[jgredline]

Nice shots folks..I have a chinon 135F/2.8 and this thread is reason enough to try it on a dslr. Up to now, I have used it only on film bodies.

[Marc Sabatella]

I like it. It was inexpensive, it's sharp (when I do my part) and it's a handy size for hand holding. It actually does a better job pointed directly into strong light than you might expect for a lens with uncoated elements, though I try not to do it all that often.

Black sheep? Maybe, but it's certainly a bargain sleeper in my mind.

I've always suspected as much. Some day I will probably get one just to see for myself - seems they are incredibly easy to come by for next to nothing in pawn shops. BTW, regarding being uncoated - I've always wondered if a coated UV filter would actually benefit lenses like this?

[bimjo]

I've always suspected as much. Some day I will probably get one just to see for myself - seems they are incredibly easy to come by for next to nothing in pawn shops. BTW, regarding being uncoated - I've always wondered if a coated UV filter would actually benefit lenses like this?

They're worth having if for no other reason than ito feel what "real" lenses felt like.
UV filter might help with the contrast a bit, not sure if it'd help anything else.

[bimjo]

Nice shots folks..I have a chinon 135F/2.8 and this thread is reason enough to try it on a dslr. Up to now, I have used it only on film bodies.

Oh, yeah, do it! You might be surprised at the results you get.

I've got a Yashica ML 135mm f/2.8 that I have to hold in the lens mount and it takes great pics too. The holding it in thing is a pain in the buns though. One of these days I'm going to take a small round file to the lens so it'll lock into a K mount camera.

[Blue]

I've always suspected as much. Some day I will probably get one just to see for myself - seems they are incredibly easy to come by for next to nothing in pawn shops. BTW, regarding being uncoated - I've always wondered if a coated UV filter would actually benefit lenses like this?

Those bayonet Taks are coated, just not SMC coated.

Non-SMC Pentax Lenses

[Blue]

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?




. . .

These spider images I posted a couple of pages back were taken with this very Sears lens.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/1025686-post96.html

The lens was not on a macro setting. I bought a couple of these new in the late 80s. I have heard that some people use the Macro feature as a "soft focus" setting for portraits.

[jgredline]

Well, I must say that I am shocked. I tried it and shot a few snaps out the window of my bedroom just to see what it looked like. These are wide open at F/2.8. The lens is SAKAR (what ever that is) and not a chinon. I am not sure how I could use such a long lens, but will give it a try at my moms house today

[Ratmagiclady]

How do you like this lens? It is often described as the black sheep among Pentax 135mm lenses...

I really love mine. Most of the 'takumar bayonet' series are much more-deserving of the bad rap than this 2.5, it's pretty well made (Doesn't feel cheap at all, actually) and I think performs well... the coatings really are a bit of a throwback, (I think this is more noticeable in brighter sunlight than I usually shoot a lot in, ...even the colors are nice, I think. A little less predictable, but I wanted to try and see what retro looks I might be able to get.

With the crop factor, it makes quite a fun lens. 135mm was never really a fave on film cameras for me, but for digital it's like having, well, a fast 200 in your pocket.

I've newly got a longer metal hood on mine, as of last month, (The built-in doesn't do much, I think: I'd been using one I'd had around a while for a more moderate improvement: this new one is a good inch and a half long, plus there's a step ring behind it. (I step as much as I can to 55mm for my best filters, ) This seems safe even for full frame, but should really improve contrast out there.

I don't make a ton of photos with this lens, but I've often been pleased. Has a bit of 'character,' but nothing embarrassing. Treat it like a single-coated lens, at least, and you'll probably be surprised. I got mine to have fun with, and it's been that.

Edit: Oh, and Douglas I believe that effect with the macro ring might be what we call 'halation.' It actually does make nice for soft-focus portraits.

And, Javier, Sakar's not a bad name for these, either. In 135s, a lot of the off-brands actually did pretty well, even if their zooms may not have been up to snuff. The 135 seems a pretty easy lens for them to make pretty well, and they were popular when people still expected a certain level of quality. I'm drawing a blank on any other brand connections Sakar may have had. I can almost remember. A store I worked in a long time ago had this crazy-quilt of third party 135s and 28s in stock, Some were much better than others. (Notably, the early Korean efforts were often terrible: if everything went right in assembly, they could be OK, but if not, they'd apparently take hammers and grinding tools to the works to make it look like a lens. ) Otherwise, you can actually do pretty well, even if it says JC Penney on there.



(The company's still around, i think they bought the Vivitar flash name. I don't know about their lens business.)

[Pentaxor]

How do you like this lens? It is often described as the black sheep among Pentax 135mm lenses...

lemme just share my findings on this one. the simple bayonet Tak 135/2.5 does not have that same punch and IQ that the SMC lenses produce. although is well-built, it is somehow underperforming due to it's limitations. more often, you will have more rejects and find it difficult to use under certain circumstances. a slower SMC 135/3.5 is even better than it. if you are looking for a cheap 135 with a f2.5 aperture, a SMC/Super TAK 135/2.5 would be your ideal choice. or get the slightly pricey SMC Pentax 135/2.5, which is worth it.

I don't have any idea what Pentax was thinking when they made some of those non-SMC Taks.

[jgredline]

And, Javier, Sakar's not a bad name for these, either. In 135s, a lot of the off-brands actually did pretty well, even if their zooms may not have been up to snuff. The 135 seems a pretty easy lens for them to make pretty well, and they were popular when people still expected a certain level of quality. I'm drawing a blank on any other brand connections Sakar may have had. I can almost remember. A store I worked in a long time ago had this crazy-quilt of third party 135s and 28s in stock, Some were much better than others. (Notably, the early Korean efforts were often terrible: if everything went right in assembly, they could be OK, but if not, they'd apparently take hammers and grinding tools to the works to make it look like a lens. ) Otherwise, you can actually do pretty well, even if it says JC Penney on there.

Thank you. I have some JC penny lenses as well and those I love very much. These old lenses seem to be better built than many newer ones.

[jgredline]

Well, I am back from my moms house and did use this SAKAR lens for the whole time I was there. The colors see good but the reds seem a little strong to me. It's focusing ring is smooth and forgiving. I shot some in color and some in black and white with a red filter. All pp done in camera except cropping...While I like this lens, I do have the da*50-135 so I have no real reason to keep using this. Still, I am glad I did. These are all candid family snaps. All shot @F/4


My boy Daniel


My nephew Gabriel


My nephew Christopher


My daughter Krisanie and Grandson Adam


My grandson Adam

[Blue]

For longer and faster than a 135mm f2.8, I have the Tammy 180mm f2.5 SP. At the time I couldn't afford any A* glass . . .actually it is still a challenge.

[Blue]

I think the f conversion is more of an issue when talking about for example 6x7 and 135 or 135 and 110 lenses.

When I put the FA 50mm f1.4 on my MZ-3 and open to f1.4, it reads f1.4 in the finder and lcd. When I put it on the K20d, it reads f1.4 as well. These are k-mount lenses where as the 110 and 6x7 in my above sentence are not.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Here are some photos of the pear blossoms taken with my K20D and A*135 @ f2.8:

Lovely photo! Longing for our blossoms to start here, but so far we have a very later spring.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Isco Gottingen Tele Westanar 135 3.5 on *istDL2

Like this shot a lot. May I ask what plant this is?
That is also a lens still on my shopping list.