Back to those odd fellows, the "macro" 135mm's with the extra twistable ring in the front to move the front lens element forward and get close focusing ability. Twins separated at birth? The Sears says made in Korea, and the Makinon says made in Japan, they are different size, different filter diameter, so probably not twins. They are dirt cheap, but are they any good?
Sears at f5.6
Makinon at f5.6
Sears at f2.8
Makinon at f2.8
OK, not very scientific test, hand held etc, but to me it looks (from this and a bunch of othe compareable shots) that the Makinon is winning in contrast and sharpness.
So for the weird side. What happens when we turn the macro ring?
Sears at f5.6
Makinon at f5.6
Sears at f2.8
Makinon at f2.8
Pretty awfull, right? What do you call this in english? On any other lens it would be considered a major fault in the lens design. The Makinon shape up already at f5.6, and since you usually would like to shoot macro at higher apperture numbers, this may not matter that much. The Sears lens shape up, but keep a bit of this effect further up with rising apperture numbers. The verdict considering normal shooting appears to be that the Makinon is the better lens. If I would consider it a special effect, I might prefere the Sears. It is smoother somehow.
Perhaps they could be used as low-budget soft-focusing portrait lenses? I will see if any of my daughters voluntere to try that.