 > K adapter locks into the camera's mount, it stays put on the camera, and you screw in and out the various M42 lenses. If changing to K mount lenses the adapter has to be removed from the camera first. This is true, though Pentax's explanation of the best way to use the adapter has changed through the years. The manual for my KX (back when the adapters were first made) says to mount the adapter to the lens and then both to the camera. On the other hand, my first adapter (purchased about two years ago) came with instructions that said to mount to the body first and then screw the lens into the adapter. Either way, unless you modify the adapter for permanent mounting on the lens, you eventually have to slip it off separate from the lens to remove it from the camera. Steve Modifications for permanent mounting involves: Removing the retention spring from the adapter Notching/drilling the lens base to engage the K-mount retaining pin Some users will add a drop of Loktite to the threads to make the modification truly permanent Note that such modifications are not recommended for any lens you might want to sell.

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

07-02-2009, 02:17 AM	#31
dankoBanana Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Zagreb, Croatia Posts: 533	i'll be getting my first 135mm soon (M42 meyer optik 135mm f/2.8 for 17 $ ) ... I've read its pretty good

07-02-2009, 04:55 AM	#32
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	Do you guys swap the m42-to-K adapter back and forth among lenses, or do you have one for each lens?

07-02-2009, 05:12 AM	#33
joeyc Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Philadelphia Posts: 478 Original Poster	Thanks all. I'm sorry that I don't have an opportunity to respond to everyone. Lots of great info here. Because of the thread, I have my eye on about three different makes. Like people have said, most are pretty good, some are just better than others.

07-02-2009, 05:28 AM	#34
kuuan Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Austria Photos: Gallery Posts: 405	Originally posted by Duck Dodgers Do you guys swap the m42-to-K adapter back and forth among lenses, or do you have one for each lens? the M42 > K adapter locks into the camera's mount, it stays put on the camera, and you screw in and out the various M42 lenses. If changing to K mount lenses the adapter has to be removed from the camera first. Some people buy one adapter for each M42 lens and keep the adapter attached to the lens, making it into a K mount lens. One must remove the lock of the adapter so it does not lock into the camera and so that the lens can be removed with the adapter staying on it. That also saves having to put and remove the adapter on the camera when switching between K mount and M42 mount lenses.

07-02-2009, 06:58 AM	#35
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	On a slightly off-topic note, I think that all of these off-brand but decently performing 135mm lenses are getting more popular (and costly) with the smaller digital sensor. I may be in the minority, but I never had much use for a 135mm on film. However, on aps-c, its FOV is close to the 200mm I used for 30+ years on film. It's like I have the fast 200 I could never afford. To the original topic, the M-series 135mm at under $200 and the SMC Tak at a bit more are still a screaming bargain to me, even if they cost more than the dirt cheap Sears or other off-brand 135s. The M-series 200mm/f4 is a ridiculous bargain at the $50-100 you find on Ebay.

07-02-2009, 08:11 AM	#36
Duck Dodgers Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: in the 24½th Century! Photos: Gallery Posts: 439	Originally posted by GeneV On a slightly off-topic note, I think that all of these off-brand but decently performing 135mm lenses are getting more popular (and costly) with the smaller digital sensor. I may be in the minority, but I never had much use for a 135mm on film. However, on aps-c, its FOV is close to the 200mm I used for 30+ years on film. It's like I have the fast 200 I could never afford. To the original topic, the M-series 135mm at under $200 and the SMC Tak at a bit more are still a screaming bargain to me, even if they cost more than the dirt cheap Sears or other off-brand 135s. The M-series 200mm/f4 is a ridiculous bargain at the $50-100 you find on Ebay. I've been holding back on picking up any M lenses, since I use a K10D and its metering on those lenses is somewhat "variable." But I recently picked up a cheapo Chinese split-prism screen, so perhaps that's changed; I'll have to check (may have to go with the LL-60).

