[Lowell Goudge]

How about Pentacon 135 2.8 preset. Some people call it Bokeh Monster (try googling bokeh monster, you'll find lots of info). I have it but I haven't had any chance to use the lens extensively. It's not because the lens is bad, it's just I'm not comfortable with 135mm focal length (on APS-C), maybe not yet.

just shift portraits to outdoors as opposed to indoor. the 135 is a great focal length but is just too long for most indoor portrait applications. Also it does work nicely with flowers, but sometimes the focusing limits of 4-6 feet make this a little impractical without extension tubes

[Lowell Goudge]

As you may have realized, there is no such thing as the "best" 135mm m42 lens. I have tried many (I still have many) and apart from the Eyemik/Porst 135mm f/1.8, each and every lens I tested was at least very good. This is no surprise as the 135mm's were quite easy to make, and every brand at least had one in their catalogs.

I do have a few favorite lenses though...

1) The 6-element 135mm f/2.5 S-M-C Takumar. It can't possibly get any better than this.
2) The 135mm f/3.5 pre-set Takumar.
3) The 135mm f/2.8 Tair-11-2 (rare black version).

The 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar (Carl Zeiss Jena or Aus Jena, both are the same) is optically very nice, but as always with CZJ lenses the mechanical part is really a letdown. Inoperative diaphragms are common and dry/stiff focusing rings are not rare either. Only buy one with the intent to have it CLA'd.

I wouldn't disagree on the SMC Tak as being tops, but this is perhaps why I don't want one. Not that I don't want the best, but I am playing with the M42 kit to give me some different looks than my K mount kit, and I already have the SMC Pentax 135 F2.5 in my K mount kit. I feel the SMC Tak would be too close to that legendary lens to be truely different.

what about the Eyemik/Porst 135mm f/1.8, or for that matter another F1.8 lens. I have heard (not seen) about a vivitar 135 F1.8 and there is a soligor 135 F1.8 on E-Bay right now (although it is very expensive)

[Asahiflex]

I wouldn't disagree on the SMC Tak as being tops, but this is perhaps why I don't want one. Not that I don't want the best, but I am playing with the M42 kit to give me some different looks than my K mount kit, and I already have the SMC Pentax 135 F2.5 in my K mount kit. I feel the SMC Tak would be too close to that legendary lens to be truely different.

what about the Eyemik/Porst 135mm f/1.8, or for that matter another F1.8 lens. I have heard (not seen) about a vivitar 135 F1.8 and there is a soligor 135 F1.8 on E-Bay right now (although it is very expensive)

In that case I would definitely try the 135mm f/2.8 Pentacon or the (optically the same, but earlier and with more diaphragm blades) 135mm f/2.8 Meyer Orestor. Cheap, and easy to find (at least for me).

I'm not sure you'll like any 135mm f/1.8 lens. They are very soft wide open and will show lots of optical defects (coma, flare etc) but yes, it can be fun. Definitely not a lens for pixel peepers. I'd prefer the Orestor though.

[Piotr]

Two months ago I started my research for "best 135mm for Pentax". It is not exactly what is your research, but I read tons of posts about all kinds of 135mm and most of them are M42.
Because I don't want to make this research for too long I decided to collect just few of them.
As for now I have collected Contax Sonnar 135/2.8, Leica 135/2.8, Pentax K 135/2.5 and Meyer 135/2.8. As reference or benchmark I use last version of Sigma 70-200/2.8.
Till now I do not have enough time to test them extensively outside because of dark and snow.
From kitchen tests it looks like this:
A. resolution & contrast at f2.8:
1. Contax
2. Leica
3. Sigma
4. Meyer
5. Pentax
B. resolution & contrast at f4:
1. Contax
2. Leica
3. Pentax
4. Meyer
5. Sigma
C. resolution & contrast at f5.6:
1. Contax
2. Pentax
3. Leica
4. Meyer
5. Sigma
D. resolution & contrast at f5.6:
1. Contax
2. Pentax
3. Leica
4. Meyer
5. Sigma

It is not any kind of science - it is just my personal opinion.

It looks that Pentax has more CA than any other lens.

