| Author: | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2009 Location: Bennekom, The Netherlands Posts: 1,369 | | Review Date: December 30, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $65.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | cheap, compact size, very sharp | | Cons: | Bad Reputation | |
I had to get used to this strange length, but now I love this lens.
This Japanese version is very sharp, even wide open.
My version has an build in lens hood, seeing al earlier reviews I am not sure every version has this.
I entered the Single in November challenge with this lens, so I used it every day for the month November.
Tried all kinds of pictures: landscape, portrait, street, inside, outside and inside. I think it performs very well!
For more pictures view (Non working link removed)
(Non working link removed)
| | | | | | | Senior Member Registered: May, 2009 Location: Sacramento Posts: 131
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 30, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | price,availability, enjoyable to use | | Cons: | reputation, prone to flare | |
I've used this lens to take portraits, both posed and candid and also shots of my son in motion-riding-running-playing, etc. It is, imho, a lens that doesn't deserve its "best used as a really heavy lens cap" reputation. Yes, it produces soft pictures when the lens is wide open. (Many other lens do this as well). Yes, you will get flare when the hood is not used and sometimes even when it is used. However,when I work within the limitations of the lens (and my own) I find myself pleasantly surprised on a regular basis (if that's possible)
 | | | | | Senior Member Registered: December, 2010 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 141
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 12, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Fast, Economical, Light, Great Images | | Cons: | Reputation, no SMC, long focus | |
The undervalued poor relation (4 elements) of the SMC (6 elements) ....or so they say. I don't have the SMC version at this time for comparison. That said, I think this lens is GREAT!
Use a hood and UV/IR filters with a quality MC like Hoya. Some seem to struggle with this lens. I suggest you treat her like a sensitive woman and amazing images are possible. You just need to be more careful with composition with this lens. I expect the SMC to be sharper with the 2 extra elements
As previous reviewers have noted, some of the greatest lenses in the world are not multi coated. Maybe quality can vary between units. Maybe some secondary units have been treated badly in life.
Optically an 8.5 but due to it's extremely cheap prices at the moment (Dec 2010) a definite 10.
..........Enjoy......Sometimes "M" is best........... | | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2010 Location: Mesa Arizona Posts: 5 | | Review Date: October 7, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Sharp,Bokeh,Fast, Build Quality | | Cons: | Slow Focus, Bad Reputation | |
This is a great lens. Especially at a sub $100.00 price point. From a quality perspective this lens easily competes with a $500.00 plus glass of any maker. (remember this glass is pushing 30+ years)
Here is the deal... if you know how to make photographs you should not have any problems with this lens. Are there other lenses out there that boast better specs at the same focal length that blow this one away...probably... and the price ($1000 ++++) comes with it for results that will only be noticed by the most discerning of photography buffs. Do we take pictures for ourselves and our own self gratification or to put them up against a spec sheet???
Remember the best lens is the one you have on the camera!!!!! Get a K7 a coated filter and use a lens hood, click it wide open and you won't be able to put this baby down!!!!!!
Good luck!
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2009 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 509
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 16, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 6 |
| Pros: | Size, built | | Cons: | IMQ, color, not what I expected from a Pentax prime. | |
Bought it out of curiosity and would like to see the lens by myself. Spend an afternoon with it. After getting back home and reviewing the photos, I was surprised by the lens. It reminded me one of those lenses that I have sold. But I could not figure out which one. It is CERTAINLY not what K135 f2.5 looks like.
After reviewing kmp.bdimitrov.de, I suddenly realized what it was. It was Takumar Bayonet 135mm f2.5, which was sold a long time ago. Because they have the same optical formula, they produced almost the same images.
The color is a bit washed off. Contrast is a bit low at f2.8. CA is apparent at f2.8. It is very sensitive to lighting and the environment. The image is just less crisp and more "loose" than images from other typical Pentax lenses. It is not the Pentax "soapy" effect that I normally expect at the largest aperture. While SMC helps, the lens suffers a bit from excessive glare at f2.8.
Although I like the build quality and the size, I can not wholeheartedly recommend this lens. It reminds me of earlier generation Sigma zoom lenses that I used to have. I do not recall that I have used any Pentax fixed focal lens that produce such images. Can I say this is the worst Pentax prime (K-limited) that I have used so far?
I always know that Pentax was pretty bad at marketing. For instance, instead of making Takumar the top of the line in the K mount era, Pentax made Takumar the cheap line. Pentax created the *ist series. I could not find a way to either call the name or search the name in EBay. A bunch of creative geniuses.
