[jmac]

I joined the Sears Lens Club a few months ago but am just getting around to posting. I bought a 135 f2.8 "Macro" after seeing the photos in this thread and have been having a ton of fun playing around with it on my K10D. Here is a shot I took today through a really nice kaleidoscope that sits on our bookcase.



I have a bit of trouble focusing this lens consistently (I'm a manual focus n00b) and it's pretty soft at wide apertures, but it was definitely worth my $20 investment.

---

Last edited by jmac; 02-13-2009 at 11:45 PM. Reason: fix img link

[PentaxPoke]

Here are some of my first shots with the SEARS 135 f/2.8 I described here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/51357-anyone-f...ears-lens.html

Both are taken at f/2.8 on my k10d. It does a pretty nice job for a ?-decades-old lens.

[Blue]

These were taken with the Sears 135mm f2.8 macro auto lens on Kodak Gold 200 and the negatives scanned with a Epson V500.







I tried this shot with and without glasses. I wish I had used the Lightsphere II with the flash.

[Blue]

I bought this Sears 135mm lens new in 1987 and liked it so well I bought a spare in 1988. The second one is somewhat of a problem on my digital bodies due to the Ricoh pin but the first lens isn't. There is one for sell in the marketplace at the moment.

[Duh_Vinci]

My copy of 135mm had Ricoh pin, but I quickly removed it

50mm f1.4 EE m42 wide open





Now with Hoya +4 (still f1.4)








Regards,
D

[shiestmiester]

Hi all,

Just joined the Sears Club yesterday!! Got myself a 135mm f/2.8 MACRO for $45. little steep, but i couldn't resist.

Has anyone seen this "MACRO" version before. focus ring says 1.5 feet, but closest focus I can get is proably 3-4.

Anyway pics!!!!



here's the MACRO part. Has a ring on front that clicks from 1.7 to 1.5.. Anybody seen anything like this?





shot taken with sears

[Blue]

Hi all,

. . .
Has anyone seen this "MACRO" version before. focus ring says 1.5 feet, but closest focus I can get is proably 3-4.


here's the MACRO part. Has a ring on front that clicks from 1.7 to 1.5.. Anybody seen anything like this?

. . .

See post 63 & 64 above yours. There are several others in this thread as well. In reality, it is a close focus feature and not true macro. Watch out for the Ricoh pin on this lens. This lens has an A setting which is good on digital bodies etc.

[shiestmiester]

Blue - Thanks for the input, just not sure how accurate it is. There is no pin on this lens. I assumed this was a ""Macro"" lens, and not a true macro. I don't think this lens has an A setting either. Unless you have to push, pull, mess with, something on the aperature ring. Does the PK label on the aperature ring mean anything?

Thanks

Travis

[Blue]

The barrel away from the camera turns to select the 1:5, 1:6 and 1:7 "macro" settings. If it was the A lens, it would have a definite setting on the aperture ring.

Edit: I just looked at the pics you posted again, and realized you have K lens with "macro" settings. Those should work like I described. I was aware of older "non-macro" versions but yours is the first K version I've seen. Without a true 1:1 setting, these are really just a close focusing lens.

[Nick Siebers]

Here's another shot with the Sears 55mm f/2.8 macro, this time with the 1:1 adpater on the back. It is a pretty great lens!

[Duh_Vinci]

To keep it going

Sears m42 FF 50mm f1.4, wide open with Hoya +4








Regards,
D

[k0og]

This thread has been too quiet, and too far down the list! So, here are some small wildflowers in my back yard taken with my Sears MC 50mm f1.7 (K mount), mounted on top of a Vivitar 2x teleconverter, which is mounted on a 9mm macro extension to enable close focusing. I am pretty happy with the results! All handheld with K100DS, ISO 400 and 800, in late afternoon overcast lighting (not the best).
---
<<<Broken links - sorry about that!>>>

-Joe-

[Montoya]

I just joined this club. (actually I joined it twice in the same day after I realized i was bidding on a 135mm macro mod 202 lens with the wrong mount . Anyone know what mount AE CA is? Is it canon? ).

Any who, these are my first few photos using the PK variant of the 135mm macro:











Got a few more uploading (56k connections are fun) So far i'm loving this lens.

[k0og]

Montoya,

Mine is the straight (non-macro) version, and there is an interesting difference in be bokeh, especially the nearby out-of-focus areas with yours. Yours shows a kind of "smeared-vasilene" look in the OOF areas, yet the in-focus areas are nice and sharp. I've seen this discussed in other posts, but your pictures demonstrate the effect well. It's a pleasant effect!

When I put my 135 f2.8 on a bellows for macro use, it does not do what yours does. My works great in that mode, but the bokeh is not any different than when used without macro extension. It would be interesting to learn why yours gives that different effect.

Good job on the pictures!

-Joe-

I just joined this club. (actually I joined it twice in the same day after I realized i was bidding on a 135mm macro mod 202 lens with the wrong mount . Anyone know what mount AE CA is? Is it canon? ).

Any who, these are my first few photos using the PK variant of the 135mm macro:
...

Got a few more uploading (56k connections are fun) So far i'm loving this lens.

[Montoya]

When I put my 135 f2.8 on a bellows for macro use, it does not do what yours does. My works great in that mode, but the bokeh is not any different than when used without macro extension. It would be interesting to learn why yours gives that different effect.

Good job on the pictures!

-Joe-

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the kind words. The reason for the bokeh has got to be the "macro" part of the lens. With it not engaged the bokeh is kind of different and not as dreamy. I'll get some sample photos up to show the difference in a couple days.



Here are some more photos I took two days ago(click on them to link to larger versions):