[Class A]

It's definitely a sharp lens, the A*135/1.8 and K135/2.5 are the only 135's I have that is sharper, and considering how small the M135 is it is amazing.

Here are measurements from "Modern Photography" (in lines/mm):

Code:

Lens                                                  / Central Resolution / Corner Resolution
135 mm f/3.5 M                               / 50                             /  43
Tokina 70-210mm f/4-5.6 @210   / 59                             / 53

The Tokina zoom is not a great lens but still has better resolution at the far end than the M135. This matches the results I've been able to achieve so far.

I'm a bit puzzled by the different faces the M135 seems to have.

---

Last edited by Class A; 05-12-2010 at 02:48 PM.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

The A*135/1.8 used for stage photo of "Alice in wonderland". As Marc pointed out, the deeper DOF of the APS-C format is hardly a dissadvantage when you are already struggling to get things into the DOF, which is often the case for stage photo.

The "Alice" is played by a Swedish pop-star, and these shots got enough popular among the more crazy fans to make them "steal" the copies I posted at flickr and post them as theirs on some fans sites. Stupid idiots. I've permitted them if they had asked to use it on a non-commercial site.





Guards, guards, cut her head off!




There are plenty more of them at my flickr.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Here are measurements from "Modern Photography" (in lines/mm):

Code:

Lens                                                  / Central Resolution / Corner Resolution
135 mm f/3.5 M                               / 50                          /  43
Tokina 70-210mm f/4-5.6 @210   / 59                          / 53

The Tokina zoom is not a great lens but still has better resolution at the far end than the M135. This matches the results I've been able to achieve so far.

I'm a bit puzzled by the different faces the M135 seems to have.

That's interresting. But what one have to remember is that photo-journals almost exclusively test only one lens. And I daubt that their experimental set up and statistical treatment would be accepted if it was a lab report handed in by one of my students. One lens, one measurement...any thing can go wrong. I've been tempted to set up my own lens resolution tests in the lab, that would be fun, but I don't have the time. Maybe when I retire, some 20-30 years from now But maybe I can at least set up a brick wall test with the M135/3.5 and some other 135mm lenses on the vacation this summer. Maybe.

[Class A]

..why would not a 135mm with a view angle on APS-C close to the 200mm on full frame be usefull? And you could easilly get it at a speed that would have been a dream for most in a 200mm. 135/2.8 = 200/2.8!

To whom it may concern, I disputed that statement (a 135/2.8 on APS-C is just a ~200/4 on FF, not a 200/2.8) and the respective discussion has been moved to another "digression from 135 club thread". I don't want to rekindle the discussion but I think it is appropriate that my argument is reachable from the thread that I took issue with.

[photogerald]

The A*135/1.8 used for stage photo of "Alice in wonderland". As Marc pointed out, the deeper DOF of the APS-C format is hardly a dissadvantage when you are already struggling to get things into the DOF, which is often the case for stage photo.

Great shots, Douglas! I know that it can be very difficult to get good results under stage lighting.

Here are a few more from mine.

A shot at f1.8 in poor lighting, hence the use of ISO800 (link to full-sized image is here):



I use this image to demonstrate the sharpness of this lens - it is extremely sharp even wide open. Here's a 100% crop of the above (there is no sharpening applied here):



Some PF is apparent here - this lens does exhibit bokeh CA at wide apertures. Fortunately, this goes away at f2.5-2.8.

And the next two were taken in much better lighting at f7.1:

#1 - there's a "realism" and clarity that really jumps out at me (link to full-sized version here):



#2 (link to full-sized version here):



Here's a 100% non-sharpened crop of the last image:



While the sharpness of this lens is perhaps its most impressive technical quality, I am finding that what keeps drawing me to use it are the vibrant colours and clarity I see in the resulting photos. The latter I associate with good flare resistance, which I find a bit surprising given the very large and curved front element and the fact that I haven't been using a hood with mine (I just haven't gotten around to getting one of the proper size).

