[axl]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Hey everybody,

how does these two compare?
I have just gotten M85/2 and I'm really liking it!
I have found some deals on Ms 100/2.8 and 135/3.5. I'd probably prefer the 100 but I'm afraid that it'll be too close to 85!
135 is for tempting price but I'm bit nervous with f3.5 and MF....
any opinions/suggestions?

BR
Peter

[timo]

Hey everybody,

how does these two compare?
I have just gotten M85/2 and I'm really liking it!
I have found some deals on Ms 100/2.8 and 135/3.5. I'd probably prefer the 100 but I'm afraid that it'll be too close to 85!
135 is for tempting price but I'm bit nervous with f3.5 and MF....
any opinions/suggestions?

BR
Peter

Peter I have both and have no complaints about either. I got the 100 because it is fairly fast and doesn't suffer much from CA wide open (compared with my K105). I got the 135 before stumbling on a FA135 at bargain price.

I don't think there's much difference between them in terms of performance - I'm happy to use either. They handle similarly. They're both very useable open wide (I wouldn't describe either as soft'), and sharpen up a stop or two in, producing excellent results.

In your position I would just decide which focal length I wanted. The 135 is usually cheaper, one of the best bargains available among old Pentax lenses, and it has a built-in hood.

Stopped down whether you will get better results than from a DA50-200, say, is slightly moot: my experience is that centre sharpness will probably not be that different at f/8, but these old primes will give you reliable sharpness edge to edge, whereas all my telephoto zoom lenses suffer from some greater or lesser degree of decentering, at most focal lengths. So I definitely prefer these little primes for landscape or architecture stuff.

I love their lightness and compactness - and I realise that my M135 gets more use than the FA, just because it is lighter to carry around. For street shooting, family shots or sports of course the lack of AF can be a pain.

Hope that helps.

Tim

[Marc Sabatella]

I agree, they're both very good lenses, and similar in a lot of ways. Given you have the 85, I'd pick the 135 as the more logical partner in terms of focal length. Don't sweat the 3.5 - it's only half a stop, really. The built in hood is really a big plus - I wish the M100/2.8 had one too (the "A" version does, but it's harder to find and more expensive). The fact that the 135 is usually about half the price of the 100 - not that the latter is particularly expensive to begin with - pretty much seals the deal, IMHO. See the images I just posted inthe brand new "135mm lens club" thread. Or, if you want to see samples from the 100 too, see the M Club thread - I've posted quite a few there, too, although for the last year (since getting the DA70) a lot more from the 135.

Now, if you *didn't* have the 85, I'd probably be pushing the 100.

[Pentaxor]

100mm looks close to the 85mm. a 135mm would be more of an ideal pair to the 85mm.

[axl]

Thanks guys.
That't what I'm afraid of that the 100 will be just too close to 85. But my problem with 135 (last time I was trying it) is that I don't see that focal length too much and f3.5 makes it really hard to use microprism collar...
decisions, decisions, decisions...

[creampuff]

I feel the M 100mm is a lot better than the more common M 135mm.

[Pentaxor]

Thanks guys.
That't what I'm afraid of that the 100 will be just too close to 85. But my problem with 135 (last time I was trying it) is that I don't see that focal length too much and f3.5 makes it really hard to use microprism collar...
decisions, decisions, decisions...

Peter, I think you could get a lot of f2.8 135mm. not necessarily a Pentax though, but worth it. since it looks like that you have a soft spot for bokeh, I may then recommend you the Pentacon 135. I have a preset that works extremely well on images with OOF circles shot under lower apertures. would post some pictures later.

[axl]

Peter, I think you could get a lot of f2.8 135mm. not necessarily a Pentax though, but worth it. since it looks like that you have a soft spot for bokeh, I may then recommend you the Pentacon 135. I have a preset that works extremely well on images with OOF circles shot under lower apertures. would post some pictures later.

Aris, I hope you are not trying to sell it to me after buying my FA135

[8540tomg]

I had the M 100/2.8 for many years and sold it to get the A 100/2.8 macro.

In my film years it was my portrait lens and it excelled at the job. I can only assume it would bejust as good in digital. Buy it and give it a try. If you don't like it it should be easy to sell afterwards.

Tom G

[Pentaxor]

Aris, I hope you are not trying to sell it to me after buying my FA135

the Pentacon 135 preset? well, ehem...I dunno. I haven't really considered the thought of that since I just acquired both 135s recently (got the Pentacon a month earlier). and I haven't spent enough time with both lenses, although the FA135 seems to be getting a lot more airtime because of it's AF function. give me some time on both lenses and I'll see what my decision will be.

although I think, you maybe able to secure a preset Pentacon 135 copy off eBay for around $100-$150. just make

here is one which is exactly mine, a 15 aperture blade lens >>> 241* PENTACON 135/2.8 PRESET LENS*15-BLADES (MINT-)*M42 - eBay (item 230466609254 end time May-02-10 07:58:34 PDT)

there are 2 types of these btw, the Multicoated 6 blade Electric and the single coated 15 blade preset. since I have the 15 blade, I had to use a really deep hood inorder to avoid flare and so far, I had no problem with contrast as long as I had a hood on. I use 2 hood btw, one is the lens' own screw-in hood (which is already effective on some occasions and an extension hood for better flare control. so far no problem.

Peter, anyway if you aren't able to get that one on eBay right now or find it difficult to secure a copy til the time that I'm done with the lens, I'll send you a pm firsthand if I decided to sell mine in the future.

[reeftool]

I have the M135/3.5 and can honestly say it's one of the sharpest and nicest lenses I own. They were a very common and popular lens in the day so there are a lot of them around at good prices. I think I paid around $45 for mine and still see them in that price range. That's a month of coffee shop money so bring a thermos for a few weeks and buy one.

[GatorPentax]

I've had both and I tend to lean towards the 100mm. This is all subjective but i feel like its sharper, and the colors are more accurate. Being faster helps too.

[Marc Sabatella]

I don't agree the 100 is sharper than 135.

Perhaps wide open it might be, although it's hard to say, since I shoot wide open mostly in low light at high ISO, and there is already enough loss of resolution from noise and/or noise reduction to mask a lot of difference between lenses. In fact, I can barely tell the difference between these and my DA70. I've shot portraits wide open with the 100 and am happy ernough with the results, whereas I rarely shoot portraits with the 135 just because of the focal length. But if I had the M85/2, I wouldn't be thinking about using the 100 for portraits very often, either.

Anyhow, stopped down to f/8 or so, I think if anything the 135 is probably sharper, although it's admittedly close. But at f/8, there isn't much difference between these and any of my other lenses (except maybe the DA15, which really just kills everything else at this aperture).

[axl]

thanks for all thoughts guys,
no contest after all. M100 got sold, and I'm not sure I'd like 135 so I'm passing on it... oh well, I'll have to wait for 120/2.8 to come along