Sears 135mm wide open

pingflood · 09-19-2008, 05:22 PM

A fellow Pentaxian bought one of these and doesn't seem happy with it, so I promised I'd do a test with mine since I kind of like it. Considering these tend to go for next to nothing I am pleased. Wide open you can see a little 'glow' in the shots.

Wide open at 2.8:

100% crop:

For comparison, 40/2.8 Limited at 5.6, 100% crop:

davebris33 · 09-19-2008, 05:28 PM

I've got one too, and even though it can be hard work sometimes, when it's 'bang on' I have got some amazing shots with it

And it cost me £7

Can't complain!

jsherman999 · 09-19-2008, 10:58 PM

.

Duh_Vinci · 09-20-2008, 01:18 PM

I have a "whooping" $40 invested in 3 Sears lenses (had 4): 135mm f2.8 K "A", m42 135mm f2.8 EE and m42 50mm f1.4 EE.

I find that all three are sharp wide open, m42 are more so. I will post few pics later.

Regards,
D

Duh_Vinci · 09-20-2008, 05:36 PM

Few from m42 at f2.8:

Regards,
D

zeek10d · 09-20-2008, 06:07 PM

Some test shots I took 1+ year back of this nice lens^^

There're some CA at times^^;

meszidik · 09-20-2008, 07:42 PM

I have a Sears 135 2.8 it cost US$10 and it's completely disassembled because the aperture blades are so sticky that they they don't move at all. I have no plans to reassemble since I have the Takumar 135, which is nice and snappy.

I also just got the JCPenny 135 (off Ebay) because it has a macro mode (1:4 at max magnification), but that one has sticky blades as well (same maker?). As it shoots only at 2.8 its got a lot of glow at 1:4 macro. Pretty low quality overall. I do want to try to disassemble this lens and repair it. A good winter project.

Blue · 09-20-2008, 08:15 PM

I have 2 copies of the Sears 135mm f2.8 with the so-called macro setting that I bought new. I got the second one because of the way it performed on my k1000 for my wife to use on her k1000. Odd as it may seem, it has been on of my favorite film lenses.

**Just1MoreDave** · 09-20-2008, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by meszidik

I have a Sears 135 2.8 it cost US$10 and it's completely disassembled because the aperture blades are so sticky that they they don't move at all. I have no plans to reassemble since I have the Takumar 135, which is nice and snappy.

I also just got the JCPenny 135 (off Ebay) because it has a macro mode (1:4 at max magnification), but that one has sticky blades as well (same maker?). As it shoots only at 2.8 its got a lot of glow at 1:4 macro. Pretty low quality overall. I do want to try to disassemble this lens and repair it. A good winter project.

I had two Sears 135s that had stuck apertures with a lot of oil on them. On other lenses I had used a cotton swab to remove oil, but on these lenses, the oil kept returning from parts I couldn't reach. I was able to remove the entire aperture assembly from the lenses and soak it overnight in mineral spirits. That finally worked.

The oil comes from cheap lubrication on the focus threads vaporizing and getting on other internal parts. The "glow" you have on the JCPenney lens is probably oil on the inner lens element surfaces.

Frank Fletcher · 09-24-2008, 02:07 AM

A few times now, I've PM'ed people nad they've kept my identity quiet in public. Although unnecessary, I really appreciate that members of this forum are so thoughful of others.

I haven't taken part in this discussion yet because, to my shame, I haven't taken out the Sears lens I bought last week! Seriously - it's hard to find a good brick wall around here! (jk)

I did, however go backpacking in Yosemite and played with my DA40, FA77 and my Sigma10-20.

I got ripped off on my Sears 135 so maybe I'm just bitter. But, apart from a little brassing and scuffs, the lens is clean. The aperture clicks through quite nicely. For the few shots I took, I just didn't find it performed as well as I had hoped, especially in comparison to the 55mm f1.4 Sears I have. It didn't seem as sharp or have as clean a color rendition as my SMC Takumar 135. One thing I do appreciate about it though, is that the bokeh is much nicer than the Tak.

After looking at all these great pictures, I'm thinking I'll have to take it out and give it a proper try! Thanks to everybody who contributed and showed me what this lens can do!!!