Douglas, do you use a hood with yours?

Anyways, this is definitely the one to get if you can find one for a reasonable price.

I've posted some more photos and a detailed review of this lens at:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/87407-my-revie...ning-long.html

[jgredline]

The A*135/1.8 used for stage photo of "Alice in wonderland". As Marc pointed out, the deeper DOF of the APS-C format is hardly a dissadvantage when you are already struggling to get things into the DOF, which is often the case for stage photo.

The "Alice" is played by a Swedish pop-star, and these shots got enough popular among the more crazy fans to make them "steal" the copies I posted at flickr and post them as theirs on some fans sites. Stupid idiots. I've permitted them if they had asked to use it on a non-commercial site.





Guards, guards, cut her head off!




There are plenty more of them at my flickr.

Nice series!

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

There is an expression in Swedish which in English translates to "Throwing out the baby with the bath water". As you may have noticed a lot of posts just dissapeared from this thread. In my eyes an over reaction, and something I said was not necessary. Marc moved a lot of things together with what he considered related to the stuff he wanted to discuss to an "iso digress"-thread. To me it means that this 135mm thread got partly crippled, to the degree that I even ended up answering a question that was no longer asked in this thread and refering to what Class A no longer said in this thread. Absurd!

I don't have the superpowers of a moderator, but to at least make this understandable to readers, this answer:

I am not sure about this, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that the existance of the 135mm focal length lenses goes back to the verry first 35mm film camera. When Oskar Barnack designed the first Leica in the 1920's he used cinematic film, 35mm wide, and cut it down and loaded it in film cartridges. The camera he built had this film running horizontally, instead of vertically like in the movie cameras, and had a double frame size, 24x36mm, instead of the cinematic 18x24mm. The diagonal of the 24x36mm frames are 43mm. For some reason, I suspect it was slightly easier to design, he made the normal lens at 50mm. The first three lenses was at 35mm, 50mm and 135mm. So already there was the 135mm lens. No 28mm lens yet. As I understand it, it was still a challenge to build wide angle lenses. The first 28mm came later (after the 2nd world war?). When the Leicas got automatically changing frames these were for the focal lengths of 28, 35, 50, 75, 90, and 135mm. And when other manufacturers started to build 35mm film cameras, including Pentax in the 50's, they copied these focal lengths. Except for the 85mm lenses that became more common than the 75 and 90mm, this is the most common fixed focal lengths for all later 35mm film cameras. 28+50+135 became the absolutely most common tripple choise of lenses for a minima SLR system. That's why we have so many second hand 135mm lenses and lens versions. Thanks to Oskar.
To the question why Oskar or his coworkers selected these focal lengths, I suppose there is something behind Class A's suggestion that they are at regular intervals of angle-of-view.

...was my own repsons to this question:

Sure, a 135/2.8 does not give the same DOF on APS-C as on FF. I am aware of that. But f2.8 expose like f2.8 regardless of the format...

...I find it historically interresting to examine the many different 135mm's out there and to explore the importance of this focal length. It is also interresting to discover certain lenses which present some other advantages, like being very small, having pleasent bokeh's (due to many apperture blades) etc. And the thread has started very well in this regard.

BTW: Why 135mm? Why this exact focal length and not something else, like 120mm or 150mm (Pentax actually made such lenses)? I think I know the answer, but I may be wrong.

...and my reference to Class A was to:

...
I think it is rather unlikely a coincidence that the AOV difference between 28mm & 50mm, and 50mm & 135mm respectively is pretty much exactly 28.6°. In other words, if you want to widen the AOV of the then 50mm standard by 28.6° you need a 28mm and if you want to tighten it by 28.6° you need a 135mm. So one could say that a 135mm is as tele w.r.t. to the 50mm standard as the 28mm is wide w.r.t. the 28mm standard.

P.S.: To shut me up, someone send me a K135/2.5.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Nice series!

