Sears 135mm f2.8 Macro question

winglik · 05-14-2009, 08:11 PM

Hi everyone, i just got a copy of the Sears 135mm f2.8 Macro lens after i saw some nice macro photo from it. Lens worked nicely in none macro mode . but when i switched to Macro 1:5-1:7, the image gets very soft(burr) from f2.8-f4.5,it gets sharper at f5.6 and up. Is that normal for this lens or i have a bad copy? thanx

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

redpigeons · 05-14-2009, 09:13 PM

with my little experience I can tell you that any macro lenses in that large aperture would be blurry.

its completely normal . for a decent macro you should stop down as much as the light allows you .
so with a long lens like that you would also need a tripod for macro shoots

Igilligan · 05-15-2009, 09:32 AM

With most of my macro lenses the subject is still pretty sharp at the wider apertures, but the dof gets a lot thinner so the area just outside the focus point will look softer. The main reason I stop the lens down to F11+ is to get a little more DOF in macro shots.

I am not familiar with this lens, is it soft at those apertures even when not shooting macro?

**Lowell Goudge** · 05-15-2009, 09:45 AM

Just to throw a third opinion into the mix, I suspect the real problem is that the OP is hand holding the lens, and with a lens like the 135, and narrow DOF, at minimum focising distance, he moves off the focal point as he presses the shutter.

My advise, GET A TRIPOD.

Otherwise, I agree with both Igilligan and redpigeons.

DOF is very shallow, but this does not mean that wide open, a macro should not be sharp in the focl zone,

but i also agree with the fact that wide open, this lens may be a little soft. It is not a true macro, at 1:5 and with a minimum focusing of 5 feet, I don't know how they can call it macro, unless you are by "switching to macro" changing the internal geometry of the lens by moving some elements. In this case, what ever you get is a real compromise, and not a true macro.

ryan s · 05-15-2009, 09:54 AM

There was a thread here on that lens. The conclusion is that yes, it is "soft" in some macro modes.

If you want to get rid of it, let me know

Edito: Check it out here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/51676-sears-mod-no-202-magic.html

winglik · 05-15-2009, 09:56 AM

I just did some more test at a sunny day, I guess that's the limitation of this lens, because at f2.8 at macro ratio 1:5 and 1:6, it's pretty much blurry,it's ok at 1:7 and regular mode it's awesome, but when i set it to f8 or up, it works fine at all Macro Ratio. over all nice lens. I attached 3 pics for comparison, all hand held at ISO200

1) f2.8 Macro 1:5
2) f8 Macro 1:5
3) f2.8 none macro.

For conclusion, this lens is more useful at none macro mode, it's much sharper and has nice bohek.

redpigeons · 05-15-2009, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Igilligan

With most of my macro lenses the subject is still pretty sharp at the wider apertures, but the dof gets a lot thinner so the area just outside the focus point will look softer. The main reason I stop the lens down to F11+ is to get a little more DOF in macro shots.

I am not familiar with this lens, is it soft at those apertures even when not shooting macro?

I completely agree with you.

by blurry I meant DOF blurry... I try to explain that its not an optic problem just shallow DOF

X Man · 05-15-2009, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Igilligan

With most of my macro lenses the subject is still pretty sharp at the wider apertures, but the dof gets a lot thinner so the area just outside the focus point will look softer. The main reason I stop the lens down to F11+ is to get a little more DOF in macro shots.

I am not familiar with this lens, is it soft at those apertures even when not shooting macro?

Originally posted by redpigeons

I completely agree with you.

by blurry I meant DOF blurry... I try to explain that its not an optic problem just shallow DOF

Normally, you'd be right. However, with this Sears piece it's definitely an "optical problem".

It's a weird beast. It's not a "Macro" lens. At 1:5 magnification it's not even remotely close to a Macro lens. Our 18-55mm Kit lens has a much higher 1:3.5 reproduction ratio, if memory serves me.

I don't know how this lens got elevated to the status it has but it's pretty silly. To re-cap. It's a good 135 f2.8 prime lens, with a "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" mode that's mislabeled as a "Macro" mode.