07-02-2009, 08:51 AM	#37
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Duck Dodgers Do you guys swap the m42-to-K adapter back and forth among lenses, or do you have one for each lens? Both... I have two adapters that live semi-permanently on the Jupiter-9 and on the Vivitar 135/2.8. I swap them off if I want to use one of the other M42 lenses. Steve

07-02-2009, 09:02 AM	#39
PrimeObjectif Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 599	Originally posted by GeneV On a slightly off-topic note, I think that all of these off-brand but decently performing 135mm lenses are getting more popular (and costly) with the smaller digital sensor. I may be in the minority, but I never had much use for a 135mm on film. However, on aps-c, its FOV is close to the 200mm I used for 30+ years on film. It's like I have the fast 200 I could never afford. To the original topic, the M-series 135mm at under $200 and the SMC Tak at a bit more are still a screaming bargain to me, even if they cost more than the dirt cheap Sears or other off-brand 135s. The M-series 200mm/f4 is a ridiculous bargain at the $50-100 you find on Ebay. I agree with you thoughts on the popularity and cost of the 135mm lenses. The prices always seem to be going up on ebay and even craigslist. I have two old 135mm lenses, and I love having a relatively cheap and lightweight 200mm equivalent. I just got the Tair 11-A, and I think it's an incredible lens, but like others have said, it's hard to go wrong with any older 135mm. I've seen that lens go for as much as $200, yet I know someone who got one for 10 bucks. I think the key is to always have your eyes peeled for MF lenses, and eventually you'll find a steal.

07-02-2009, 11:18 AM	#40
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by PrimeObjectif I think the key is to always have your eyes peeled for MF lenses, and eventually you'll find a steal. It's harder for me to resist buying these than finding a deal. Five of these cost me $50 total before shipping. Starting in the front row, left: XR Rikenon 135/2.8 - 55mm filter, 8 aperture blades, aperture ring only clicks at full stops. Pentax-M 135/3.5 - 49mm filter, 8 blades, small enough to travel, cheap because paint falling out of lettering in front, not a typical issue. Vivitar 135/2.8 - M42 mount, 55mm filter, 6 blades, Komine, focus ring turns opposite of typical Pentax. Back row, left: SMC Pentax 135/2.5 - 58mm filter, 8 blades, heavy, the only one of these with no integral hood but super-cool, you don't want to know how little I paid. Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 - 52mm filter, 8 blades, battered hood is common, closest minimum focus distance of 4.2 feet. Vivitar TX 135/2.5 - 58mm filter, 6 blades, longest minimum focus distance of 6 feet, cheap if you have the TX mount. I plan to test these one day. I've only used the Pentaxes enough to know they're very good; the rest are recent or haven't seen much use. Minimum focus distance is more important than you think for indoor use. Five feet is typical but closer than that can be very useful.

07-02-2009, 01:03 PM	#41
raymeedc Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 951	Originally posted by Duck Dodgers Do you guys swap the m42-to-K adapter back and forth among lenses, or do you have one for each lens? I use 2 identical bodies, one setup permanently with an adapter to be used exclusively as a dedicated M42 screwmount body.

07-02-2009, 01:07 PM	#42
raymeedc Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Brooklyn, New York Posts: 951	Originally posted by GeneV . To the original topic, the M-series 135mm at under $200 and the SMC Tak at a bit more are still a screaming bargain to me, even if they cost more than the dirt cheap Sears or other off-brand 135s. M series 135s are commonly available on Ebay for about $50. I picked up a mint condition example recently on Ebay for $46. No need to settle for an off brand.

07-03-2009, 07:00 AM	#43
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Ratmagiclady Was that 110D all that bad? Same as the K100D, but without the SR feature. I'm sure it is a fine camera. But it would never sell over here. Overseas consumers might look at the K100D and the K110D and react: "Doesn't have shake reduction? Man, if I can save $50 I don't care about shake reduction!" Here they expect their electronics to be feature-packed. Leaving off such a selling point as in-body SR when it the feature can be had for just a wee bit more would result in people scratching their heads and having doubts about the sanity of Pentax, then moving on over to the Canon/Nikon section.

07-03-2009, 07:46 AM	#44
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by raymeedc M series 135s are commonly available on Ebay for about $50. I picked up a mint condition example recently on Ebay for $46. No need to settle for an off brand. Since when is the purchase of an "off-brand", "settling"? My main consideration for a Pentax-M 135/3.5 over the other alternatives would be size, weight, and the SMC coating. Performance compared to a Tamron, Rikenon, or Vivitar of similar vintage would be equivalent with a bit of a nod given to the generally faster maximum apertures on those "off-brand" options. At least that was my train of thought in 1982 when I was considering my K-mount options. Steve

07-03-2009, 10:49 AM	#45
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	If the SMC *AND* speed are both priorities, then the A 135mm f2.8 is the ticket.