Thanks Javier! There is more on the flickr. Those fans who "stole" my shots should just know I also have some pretty long video sequence of her singing in this play shot with the K-7 video through the A*135/1.8, which they would probably sell their mother for

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

To whom it may concern, I disputed that statement (a 135/2.8 on APS-C is just a ~200/4 on FF, not a 200/2.8) and the respective discussion has been moved to another "digression from 135 club thread". I don't want to rekindle the discussion but I think it is appropriate that my argument is reachable from the thread that I took issue with.

I agree with you. I did not want this thread to be filled with the APS-C vs FF debate, and saw it going that way, but I was against moving what had already been discussed here. It has left a hole in this thread and made some things look really strange. It is actually a bit absurd to me that a moderator can run away doing like that. It would certainly have been enough to start another thread and make this question the main topic of that thread, without erasing anything here.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Great shots, Douglas! I know that it can be very difficult to get good results under stage lighting.

..

While the sharpness of this lens is perhaps its most impressive technical quality, I am finding that what keeps drawing me to use it are the vibrant colours and clarity I see in the resulting photos. The latter I associate with good flare resistance, which I find a bit surprising given the very large and curved front element and the fact that I haven't been using a hood with mine (I just haven't gotten around to getting one of the proper size).

Douglas, do you use a hood with yours?

Anyways, this is definitely the one to get if you can find one for a reasonable price.

I've posted some more photos and a detailed review of this lens at:

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/87407-my-revie...ning-long.html

Thanks Gerald!

Yes, it is definitely the sharpest lens I have. It is even sharp wide open, in contrast to what some people have said (I suspect they simply had problems handling the thin DOF).
I have a hood for mine, not very deep, and not the original, but it's metal and suits it well. Never had any flare problems. A pitty this lens is so expensive today...but I got mine for ~350 Euro used in 1992

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

[Just1MoreDave]

Wow, mine does not look that nice, and yours might have a collector-grade serial number.



But mine is put back together and working, which is good. This lens has the most authoritative click to its aperture ring ever, thanks to three bearings. Construction resembles my Biotar in some ways, just like the markings suggest. Infinity focus is set with shims, not by an adjustment like later Takumars.




Eight aperture blades, a little worn:



I got the hood on the left from heavystar on eBay. The advantage over the Takumar hood is that it takes a 58mm cap. I got it for 50 or 55mm lenses but it works here.



I'll add a comparison shot with the M135/3.5.

[Ratmagiclady]

I thought I'd update a bit: I took my Tak Bayonet 2.5 out in the bright today, to see what I could get for color with the deeper hood. (It's an S&W one like the one on the right that Douglas showed us) Anyway, here's a shot.

I think I may have been a bit generous on exposure, mostly, but let's see how this one looks. I'm still kind of sun-dazzled.

[Marc Sabatella]

I agree with you. I did not want this thread to be filled with the APS-C vs FF debate, and saw it going that way, but I was against moving what had already been discussed here. It has left a hole in this thread and made some things look really strange. It is actually a bit absurd to me that a moderator can run away doing like that

OK, I'm sorry I tried to help. If you would like me to simply move everything back to this thread, I'm happy to do that. Or if you have a better idea on what should be moved and what shouldn't. As I said before, it strikes me as a no-win situation, so I guess I'm not surprised no one seems happy with this. On the other thread, I already admitted I did this rather clumsily, but couldn't figure out a way to split posts to do it more elegantly, and gave a proposed solution - I suggested people edit their own posts to move what they felt appropriate from one thread to the other. I'm perfectly willing to do whatever anyone thinks would make people happy, but I'll be darned if I know what that would be. I'd like to help make things right, but please help me out here.

[Just1MoreDave]

I realized by looking at the data these deer were caught 15 minutes after sundown with a thin cloud cover. This 135 f2.5 is nothing short of Amazing for low light performance.

The bright viewfinder is extremely useful, and the extra foot of minimum focus distance compared to the typical 135 of that age. If I owned one I would just bump the contrast and not read the negative reviews.