Regards,
Mike

jsherman999 · 05-15-2009, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by winglik

Hi everyone, i just got a copy of the Sears 135mm f2.8 Macro lens after i saw some nice macro photo from it. Lens worked nicely in none macro mode . but when i switched to Macro 1:5-1:7, the image gets very soft(burr) from f2.8-f4.5,it gets sharper at f5.6 and up. Is that normal for this lens or i have a bad copy? thanx

Yes - I've had a couple copies of this lens, and that "macro zone" never got used after a little while, it's like turning on a soft filter, or something.

That lens does just fine in non-macro mode, though, it's actually quite sharp.

Check out The Sears Lens Club for examples from this baby. Duh-Vinci among others makes that lens sing.

.

ivoire · 05-15-2009, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by X Man

It's a good 135 f2.8 prime lens, with a "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" mode that's mislabeled as a "Macro" mode.

Regards,
Mike

I own one and this is the best description i've seen of this lens. just sums it up nicely. Not everyone will like it, but mine will remain as long as i own a pentax camera.

winglik · 05-15-2009, 12:08 PM

I agree with other, even this is not a True Macro lens, but it's a very nice 135mm lens with great sharpness and bokeh. and the price.

I create this thread just to see if mine was broken or what not. thanx all for the info.

Igilligan · 05-15-2009, 04:06 PM

I like the "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" description... now I need one of these lenses

ivoire · 05-15-2009, 05:24 PM

Heres a sample from this lens on a windy day. hard to beat for around $40

redpigeons · 05-15-2009, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by X Man

Normally, you'd be right. However, with this Sears piece it's definitely an "optical problem".

It's a weird beast. It's not a "Macro" lens. At 1:5 magnification it's not even remotely close to a Macro lens. Our 18-55mm Kit lens has a much higher 1:3.5 reproduction ratio, if memory serves me.

I don't know how this lens got elevated to the status it has but it's pretty silly. To re-cap. It's a good 135 f2.8 prime lens, with a "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" mode that's mislabeled as a "Macro" mode.

Regards,
Mike

sorry about that ... I tried to help

X Man · 05-15-2009, 06:20 PM

Oh yeah, this piece, as evidenced by the last sample is a full-on psychedelic experience! I should have known you'd be along shortly, inquiring about an inexpensive lens that'll blow the minds of every Dead Head that experiences it.

Regards,
Mike

Originally posted by Igilligan

I like the "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" description... now I need one of these lenses

05-15-2009, 09:32 AM	#3
Igilligan Guest	I politely disagree with redpigeons With most of my macro lenses the subject is still pretty sharp at the wider apertures, but the dof gets a lot thinner so the area just outside the focus point will look softer. The main reason I stop the lens down to F11+ is to get a little more DOF in macro shots. I am not familiar with this lens, is it soft at those apertures even when not shooting macro?

05-15-2009, 05:24 PM	#13
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	Heres a sample from this lens on a windy day. hard to beat for around $40 Last edited by ivoire; 10-04-2010 at 03:59 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
Another Sears 135mm 2.8 focusing question	justtakingpics	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	06-24-2010 02:01 PM
SEARS 1:2.8 f=135mm macro lens question	luma	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	04-25-2010 07:14 AM
For Sale - Sold: Sears A 135mm f/2.8 macro	LRB21	Sold Items	1	11-09-2009 07:49 AM
Sears 135mm f3.5 Macro vs Takumar 135mm f2.5	mrpackerguy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	10-20-2008 01:36 PM

05-14-2009, 09:13 PM	#2
redpigeons Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 943	with my little experience I can tell you that any macro lenses in that large aperture would be blurry. its completely normal . for a decent macro you should stop down as much as the light allows you . so with a long lens like that you would also need a tripod for macro shoots

05-15-2009, 09:45 AM	#4
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Just to throw a third opinion into the mix, I suspect the real problem is that the OP is hand holding the lens, and with a lens like the 135, and narrow DOF, at minimum focising distance, he moves off the focal point as he presses the shutter. My advise, GET A TRIPOD. Otherwise, I agree with both Igilligan and redpigeons. DOF is very shallow, but this does not mean that wide open, a macro should not be sharp in the focl zone, but i also agree with the fact that wide open, this lens may be a little soft. It is not a true macro, at 1:5 and with a minimum focusing of 5 feet, I don't know how they can call it macro, unless you are by "switching to macro" changing the internal geometry of the lens by moving some elements. In this case, what ever you get is a real compromise, and not a true macro.

