[Lowell Goudge]

Thanks Lowell. the Tele-Lenthar doesn't seem to be similar with that of the Pentacon. the difference that I noticed is with regards to pop, color rendering and bokeh. although the Tele-lenthar kinda reminds me of the Sun Optics 85-210mm with regards to similar IQ rendering. kinda difficult lens to use if you ask me.

it is difficult to compare lenses on the subjective "pop" etc unless they are side by side, and using the exact same subject and lithging

[Pentaxor]

it is difficult to compare lenses on the subjective "pop" etc unless they are side by side, and using the exact same subject and lithging

fair enough.


anyway here are some Pentacon 135 photos. all are jpegs straight from the camera at varying exposure and lighting condition shot at different aperture speed. 1st and 3rd pics are stopped down around f4 (last pic I think) and f5.6 (first pic). 2nd pic is shot wide open. there are no pp done aside from resize.

[RolloR]

it's practically the same with the K135/2.5. the only difference is the mounting and the auto function for the Super Tak.

but don't the K135/2.5 have 8 aperture blades?

my M42 Super-Tak 135/2.5 only have 6 aperture blades. And I'm not sure if it's multi-coated

[Pentaxor]

but don't the K135/2.5 have 8 aperture blades?

my M42 Super-Tak 135/2.5 only have 6 aperture blades. And I'm not sure if it's multi-coated

I see. there are 2 versions of the Super Tak. you probably have the first one.

[Stratman]

Here is one from the ill regarded Takumar K mount 135 F2.5



Chinar 135 F2.8

[Lowell Goudge]

Sorry for the bad subject, but here is a comparison of the 3 135mm M42 lenses in my present kit.

from left to right the images are from

F2.8 Rikenon, F2.8 Tele Lentar Preset, F3.5 SMC Tak.

All shots taken within about a minute. (You can imagine juggling 3 screw mounts) and at F5.6. lighting is as the meter in my K10D metered for each lens. Focusing using my K10D with split image, on the green cross bar in the fruit stand
the shot is a clip out of PSP X3, with all 3 images opened in their own pane.

for some reason, the lighting at the time the tele-lentar was used was different enough, or the transmission of the lens was poor enough to cause a 1 stop difference in exposure, the rikenon and pentax both exposed at 1/90 the tele lentar at 1/45 That explains some of the brightness of the central image. This all may come back to the wonderfully variable metering of the K10D.

Editing the outer two shots with the same adjustment to the contrast curve, boosting midrange yeilds the second set of shots.

Color rendition is pretty much the same in all 3 lenses.

As a side by side comparison, here are the most relevant details

- aperture stops takumar has 1/2 stops the other two are full stops only
- aperture blades takumar and rikenon have 6, tele lentar has 16
- apertue shape takumar blades are almost streight, forming a perfect hexagon when stopped down, rikenon have a slight "S" shape leading to sharp points at the intersection at F4-5.6 and hexagonal when stopped down further. The rikenon does not stop down to a perfect hexagon, but rather a squat hexagonal shape trending towards a triangle.
- focus throw, takumar has 330 degree throw, rikenon 210 degrees, tele lentar 270 degrees

[Lowell Goudge]

but don't the K135/2.5 have 8 aperture blades?

yes, my SMC-Pentax (k mount) is 8 blades

[Pentaxor]

Sorry for the bad subject, but here is a comparison of the 3 135mm M42 lenses in my present kit.

from left to right the images are from

F2.8 Rikenon, F2.8 Tele Lentar Preset, F3.5 SMC Tak.

All shots taken within about a minute. (You can imagine juggling 3 screw mounts) and at F5.6. lighting is as the meter in my K10D metered for each lens. Focusing using my K10D with split image, on the green cross bar in the fruit stand
the shot is a clip out of PSP X3, with all 3 images opened in their own pane.

for some reason, the lighting at the time the tele-lentar was used was different enough, or the transmission of the lens was poor enough to cause a 1 stop difference in exposure, the rikenon and pentax both exposed at 1/90 the tele lentar at 1/45 That explains some of the brightness of the central image. This all may come back to the wonderfully variable metering of the K10D.

Editing the outer two shots with the same adjustment to the contrast curve, boosting midrange yeilds the second set of shots.

Color rendition is pretty much the same in all 3 lenses.

As a side by side comparison, here are the most relevant details

- aperture stops takumar has 1/2 stops the other two are full stops only
- aperture blades takumar and rikenon have 6, tele lentar has 16
- apertue shape takumar blades are almost streight, forming a perfect hexagon when stopped down, rikenon have a slight "S" shape leading to sharp points at the intersection at F4-5.6 and hexagonal when stopped down further. The rikenon does not stop down to a perfect hexagon, but rather a squat hexagonal shape trending towards a triangle.
- focus throw, takumar has 330 degree throw, rikenon 210 degrees, tele lentar 270 degrees

thank you for the comparisons Lowell. it might be a bother to you to do the comparisons but it's good to see some tests that show the differences between 135mm lenses.

anyway, do you have any close-up or midrange shots with variable and comparable apertures that would show a much clearer distinction between lenses that would show the overall IQ variations between the 135mm lenses?

