| Author: | | Senior Member Registered: April, 2015 Location: Lower Saxony Posts: 181
7 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 24, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $140.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp and rich contrast wide open, mostly soft Bokeh, long focus screw, colors | | Cons: | OoF little cyan to magenta fringing wide open, sometimes rough Bokeh depending on background | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-30, K-5 IIs, K-1
| |
Owning it more than 2 years i rediscovered this lens summer 2017
for its FL, its 8 blade aperture and its plastic rendition
- and it was sticky then on my K-1 for three month - until i found a K 1:1.8/85....
My Dobi Koma
K-1 + K 1:2.5/135; @f/2.5; linked to original out of camera jpg
Mrs 3586
K-1 + K 1:2.5/135; @f/2.5; linked to original ooc jpg
Mrs 3586 II
K-1 + K 1:2.5/135; @f/2.5; linked to original ooc jpg
Lord of the Flies
K-1 + K 1:2.5/135; @f/2.5; linked to original ooc jpg.
Halfshadowfax
K-1 + K 1:2.5/135; @f/2.5; linked to originl ooc jpg.
...and 257 more ooc shots with this lens @f/5.6...a german doberman show 2017.08.06; a flickr album... | | | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: October, 2011 Location: British Columbia Posts: 377
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 17, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp wide open, pleasant soft bokeh | | Cons: | Size, flare resistance, bokeh past f/5.6 gets geometric | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 7
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-1 (digital), K-2 (film)
| |
Superb lens. I'm quite fond of the colours that this lens produces and the bokeh it creates both in the foreground and background are some of the best I've seen from a 135mm lens. It's worth noting, however, that the specular highlights can become rather geometric (octagonal) when stopped down past f/5.6. This lens is not the lightest of the pack when it comes to Pentax 135mm primes, but is hardly a burden to carry. I reach for this lens when I want more compression in the frame than the FA 77mm can grab.
Having owned the M-135mm f/3.5, this K-135mm f/2.5 is quite an upgrade in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and contrast.
Although focusing can be challenging, the lens itself is very sharp wide open. See unsharpened photos below @ f/2.5 with 1:1 crop.
 | | | | | New Member Registered: July, 2017 Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 5, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | built like a tank, compact, sharp wide open | | Cons: | purple color fringing | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: canon 5dc
| |
Beautiful lens, buttery long focus throw, solid metal and glass and the best bokeh of all my pentax lenses (I have 6)
I was very surprised how sharp it was at f2.5 but when I stopped it down to f5.6.... BOOOM! it seemed to turbocharge my Canon 5dc
Purple fringing is a problem, best to stay away from contrasty shots but many programs can deal with 90% of it
I paid just $40 US so I'm an extremely chuffed ole fellow!
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2014 Location: Colorado Posts: 497 | | Review Date: April 29, 2017 | Recommended | Price: $160.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, build, bright aperture, | | Cons: | Difficult to nail focus | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: K1
| |
I used this lens for some time on K-1. Very nice build. As to sharpness I give it 9.5 which is rounded to 10. The only complaint that I have is the razor-thin depth of field, making it difficult to focus. With some patience, however, you will get amazing photos.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: July, 2016 Posts: 4
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 28, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Build quality, bokeh, flare resistance, sharpness | | Cons: | CA, long minimum focus distance | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 9
Camera Used: Sony A7s, Sony a6000
| |
Good lens with excellent build quality and handling. Sharp enough wide open with beautiful bokeh and good contrast and colours. Some CA wide open, and could focus closer than 1.5m, but otherwise excellent.
Check out my detailed review of this lens with lots of image samples at
http://www.theweekendlens.com/pentax-135-f25-smc.html | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: November, 2016 Posts: 316 | | Review Date: November 25, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Classic Pentax IQ, handling, build | | Cons: | Heavy | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax Kx
| |
I bought this lens for only 50$ in perfect condition, and although I don't like heavy and long lens overall, I like it very much. Great image quality with a classic color rendering and 3D look, the things I always love from Pentax's ancient lens. Its build is superb and focusing ring, aperture ring are easy to use. It is a pleasure handling this lens every-time I put it on my camera. It is perfect for portraits and long snapshot. I even use it to take some landscape photo, although the long focal limit it a lot. If I have a full frame camera I think I will use this lens most of the time.
The only cons I can think of is maybe its weight and size. I'm a lazy person and I don't want to carry many things when going outside, plus this lens put on my Kx camera looks kind of a weird combination. If you don't mind some weight or if you have a bigger camera this is no problem.