05-15-2009, 09:54 AM	#5
ryan s Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Madison, WI Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,383	There was a thread here on that lens. The conclusion is that yes, it is "soft" in some macro modes. If you want to get rid of it, let me know Edito: Check it out here https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/51676-sears-mod-no-202-magic.html

05-15-2009, 11:24 AM	#7
redpigeons Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 943	Originally posted by Igilligan With most of my macro lenses the subject is still pretty sharp at the wider apertures, but the dof gets a lot thinner so the area just outside the focus point will look softer. The main reason I stop the lens down to F11+ is to get a little more DOF in macro shots. I am not familiar with this lens, is it soft at those apertures even when not shooting macro? I completely agree with you. by blurry I meant DOF blurry... I try to explain that its not an optic problem just shallow DOF

05-15-2009, 11:35 AM	#8
X Man Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 478	Originally posted by Igilligan With most of my macro lenses the subject is still pretty sharp at the wider apertures, but the dof gets a lot thinner so the area just outside the focus point will look softer. The main reason I stop the lens down to F11+ is to get a little more DOF in macro shots. I am not familiar with this lens, is it soft at those apertures even when not shooting macro? Originally posted by redpigeons I completely agree with you. by blurry I meant DOF blurry... I try to explain that its not an optic problem just shallow DOF Normally, you'd be right. However, with this Sears piece it's definitely an "optical problem". It's a weird beast. It's not a "Macro" lens. At 1:5 magnification it's not even remotely close to a Macro lens. Our 18-55mm Kit lens has a much higher 1:3.5 reproduction ratio, if memory serves me. I don't know how this lens got elevated to the status it has but it's pretty silly. To re-cap. It's a good 135 f2.8 prime lens, with a "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" mode that's mislabeled as a "Macro" mode. Regards, Mike

05-15-2009, 11:41 AM	#9
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by winglik Hi everyone, i just got a copy of the Sears 135mm f2.8 Macro lens after i saw some nice macro photo from it. Lens worked nicely in none macro mode . but when i switched to Macro 1:5-1:7, the image gets very soft(burr) from f2.8-f4.5,it gets sharper at f5.6 and up. Is that normal for this lens or i have a bad copy? thanx Yes - I've had a couple copies of this lens, and that "macro zone" never got used after a little while, it's like turning on a soft filter, or something. That lens does just fine in non-macro mode, though, it's actually quite sharp. Check out The Sears Lens Club for examples from this baby. Duh-Vinci among others makes that lens sing. .

05-15-2009, 11:48 AM	#10
ivoire Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,381	Originally posted by X Man It's a good 135 f2.8 prime lens, with a "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" mode that's mislabeled as a "Macro" mode. Regards, Mike I own one and this is the best description i've seen of this lens. just sums it up nicely. Not everyone will like it, but mine will remain as long as i own a pentax camera.

05-15-2009, 12:08 PM	#11
winglik Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 258 Original Poster	I agree with other, even this is not a True Macro lens, but it's a very nice 135mm lens with great sharpness and bokeh. and the price. I create this thread just to see if mine was broken or what not. thanx all for the info.

05-15-2009, 04:06 PM	#12
Igilligan Guest	I like the "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" description... now I need one of these lenses

05-15-2009, 05:52 PM	#14
redpigeons Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 943	Originally posted by X Man Normally, you'd be right. However, with this Sears piece it's definitely an "optical problem". It's a weird beast. It's not a "Macro" lens. At 1:5 magnification it's not even remotely close to a Macro lens. Our 18-55mm Kit lens has a much higher 1:3.5 reproduction ratio, if memory serves me. I don't know how this lens got elevated to the status it has but it's pretty silly. To re-cap. It's a good 135 f2.8 prime lens, with a "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" mode that's mislabeled as a "Macro" mode. Regards, Mike sorry about that ... I tried to help

05-15-2009, 06:20 PM	#15
X Man Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 478	Oh yeah, this piece, as evidenced by the last sample is a full-on psychedelic experience! I should have known you'd be along shortly, inquiring about an inexpensive lens that'll blow the minds of every Dead Head that experiences it. Regards, Mike Originally posted by Igilligan I like the "Soft Focus"/ "Dream Sequence" description... now I need one of these lenses