Contax is the best from user friendliness point of view.

Meyer is most beautiful.

I do not have opinion about bokeh yet.

Few shots from these lenses are in my Warszawskie Pow¹zki Photo Gallery by Piotr Sobolewski at pbase.com

[Lowell Goudge]

In that case I would definitely try the 135mm f/2.8 Pentacon or the (optically the same, but earlier and with more diaphragm blades) 135mm f/2.8 Meyer Orestor. Cheap, and easy to find (at least for me).

I'm not sure you'll like any 135mm f/1.8 lens. They are very soft wide open and will show lots of optical defects (coma, flare etc) but yes, it can be fun. Definitely not a lens for pixel peepers. I'd prefer the Orestor though.

Really part of my M42 kit is just for fun, so I am not as concerned about pixel peeping. I got into M42 lenses by picking up a SMC Tak 35 mmF2 which is an excellent lens and filled a gap in my range as I had a 24mm F2.5 Adaptall and SMC Pentax 50mm F1.4 lenses. I just could not find a low cost 35mm F2. Since then, I happened onto several really cheap lenses (Vivitar 28mm F2.5 and Helios 58 mm F2 as well as a 28mm F2,5 adaptall II) each was less than $10. But the M42 lenses started me thinking about a kit, and my only real LBA purchase to that point was the 85mm F1.9. With 4 lenses, 28, 35, 58, 85 it was a mini kit, and easy to change lenses back and fourth, without having to remove the adaptor to put a K mount lens on the body. So I began to take a n M42 kit seriously, knowing if I need something more, I have another body which I can use my new AF lenses or my K mounts. So my M42 kit does not all need to be SMC Taks, but can be a lot of different things that have unique behavior, but I will consider build quality. If people have problems due to poor build I don't necessairly want to inherit those just to have an oddball lens.


If I want to pixel peep at 135mm, I have my SMC Pentax F2.5, my sigma APO 70-200 F2.8 EX, and my Vivitar Series 1 70-210 F3.5. All excellent and very very sharp lenses.

[Lowell Goudge]

Two months ago I started my research for "best 135mm for Pentax". It is not exactly what is your research, but I read tons of posts about all kinds of 135mm and most of them are M42.
Because I don't want to make this research for too long I decided to collect just few of them.
As for now I have collected Contax Sonnar 135/2.8, Leica 135/2.8, Pentax K 135/2.5 and Meyer 135/2.8. As reference or benchmark I use last version of Sigma 70-200/2.8.
Till now I do not have enough time to test them extensively outside because of dark and snow.
From kitchen tests it looks like this:
A. resolution & contrast at f2.8:
1. Contax
2. Leica
3. Sigma
4. Meyer
5. Pentax
B. resolution & contrast at f4:
1. Contax
2. Leica
3. Pentax
4. Meyer
5. Sigma
C. resolution & contrast at f5.6:
1. Contax
2. Pentax
3. Leica
4. Meyer
5. Sigma
D. resolution & contrast at f5.6:
1. Contax
2. Pentax
3. Leica
4. Meyer
5. Sigma

It is not any kind of science - it is just my personal opinion.

It looks that Pentax has more CA than any other lens.

Contax is the best from user friendliness point of view.

Meyer is most beautiful.

I do not have opinion about bokeh yet.

Few shots from these lenses are in my Warszawskie Pow¹zki Photo Gallery by Piotr Sobolewski at pbase.com

Interesting

When you do yourtests, do you use a lens hood. I have heard a lot of comments about internal reflections and flair cutting contrast when a simple hood can resolve these problems.

ALso interesting, at one of the local stores, there is a long time sales rep who has told me that in the 1980's a customer who was a leica fanatic loaned him a leica and a few lenses that matched up with his pentax (i assume K mounts) the rep then took identical shots with both cameras, and asked the leica fanatic to pic the shots from each camera. In virtually all cases, the leica fan thought the pentax shots came from his leica. Of course this is only a story

[estudleon]

ALso interesting, at one of the local stores, there is a long time sales rep who has told me that in the 1980's a customer who was a leica fanatic loaned him a leica and a few lenses that matched up with his pentax (i assume K mounts) the rep then took identical shots with both cameras, and asked the leica fanatic to pic the shots from each camera. In virtually all cases, the leica fan thought the pentax shots came from his leica. Of course this is only a story

At least, there are two stories. Here goes the second.