[Lowell Goudge]

thank you for the comparisons Lowell. it might be a bother to you to do the comparisons but it's good to see some tests that show the differences between 135mm lenses.

anyway, do you have any close-up or midrange shots with variable and comparable apertures that would show a much clearer distinction between lenses that would show the overall IQ variations between the 135mm lenses?

It's no bother on the testing, I had time last evening while my son was at guitar lessons. Ptoblem was, lighting on the street was not the greatest.

There aer a couple of things I really want to do,

one set of shots, at a distance of about 1.8-2 meters, so that it is within the close focus range of all the lenses, wide open, F4, and F8. This should show any variances in bokeh due to aperture shape and close focus sharpness nicely.

a second is at a distance of maybe 5-8 meters.similar to the shot of my daughter, but with more colour, in daylight, again at the 3 apertures mentioned

this will really compare the lens at the distance intended, i.e. outdoor portrait which is what a 135 really is for.

My impression is that the rikenon seems better close up the tele lentar better at 5-8 meters, but that is just an impression at this point, not a hard fact.

I prefer natural lighting, but I might be inclined to put my AF540 FGZ and re-learn auto flash, to see how each performs with flash lighting(or if I get really lazy, I can use my *istD and ttl flash

[Pentaxor]

It's no bother on the testing, I had time last evening while my son was at guitar lessons. Ptoblem was, lighting on the street was not the greatest.

There aer a couple of things I really want to do,

one set of shots, at a distance of about 1.8-2 meters, so that it is within the close focus range of all the lenses, wide open, F4, and F8. This should show any variances in bokeh due to aperture shape and close focus sharpness nicely.

a second is at a distance of maybe 5-8 meters.similar to the shot of my daughter, but with more colour, in daylight, again at the 3 apertures mentioned

this will really compare the lens at the distance intended, i.e. outdoor portrait which is what a 135 really is for.

My impression is that the rikenon seems better close up the tele lentar better at 5-8 meters, but that is just an impression at this point, not a hard fact.

I prefer natural lighting, but I might be inclined to put my AF540 FGZ and re-learn auto flash, to see how each performs with flash lighting(or if I get really lazy, I can use my *istD and ttl flash

thanks. I appreciate. anyway, with regards to my 135s', the two lenses are pretty much different. albeit, in terms of colour, bokeh, sharpness, detail and contrast. the Pentacon shows a cooler side and paint-like pop to the image. the FA135 is warm, very sharp, distinctive bokeh and real-life. honestly, the FA135 is too sharp on some occasions. I had tried an SMC Tak 135/2.5 and K135/2.5 once and noticed both to be slightly sharper. also the FA135 suffers slightly a bit of PF on some reflective highlights. and the Pentacon slightly on some LoCa or bokeh CA.

[Lowell Goudge]

thanks. I appreciate. anyway, with regards to my 135s', the two lenses are pretty much different. albeit, in terms of colour, bokeh, sharpness, detail and contrast. the Pentacon shows a cooler side and paint-like pop to the image. the FA135 is warm, very sharp, distinctive bokeh and real-life. honestly, the FA135 is too sharp on some occasions. I had tried an SMC Tak 135/2.5 and K135/2.5 once and noticed both to be slightly sharper. also the FA135 suffers slightly a bit of PF on some reflective highlights. and the Pentacon slightly on some LoCa or bokeh CA.

you will note I didn't mention bringing my K135F2.5 into the test, there is no point, we all know the winner in that case, here it is about the M42 lenses I have. I suspect that regardless of how it turns out, I will lean towards the Tele Lentar just for the round at all F stops aperture.

[captainslack]

My first contribution to this thread!

Pentax Spotmatic
Super Takumar 135/3.5



This reminds me! I need to shoot this lens more often!

[matam]

I'm the only one thinking this fl is still good for portraiture on aps-c?

ISO 400 f4 1/500s jpg straight out of the camera with "natural" setting (shoot an hdr and then forgot to set raw back)

[Lowell Goudge]

I'm the only one thinking this fl is still good for portraiture on aps-c?

I don't think so, I use it a lot as the focal length is flattering, it is just that my use is really outdoor shots because it is just a little too long to use indoors

[Blue]

I'm the only one thinking this fl is still good for portraiture on aps-c?

. . .

No, like I told Smithee on my last post in this thread, this is the area where this FL excels.