09-19-2008, 05:22 PM	#1
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Sears 135mm wide open A fellow Pentaxian bought one of these and doesn't seem happy with it, so I promised I'd do a test with mine since I kind of like it. Considering these tend to go for next to nothing I am pleased. Wide open you can see a little 'glow' in the shots. Wide open at 2.8: 100% crop: For comparison, 40/2.8 Limited at 5.6, 100% crop:

09-19-2008, 10:58 PM	#3
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Sears 135 f/2.8! . Last edited by jsherman999; 09-19-2008 at 11:07 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Manual Sears 135mm f2.8, Sears 80 - 200mm f4.0 Macro, Takumar Asahi 28-8 (Worl	vytas	Sold Items	5	10-08-2010 04:13 AM
A* 135mm/1.8 reporting 1.7 wide open on K-7?	Clinton	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	26	09-02-2010 09:12 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax 28-80mm, 35-135mm and sears 135mm	YJD	Sold Items	5	07-15-2009 01:42 PM
Sears 135mm f3.5 Macro vs Takumar 135mm f2.5	mrpackerguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	10-20-2008 01:36 PM
For Sale - Sold: Make Offers: Haminex 135mm f/2.8, Sears 135mm f/2.8, Super Albinar 100-200mm f	inneyeseakay	Sold Items	1	06-23-2007 02:05 AM

09-19-2008, 05:28 PM	#2
davebris33 Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Bristol UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 140	I've got one too, and even though it can be hard work sometimes, when it's 'bang on' I have got some amazing shots with it And it cost me £7 Can't complain!

09-20-2008, 01:18 PM	#4
Duh_Vinci Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,300	I have a "whooping" $40 invested in 3 Sears lenses (had 4): 135mm f2.8 K "A", m42 135mm f2.8 EE and m42 50mm f1.4 EE. I find that all three are sharp wide open, m42 are more so. I will post few pics later. Regards, D

09-20-2008, 05:36 PM	#5
Duh_Vinci Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,300	Few from m42 at f2.8: Regards, D

09-20-2008, 06:07 PM	#6
zeek10d Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 260	Some test shots I took 1+ year back of this nice lens^^ There're some CA at times^^;

09-20-2008, 07:42 PM	#7
meszidik Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Lansing, MI Photos: Gallery Posts: 55	I have a Sears 135 2.8 it cost US$10 and it's completely disassembled because the aperture blades are so sticky that they they don't move at all. I have no plans to reassemble since I have the Takumar 135, which is nice and snappy. I also just got the JCPenny 135 (off Ebay) because it has a macro mode (1:4 at max magnification), but that one has sticky blades as well (same maker?). As it shoots only at 2.8 its got a lot of glow at 1:4 macro. Pretty low quality overall. I do want to try to disassemble this lens and repair it. A good winter project.

09-20-2008, 08:15 PM	#8
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	I have 2 copies of the Sears 135mm f2.8 with the so-called macro setting that I bought new. I got the second one because of the way it performed on my k1000 for my wife to use on her k1000. Odd as it may seem, it has been on of my favorite film lenses.

09-20-2008, 10:27 PM	#9
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by meszidik I have a Sears 135 2.8 it cost US$10 and it's completely disassembled because the aperture blades are so sticky that they they don't move at all. I have no plans to reassemble since I have the Takumar 135, which is nice and snappy. I also just got the JCPenny 135 (off Ebay) because it has a macro mode (1:4 at max magnification), but that one has sticky blades as well (same maker?). As it shoots only at 2.8 its got a lot of glow at 1:4 macro. Pretty low quality overall. I do want to try to disassemble this lens and repair it. A good winter project. I had two Sears 135s that had stuck apertures with a lot of oil on them. On other lenses I had used a cotton swab to remove oil, but on these lenses, the oil kept returning from parts I couldn't reach. I was able to remove the entire aperture assembly from the lenses and soak it overnight in mineral spirits. That finally worked. The oil comes from cheap lubrication on the focus threads vaporizing and getting on other internal parts. The "glow" you have on the JCPenney lens is probably oil on the inner lens element surfaces.

09-24-2008, 02:07 AM	#10
Frank Fletcher Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Photos: Albums Posts: 257	A few times now, I've PM'ed people nad they've kept my identity quiet in public. Although unnecessary, I really appreciate that members of this forum are so thoughful of others. I haven't taken part in this discussion yet because, to my shame, I haven't taken out the Sears lens I bought last week! Seriously - it's hard to find a good brick wall around here! (jk) I did, however go backpacking in Yosemite and played with my DA40, FA77 and my Sigma10-20. I got ripped off on my Sears 135 so maybe I'm just bitter. But, apart from a little brassing and scuffs, the lens is clean. The aperture clicks through quite nicely. For the few shots I took, I just didn't find it performed as well as I had hoped, especially in comparison to the 55mm f1.4 Sears I have. It didn't seem as sharp or have as clean a color rendition as my SMC Takumar 135. One thing I do appreciate about it though, is that the bokeh is much nicer than the Tak. After looking at all these great pictures, I'm thinking I'll have to take it out and give it a proper try! Thanks to everybody who contributed and showed me what this lens can do!!!