But this is the first time I see how Pentax dumb down. Instead of using the K135 f2.5 formula, Pentax relied on the cheap Takumar Bayonet line...  | | | | | Junior Member Registered: October, 2009 Location: Montrouge, France Posts: 31
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: September 7, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Solid built, color, bokeh | | Cons: | Slow focus, rarely: uncontrolled shoots | |
(A review from France, so, please, excuse my english)
This lens is a stellar performer if you learn to use it. I own the SMC Pentax-M 135mm F3.5 and the "famous" SMC Pentax 135mm F2.5 too and maybe I would keep this one if I had to choose between these 3.
The bokeh is marvelous, sometimes images are a little bit soft but just remember that Leica "soft lenses" are a must than only rich men can afford. I have much problems to adjust exposure ans isos with my SMC 135 f2.5 on my K20D than with this one. It works very well in low light and sunny day light.
I use a UV filter to compensate non SMC and always uses the hood to avoid flare.
I don't have * Pentax lenses so I cannot compare quality, but I own a Leica and a few beautiful lenses and I consider that this lens is one of my bests for a price that is not
The only little problems I have: it is very slow to focus due to the almost 1 1/2 turn from 2 m to infinite. Can be a problem in street photography to catch a moment.
Rarely, I take a "uncontrolled" shoot, over or dowexposed. But it's a manual lens and it happens with my standard lenses too.
I put a 10 to compensate low marks that are not justified: A very few today lenses can produce such image quality under 800/1000 $ price.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: March, 2009 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Posts: 509 | | Review Date: June 6, 2010 | Recommended
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Lighter than the REAL one, large aperture, well built | | Cons: | Color rendering, flare, and pronounced PF at f2.5 | |
Finally got one in a package. All in all, it is not bad.
There is a reason that it is not called Pentax SMC. There is a reason it is only about 1/5 of the price of the real one. There is a reason why it is so light while it has f2.5 as the largest aperture.
There are fewer glass elements inside than the SMC one. It does not share the optical formula as the real one or the original TAKUMAR ones. If you have the money, please use the real one. I think that the differences are particularly significant on color films and on digital cameras. It could be a better lens on B/K films.
Without SMC, color rendering suffers particularly at f2.5. Low contrast is an issue, which one can post process to mitigate the issue. Flare could be problematic if not careful. Try to avoid light. The mechanical quality is a little bit lower than the M, but not by much. The aperture mechanism is very different. But it feels solid in hand and resolution is not bad. If stop down by one or two levels, the image quality improves dramatically. However, color rendering is still different.
Better to avoid f2.5. It is very necessary to put on the shade. At f2.5, it is better to shoot close range. Image quality deteriorates quickly in long range.
On a separate topic: I think that it is a dumb decision to put TAKUMAR on an inferior lens. TAKUMAR represents a brilliant era in the Pentax history. I think that instead of "limited", Pentax should have used TAKUMAR to represent the best line of the Pentax lenses. Apparently, Pentax is more of an engineering oriented company. Marketing was not a forte.
| | | | | | | | Review Date: January 30, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $110.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | sharpness, good contrast n bokeh, solid build | | Cons: | flared, non-smc | |
I got 2 copies of this pentax, one with SMC and this one . Exceptional for the price and non SMC, a very versatile and talented lens. Color, sharpness and contrast is very like with SMC one. It should be noted that I seem to have gotten a "perfect" copy of the lens.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2009 Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia Posts: 1,086 | | Review Date: January 8, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Sharpness when stopped down | | Cons: | Flare in bright conditions | |
This is the first Pentax lens I've owned. Several reviews Ive read had said that'Pentax lenses had"punchy"or "bold"colours. Though this is not strictly speaking, a Pentax lens, the colour rendition is excellent. Indoors at up to f2.5 is fine. Outdoors, always stop down a little for best results. I can't compare to a genuine SMC 135mm, but I am very impressed with this lens, especially as I paid AUD$100 shipped from Canada to Aus for this one. Mine is marked"made in Taiwan". Apparently there are a couple of different versions of this lens. I can't verify if the "made in Japan"version is any better. If you want to venture into the Manual focus Pentax lens market and don't have a huge budget, this would be a good starting point. Then maybe a fast 50mm.....