With the price I paid it is an absolute bargain.
   | | | | | Forum Member Registered: December, 2015 Location: Charleroi (Belgium) Posts: 60 | | Review Date: August 30, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Solid build, long focus ring, fast, sharp | | Cons: | color fringing | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-50
| |
I own the early version (engraved 1:2.5/135). It's a super lens, both at use and for the eye.
The focus is smooth and comfortable, but hard to get @2.5. It does render wonderful colors and excellent contrast, but it also produces a lot of color fringing (purple and green).
The focus at infinity seems a little off, as said on another review, and the closest point of focus is somewhat far, I would say 1,8 meter.
But it is sharp, even on the corners @2.5. It sticks with the sharpness through the ring (2.5 to 32), the sharpest being, as far as I can tell, at 5.6 and 8, but it's almost not noticable.
Fantastic build, metal and rubber, I recommend it strongly.
@ F/2.5
Img01
Img02 | | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2016 Posts: 1 | | Review Date: July 6, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $230.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, Contrast, Amazing Colour and bokeh, Handling | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: NEX-7
| |
If you find this lens up to 150$, buy it ! True gem inside lens world.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: December, 2012 Location: Cirebon Posts: 29 | | Review Date: February 21, 2016 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | 3D, Natural Color, Build, Clarity, Sharpness | | Cons: | Resolution at infinity | |
(+)
- Feels like FA/DA Limited image quality
- Superb for portrait
- 3D
(-)
- Don't use this lens at infinity.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: November, 2013 Location: Queensland, Australia Posts: 87 | | Review Date: November 12, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Image and build quality are superb | | Cons: | Fringing wide open | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 8
Camera Used: K50 KS1
| |
I bought this from eBay a few weeks ago and it arrived in extraordinary condition. It appeared brand new, so I'm assuming it has been either refurbished or I am lucky enough to have a mint condition lens from 40 years ago. Either way, the lens is a testament to quality construction.
I use it primarily on the K50 as it meters well and balances better than on the KS1. I can't add any more than previous reviewers on the optical qualities of this lens. It's a beautiful piece of engineering that will produce stunning images.
A couple of images with minimal post processing. These are not wide open and stopped down to f4 if I recall
  | | | | | New Member Registered: August, 2015 Location: Stockholm Posts: 15
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: November 10, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $220.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, fast, IQ, 3D, build, size etc.. | | Cons: | None | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K5 IIs
| |
This is currently my favorite lens. It behaves a lot like a fast 50mm but with extra reach. It does require a lot of patience and focusing is critical to get good result but once you've figured it out, it is a rewarding lens. Using manual mode and 'green button' works great but using it in Av my K5 tends to overexpose more.
It is quite prone to CA, especially at 2.5, so don't even try using it without a hood. I have the original plastic hood that works for most use but I guess a deeper hood would be better. The CA however has never been a big problem for me and most of the times it can be cleared up easily in PP.
It is very sharp wide open and after f4 it is super sharp. It's quite heavy but that is not a problem for me. Walking around the city, even a really grey day this lens is very rewarding. It is a really good lens for B/W shooting, wich I do a lot. I guess that's a good way to circumvent the CA 
A few wide open shots:
   | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: July, 2012 Posts: 928
13 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 6, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp, fast, excellent 3-D and bokeh rendering | | Cons: | Fringes, reasonably heavy, needs patience | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-3
| |
This lens can produce amazing images wide-open and is very sharp closed down. It is capable of that sought-after 3-D rendering quality. It's good for street scenes, landscapes (some users speak very highly of it as a landscape lens), flowers, and especially for portraits. On FF it should be a fantastic portrait lens. The bokeh wide-open can be smooth and buttery like a fast fifty. I often prefer using the lens to my K85/1.8; it seems to open up more opportunities.
The lens is quite heavy, not prohibitively so, for walking around, but it means one has to have a steady hand to avoid blur. It needs a deep hood, and it exhibits narrow colour fringing when wider-open, occasionally in two different colours, along the same lines, in the same area of an image. You just have be aware of fringing conditions. It's sharp at 2.5, but the dof is so narrow, focusing correctly is critical. Fortunately, the glass is large and bright. It can be a frustrating lens; the on-board metering is not always spot-on (a common issue with K series lenses), and generally, the lens needs/rewards patience.
Before the K135/2.5, I owned the K135/3.5, and that is a good lens, especially stopped down. However, the K135/2.5 is very special. Believe the hype!!
Here is my Flickr album with more photos: https://www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/sets/72157647525540667/
And this one, stopped down to attract starbursts!
 | | | | | New Member Registered: October, 2014 Posts: 4 | | Review Date: January 14, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $180.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp and happy | | Cons: | ca as usual for older lens | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-x
| |
I picked this lens mostly when I want to use a 135mm. When reviewers says this lens gives the 'pop' or 3D effect, what reference and comparison are they referring to? To a crazy prized zeiss or a 3rd party lens? I don't print my photos(99% usuall), my dslr is a humble k-x, my best critic is my wife who seriously cannot read without glasses.
