[jsherman999]

It may be that for the rikenon the focus point is roughly the flower stem or back petal as opposed to the closest petal, but stopping doen the lens did not bring the foreground sharp as it should. The lens has produced sharper shots than that in the past, although never as sharp as the tak or the tele lentar. the other thng that really gets me with the rikenon is that it is at least 1/2 stop slower at all apertures than it should be. That plus the color shift, compared to the other two lenses compared make it less desireable for me. I really like the bokeh of the tele lentar.

do you want the rikenon?

.

Heh, no thank you, my Super Tak 135 3/5 is a fine piece.


.

[Marc Sabatella]

A few recent M135/3.5 concert shots:

[imgtall]http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v16/p98046963-6.jpg[/imgtall]



[imgtall]http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/s10/v18/p370953400-6.jpg[/imgtall]

[imgtall]http://marcsabatella.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v13/p392314998-6.jpg[/imgtall]

[stevebrot]

This was taken with my Vivitar 135/2.8 (M42, Komine) on the "Sightseeing Screwmount" Pentax SV.


Mt. Hood From Near White River


Pentax SV, Vivitar 135/2.8 (Komine), Rollei Retro 100 @ ISO 160, FG-7 1:15

The sky and snow definition would have benefited from a yellow filter, but I don't have one big enough (55mm) to fit this lens.


Steve

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Nice to see how many good shots and interresting 135mm lenses that's been posted here while I've been burrying myself in work for the last few weeks. Keep on going like that! (wondering why we had not 135mm club long before)

Here are some bad boys doing mischief. Shot with the SMC Pentax-M 135mm f3.5 on my recently renovated K2 (love that camera). A bit odd, since I had the SMC Pentax 135 f2.5 in the same bag, but I wanted to use the M lens since it was debated here how sharp it was.

The film is the fuji neopan 400 CN (black and white in C-41 process).

[Ira]

I hereby lodge a formal protest against this club.

A club for FL?

I can accept this if no one ever crops in PP, but who exactly is monitoring this?

Until I have this guarantee, you people will NEVER see the wonders of my 135 Lentar, and my 135 S-Tak shots will only appear in the Takumar Club.

So consider yourselves lucky.

[Blue]

I hereby lodge a formal protest against this club.

A club for FL?

. . .

This isn't the only FL club listed on the index. There is even an aperture based club.

[7.62lew]

Lots of good photos.

Here is one my daughter took with the Pentax-A 135mm f2.8.

[Lowell Goudge]

Ira

you have a 135 lentar also?

Is it a preset with 16 blad aperture like mine?

[Pentaxor]

I hereby lodge a formal protest against this club.

A club for FL?

I can accept this if no one ever crops in PP, but who exactly is monitoring this?

Until I have this guarantee, you people will NEVER see the wonders of my 135 Lentar, and my 135 S-Tak shots will only appear in the Takumar Club.

So consider yourselves lucky.

Ira, don't worry. the only time that I crop is when I crop it at 100%. so no crops here.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Took a couple bird shots yesterday with the m 135mm.

Lovely front and back bokeh!

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

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

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

From another long shooter as well. I love shooting portrait with 135mm or 200mm = 300mm in film's term

It depends--I've got a big living room and some of my subjects are camera-shy.

it's a bit long for indoors. if Pentax finally releases a FF, then it would be perfect.

Many old photo text books would tell you that 200mm (on 35mm film) was the upper end for portraits. That certainly classify the 135mm on APS-C a portrait lens, if you like so. But when I see Daniels portraits with his 200mm, I use to think that they were wrong: 200mm (35mm) or 135mm (APS-C) is not the upper limit. If it works in your living room may actually depend more on the close focus distance. Some of the older 135mm lens designs have rather long minima focus distances.

What I see is that me and a lot of other people are shooting 135mm on APS-C. The old 200mm lenses was not only a long portrait alternative, but also worked for indoor sports, street shooting, (semi) domesticises animals, tightly composed landscape pictures etc. Sum up the number of Pentax shots you have seen with old 135mm designs on the APS-C, include also all the shots made at 135mm with the DA*50-135 and other zooms. I think Pentax would have a market here for at least one 135mm. Weather I want them to make a fast DFA135mm f2 or similar, or a compact all metal DA135/3.5 limited (based on the M135mm), most of all, I don't know. Well, I have the A*135, so I suppose I'd prefere a DA135ltd.
But that doesn't give me my 135mm focal length back on the APS-C. The DA70ltd is too short to be the last DA ltd. I think they should make a DA90mm f2.0 limited based on the old M85/2, which is a nice compact "limited" construction. With a DA90ltd and a DA135ltd, the DAltd line would be as complete in the long end as it is now in the short end with both the DA15ltd and DA21ltd.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

My first contribution to this thread!

Pentax Spotmatic
Super Takumar 135/3.5



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

Like those BW flowers a lot!

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

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

The 1968 Super Takumar 135/2.5 and the 1971 SMC Takumar 135/2.5 was also a 5/4 lens solution, while the SMC Takumar 135/2.5 of 1973 and its twin the SMC Pentax 135/2.5 of 1977 was a 6/6 lens construction. So there are more differences than just the apperture blades.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Lots of good photos.

Here is one my daughter took with the Pentax-A 135mm f2.8.

Tell your daughter it is a lovely shot!

[matam]

Many old photo text books would tell you that 200mm (on 35mm film) was the upper end for portraits. That certainly classify the 135mm on APS-C a portrait lens, if you like so. But when I see Daniels portraits with his 200mm, I use to think that they were wrong: 200mm (35mm) or 135mm (APS-C) is not the upper limit. If it works in your living room may actually depend more on the close focus distance. Some of the older 135mm lens designs have rather long minima focus distances....cut

I love it for portraits use, i'm still thinking if i really need something shorter or longer for this.
Seems that i was wrong...i should have asked if there's someone who doesn't like it for portraiture use.

As someone else stated it's good when used with extension tube.
My guest for today's lunch:

FA135 @F11 1/180s + 60mm extension tube (sorry for the dust spot...time to clean the sensor)