Regards
| | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2009 Location: Knoxville, TN Posts: 7
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 4, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Uniform sharpness; No light falloff | | Cons: | Manual Focus | |
My copy (Japan Serial # 543...) of this lens is surprisingly sharp. I did some quick tests versus the M 135 3.5 and the Takumar proved competitive in every respect. In its favor the M is more portable; the Takumar isn't cumbersome, however. Interestingly enough, the Tak seems longer by a small margin, in regard to focal length (Perhaps the M designers cheated a bit to keep size to a minimum?). Controlled tests should be conducted to verify this discrepancy. Contrast was not lacking at all in the Bayonet shots, when compared to Pentax M photos of the same subjects. The Takumar is great for "head and shoulders" portraits, as sharpness is respectable using larger apertures. It does sharpen up appreciably by f4, though it is plenty sharp wide open. This lens may never get "prickly" sharp, but it never gets really soft either. I'll give it a strong 8.5 for sharpness. Bokeh is neutral and not distracting under most circumstances. It rates a 7 for me, here. Well worth $100 for a good copy. My local shop was selling one for $40. A friend gave mine as a gift.  | | | | | Senior Member Registered: August, 2008 Location: Netherlands Posts: 106
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 19, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | inexpensive, excellent portrait lens, bokeh, colors | | Cons: | manual, slow to focus | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 7
Value: 8
| |
If you know how to use this lens it's a stellar performer.
I use it indoor and outdoor for portraits.
Outdoor for detail shoots and street photography.
Here some shots:
1.
2.
3.
Edit 12/31/2009
Mind you, there are two versions of this lense I found out recently.
A member of the Dutch Pentaxian forum had one, made in Taiwan, which
produced bad photos. Not sharp, no soft bokeh etcetera.
I don't say that all the Taiwan Taks are bad though.
Perhaps this was an exception.
Mine is the "made in Japan" version, which is outrageous!!!
(Serial nr. 544....)
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: July, 2009 Location: Europe, Benelux, Zeeuwsch-Vlaanderen, Terneuzen Posts: 26 | | Review Date: July 12, 2009 | Recommended
| Rating: 8 |
|
I can't really put a full review of this lens here as I do not own it and never have.
But I wish to make a few comments.
Basically this lens is the same as the SMC-Pentax version except for the coating.
In some light-conditions it can give the same excellent result as the SMC-version.
When light comes in from the wrong angle however it can lose contrast, give flare etcetera. This can be suitable for dreamy portraits.
If one remembers that in the '50s and early 60's lenses did not have multicoating either, it is clear that a lens like this can be used to create a similar effect.
That said, it is easy. Learn what the lens can do and cannot do. If you need a flare-free lens that gives always crisp images go for an SMC-version. If you want to use the effect, or cannot afford (then) or find (now) the SMC version, this one is a good choise.
The 2.5 version can be expected to be slightly better than the 2.8 version.
The 1.8 star and 2.5 (SMC) were top of the bill then whereas the 3.5 (both 3.5 K and M versions) and the more recent 2.8 (A, F and FA) version were clearly the cheaper (but still good) counterparts for the average user and for those that needed to travel lighter.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: October, 2008 Location: NYC Posts: 258 | | Review Date: April 18, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cheap, Fast, usable at low light | | Cons: | poor coating, soft at f2.5 | |
This lens is actually under rated from alot of user. It's pretty good for it's price, one cons is the poor coating on the lens. Built in Hood is must use at all time. At 2.5, it's a bit soft, but for outdoor, i mostly set it to f8, and i got a lot good pictures out of it, bohek is awesome good for this lens. the SMC version might be better, but this is good as well.
| | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2006 Location: Maui Posts: 11
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 20, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | fast, long, cheap, easy to find | | Cons: | no A settings, non-SMC | |
For value, I'd give this lens a 10... but in pure optical terms, it's really about a 7. It has all the problems you'd expect from a single coated, decades old lens... contrast lacks, flare abounds, CA can be extreme. No A setting makes for more difficulty in metering and high speed sync is not available.
However, it is certainly NO dog... images are not necessarily too soft, even wide open. The rest of the problems are easily dealt with if you choose your shots/situations carefully. I would buy it again and I think it's worth at least double what I paid. I have a thread at my usual haunt with pics and crops if interested: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21634776-Lens-Crappy-lens | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: November, 2008 Location: The Untied States Posts: 1,881 | | Review Date: January 6, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Great feel, looks nice, very sharp esp after f/4, good colors | | Cons: | CA visible at all apertures, moderate coma wide-open | |
I would definitely recommend this lens if you're not expecting the same quality of lens that is in the SMC 135/2.5 -- which costs more than three times the price, as well.
The lens itself looks great and is very solid and feels a bit indestructible. It has very good resolution, but most people will say otherwise because they confuse resolution with clarity. There is coma at f/2.5 up to f/4, so it takes away from the sharpness people perceive; but the detail is still there. Past f/4, the coma goes away, and it gets very respectably sharp. However, chromatic aberration is visible at all apertures in high contrast areas, though it's never TOO bad.
To me, this lens is all about price/performance ratio. If you want to spend over $250 for one of the best 135mm lenses out there, then do it. I'm sure you'll be happy with it. However, if you aren't made of $250 bills and want a solid performer that will never cause a "missed shot", then grab this lens for $60-80.
| | |