I´m a Leica M fan. I bought a S-M-C 1,4/50 because it was so cheap (near u$s 40) and in mint condition. Well I use it in film cam with slides film. When I saw the slides, this lens remainded me the feel, the soul of my chrome summilux M 50 of 1966 design. (the SMC a bit warm). The IQ was very, very similar.

Rino.

[rhodopsin]

Imo, M42 Takumar, Auto-Takumar, and the first version of Super-Takumar 3.5/135, all with early 5 lens/4 groups formula, have more "character" compared to later versions. The later 4/4 versions are sharper wide open.

+1 Pentacon 2.8/135, any version (early versions have circular iris)

+1 Vivitar 2.8/135, I have the Tokina version; its IQ fits with other lenses listed here. (for a list of Vivitar lens manufacturer by serial number see Vivitar Lens Manufactuers )

Although not fast lenses, these are small, sharp, and give a LOT of reach:

M42 Tele-Takumar 5.6/200

M42 Tele-Takumar 6.3/300

Asahi Pentax made some special focal lengths:

2.8/105
2.8/120
4/150

The 105's and 120 (made only in S-M-C?) are superb.

[Lowell Goudge]

Imo, M42 Takumar, Auto-Takumar, and the first version of Super-Takumar 3.5/135, all with early 5 lens/4 groups formula, have more "character" compared to later versions. The later 4/4 versions are sharper wide open.

+1 Pentacon 2.8/135, any version (early versions have circular iris)

+1 Vivitar 2.8/135, I have the Tokina version; its IQ fits with other lenses listed here. (for a list of Vivitar lens manufacturer by serial number see Vivitar Lens Manufactuers )

Although not fast lenses, these are small, sharp, and give a LOT of reach:

M42 Tele-Takumar 5.6/200

M42 Tele-Takumar 6.3/300

Asahi Pentax made some special focal lengths:

2.8/105
2.8/120
4/150

The 105's and 120 (made only in S-M-C?) are superb.

Thanks for the comments, but note I am not looking for 200 and beyond. In the op I led off by saying i had a 200mm F3.5 Tak (with a circular aperture by the way).

the 120 is of some interest because I don't have that in K mount (which it also exists in), as does the 150 in either F3.5 or F4 but I do have a 105 in K mount.

I am really for the purpose of this post, going to stick with 135 as a focal length.

with respect to the character of the 135 F3.5 takumars, what exactly do you mean?

[Indianadinos]

Hi,

I would suggest the Steinheil Munchen Auto-D Tele Quinar 135mm f2.8, unbelievably sharp even wide open and with a great color rendering (check my Flickr photostream here) and the 6-elements SMC Takumar 135/2.5 ...

Cheers

[Lowell Goudge]

Hi,

I would suggest the Steinheil Munchen Auto-D Tele Quinar 135mm f2.8, unbelievably sharp even wide open and with a great color rendering (check my Flickr photostream here) and the 6-elements SMC Takumar 135/2.5 ...

Cheers

I don;t know the first lens, but I have explicitly excluded the SMC Tak with 6 elements, it is just too close to my existing SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5. AS I said all along, I am looking perhaps for something a little different.

[ully]

I would vote for this because of its value per dollar.
Great bokeh wide open.

[xjjohnno]

Nah, gotta be the Isco Gottingen Westenar.

[Steinback]

If you want something fun and a bit different then one of the many cheap preset 135s with a large number of aperture blades could be entertaining. My preset Seimar 135mm f/2.8 only has 10 blades and probably wouldn't win any awards for absolute image quality but is amusing to shoot with and has a unique look (especially on film).

[Asahiflex]

What about the Meyer Trioplan V 100/2.8? A much more interesting lens than any of the 135mm's mentioned here. Go for this lens if you don't need extreme sharpnes wide open, but like the funky bokeh it provides. Much more fun than just another good 135mm lens!

By the way, the lens can be more funky than this; it depends from the background.