Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-05-2009, 12:18 AM   #1
Inactive Account




Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 15
Which is better ?

in your opinion which is better lens ? about optical quality?


Pentax k 135/2.5 or 105/2.8 ?

Thanks
Davide

08-05-2009, 04:44 AM   #2
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
I have both.

the SMC 105 F2.8, to me seems a little soft wide open, but having said that it is a very good portrait lens. very flattering wide open, and very sharp stopped down

the SMC 135 F2.5, if it has a flaw, is that it is too sharp. It is an excellent all round medium tele, especially on digital. For portraits the sharpness can highlight minor imperfections in the subject.
08-05-2009, 02:40 PM   #3
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Normandie - France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9
My K 105 F2.8 is magnificent. This 2 family pictures are take with the *IST DS - ISO 200 - 1/100 S wide open.



08-06-2009, 09:22 AM   #4
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Normandie - France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 9
Davide, my 2 pictures are also in the Gallery.





Sorry but it's my first post...

The 105 as all the character off the SMC K lenses.

08-06-2009, 09:34 AM   #5
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
I never said the 105 was not a great portrait lens.

I guess the only way to answer this is for me, or another person who owns both, to post some comparisons. Same shot (subject size) for both, on the same camera.
08-06-2009, 09:40 AM   #6
Veteran Member
lbenac's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burnaby, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,313
Well the other question is do you mean on digital (1.5) or on film (FF)?
I have just acquired the K-105 F2.8 so if somebody wants to lend me a K-135 F2.5 I will be very happy to make the tests

Cheers,

Luc
08-06-2009, 10:00 AM   #7
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,119
I have both as well and they are great at what they were designed for. The K105/2.8 is a better portrait lens and the K135/2.5 is a better telephoto lens.

You should have both in you collection!
08-06-2009, 10:09 AM   #8
Veteran Member
lbenac's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burnaby, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,313
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
I have both as well and they are great at what they were designed for. The K105/2.8 is a better portrait lens and the K135/2.5 is a better telephoto lens.

You should have both in you collection!
Do you also have the K85/1.8?
I am waiting for mine that is in the mail from a trade here in the forum and I received yesterday my K105/2.8.
I am wondering how both of them compare both as "portrait" lenses and as general purpose tele?

Cheers,

Luc

08-06-2009, 10:10 AM   #9
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bronx NY
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,599
David, I have the K 135 F2.5, here are my thoughts:
ergonomics; heavy but slim compared to modern designs, a joy to focus, Pentax hit the sweet spot with this lens for me with a near perfect trade off between focus speed and precision. Nice precise detents on the aperture ring.
Optical Resolution: very sharp corner to corner wide open. Brutally sharp from 3.5 on to about 13, very sharp from 16 to 32.
Nice bokeh, rather smooth like most K primes.
Excellent contrast, and good color rendition, slightly better with the cooler colors, but still packs enough punch with the reds and yellows.
It's my favorite K lens. I also own the K 50mm F1.2 and the K 300mm F4.
Samples:




I'm at work so I don't have access to any wide open "bokeh" shots. I will try and remember to post some tonight.

NaCl(it's a very very very good lens)H2O
08-06-2009, 10:15 AM   #10
Pentaxian
Marc Sabatella's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10,686
The M100/2.8 would be worth a look too, particularly on digital. On film it had a reputation for being not quite as good as the K105, but the couple of tests I've seen show it to be as good as if not better than the 105 on digital in most respects. Not sure if that's just a matter of cropping out the weaker corners or something about the angle of incidence of the light rays, or just a completely fluke, but like I said, worth a look.
08-06-2009, 10:33 AM   #11
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,119
QuoteOriginally posted by lbenac Quote
Do you also have the K85/1.8?
I am waiting for mine that is in the mail from a trade here in the forum and I received yesterday my K105/2.8.
I am wondering how both of them compare both as "portrait" lenses and as general purpose tele?

Cheers,

Luc
Yep I also have the K85/1.8. It has a soft focus area, so it is better suited as a portrait lens than a telephoto. Though because of its fast speed I have used it for nighttime shots and focused at infinity for closer cityscapes.

The K105/2.8 like the K120/2.8 are good at both portrait and telephoto, but for a real useful telephoto the K135/2.5 & K135/3.5 are better. The 135mm’s can also be used as a portrait lenses.

This is more of a focal length statement than about the quality of each lens, as they are all great. I’m also talking about using these lenses on a film camera, as they were originally designed for.

Phil.
08-06-2009, 10:47 AM   #12
Veteran Member
lbenac's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burnaby, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,313
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
Yep I also have the K85/1.8. It has a soft focus area, so it is better suited as a portrait lens than a telephoto. Though because of its fast speed I have used it for nighttime shots and focused at infinity for closer cityscapes.

The K105/2.8 like the K120/2.8 are good at both portrait and telephoto, but for a real useful telephoto the K135/2.5 & K135/3.5 are better. The 135mm’s can also be used as a portrait lenses.

This is more of a focal length statement than about the quality of each lens, as they are all great. I’m also talking about using these lenses on a film camera, as they were originally designed for.

Phil.
Hello Phil,

Yes I was referring to film also.
I have the M 150/3.5 and found it a little bit too long for my general use and I assumed that the K135s would be also too long.
That is why I have been looking at the K105/2.8 for my tele needs.
Of course I wanted the K85/1.8 for a street portrait photo. Specially when I go to Peru and I do not want to take the Limited with me!

Cheers,

Luc
08-06-2009, 11:05 AM   #13
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,119
QuoteOriginally posted by lbenac Quote
Hello Phil,

Yes I was referring to film also.
I have the M 150/3.5 and found it a little bit too long for my general use and I assumed that the K135s would be also too long.
That is why I have been looking at the K105/2.8 for my tele needs.
Of course I wanted the K85/1.8 for a street portrait photo. Specially when I go to Peru and I do not want to take the Limited with me!

Cheers,

Luc
You should be well equipped for your trip!! Machu Picchu?

I come from the old school 28mm/50mm/135mm lens kit for traveling group, so have always had a soft spot for 135s as my telephoto lens. Of course sometimes it’s too long and other times I wish I brought something longer like a 200mm!

Phil
08-06-2009, 11:14 AM   #14
Veteran Member
lbenac's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Burnaby, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,313
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
You should be well equipped for your trip!! Machu Picchu?

I come from the old school 28mm/50mm/135mm lens kit for traveling group, so have always had a soft spot for 135s as my telephoto lens. Of course sometimes itís too long and other times I wish I brought something longer like a 200mm!

Phil
I go to Peru every two or three years to visit my wife's family.

I am "unschooled"

Manual focus
24mm/55mm/105mm
17mm fisheye for fun
85mm for street portrait

AF
31mm/43mm/77mm

BTW I love 135mm on digital.

Cheers,

Luc
08-06-2009, 03:09 PM   #15
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,312
QuoteOriginally posted by gofour3 Quote
I have both as well and they are great at what they were designed for. The K105/2.8 is a better portrait lens and the K135/2.5 is a better telephoto lens.

You should have both in you collection!
your a great help to someone with LBA

Actually I agree, they are both great lenses, and also agree with your assessment.

I would also love to have a K85F1.8 but for now, I have gone the samyang.bower.vivitar 85mmF1.4 route.
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!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 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