We all know that manual focusing on original or unchanged viewfinder(screen) can be a real pain when it comes with low light and in those difficult moments: we have no control of the environment and moments happen to us at no choice. For a not so pro photographer and camera, this lens became a real star and rescuer.
I own a RMC Tokina 135mm f2.8 k mount, it produces pretty good and sharp pics. EBC Fujinon T 135mm f2.5 m42 is another stunner, sharp sharp sharp and beautiful color rendition and absolute treasure. But with the age of photoshop, what cannot be done? I know almost but not all ;-).
I don't like to buy too many m42 to pk adapters and I do have quite a fair amount of m42 lenses and i belong to the not-so-rich class. I favor the convenience of just 'fit, twist, fix'. I picked this Pentax lens mostly - You might encounter situations when you have 2 m42s with only 1 adapter and 1 pk lens out in the field, because you love primes and you want to switch lenses when situation demands that. I wondered sometimes 'what the *f-stop* am i doing?' And 'will i become a pro just because of these great primes?' :-D
It has a bigger range of f-stops(32-2.5), it gives me more room to play with ND filters where else the Fujinon gives me only f22-2.5. Well you may say why do you need such a big range of f-stops? We all know that not every f-stop is desirable.
I call this a happy lens coz when I see the resulting pictures on my comp, it just gives you the smiles and when I look back at the lens, it seems to look back smiling.
Using CIF with original k mount is straight forward, no need preparation compared to m42(sanding off the lens back to silver if you know what i meant or using metallic sticker or aluminium foil). More smiles generated.
p.s.
I have pictures taken with cheapo lenses that landed smiles on me and my wife. we are easily satisfied folks. I have my LBA cured and PPA(pixel peeping addiction) cured unless I need to sweep off CA.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/74203-carerre/albums/9286-smc-pen...ture83820.html | | | | | New Member Registered: May, 2013 Location: Jakarta Posts: 2 | | Review Date: May 11, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | very sharp, color contrast, built quality | | Cons: | big, heavy, prone to CA | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 8
Camera Used: K5, ME Super, a6000, a7
| |
surprising of size and heavy, i found this lens from ebay, with lot of fungus on both outside and inside elements, but it's still has good color contrast, saturation, bokeh...even sharpness!
any samples shots here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/roe_groho/sets/72157673263197594 | | | | | Pentaxian Registered: March, 2010 Location: Chiang Mai, Bologna, Amsterdam Posts: 1,198
23 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: May 10, 2014 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | sharp, fast, well built | | Cons: | none, if you aren't comparing apples with oranges! | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K200D, K10D
| |
I'm posting my review just because i found that some reviews are misleading.
You can't compare apples with oranges!
It's no surprise that a fast lens is bigger and bulkier than a slower one.
Finding that a fast lens (with no ED elements) isn't biting sharp wide open, isn't a surprise either...
Probably it was meant to be that way, when the lens was calculated.
Some of the best fast primes made at that time, or before (a couple of Pentax and Nikkor objectives come to my mind - especially a highly prized Nikkor for rangefinders), were calculated with "plastic" portrait rendition in mind, not extreme resolution and contrast.
For those interested in basic informations abut optical design, it's just undercorrected spherical aberration.For those who appreciate it, and who like to shoot portraits wide open (or have a taste for slightly "dreamy" landscapes), that small amount of spherical aberration translates into a kind of "halation" layer, gracefully mixed up with the sharp image. It is more evident in pictures where highly illuminated areas border with very dark ones. There is a hint of diffusion from high key areas into low key ones.
Many people don't like "proper" soft focus lenses, but a good number of photographers like the signature of "old school" portrait lenses, the plastic rendition, and the "depth", of areas which are neither in-focus nor totally out-of-focus. The bokeh (that is, the rendition of extremely OOF backgrounds) is very pleasing as well, because of the optical layout.
The only problem is that you NEED a relatively fast lens, to fully benefit from that slight (intentional) "imperfection in lens design!
It would be very easy to build a faster lens, keeping the same optical formula of an f/4 one, just by enlarging the size of the glasses!
So, why different speeds of the same focal had different design? Cause it was NOT expensive vs. cheap. large vs. small, heavy vs. light.
The two lenses had to differ in their rendition, too... and be useful for different purposes/styles.
If i have to be fully sincere, i must say it: every time i read a review and i see that the vote is kept lower because an f/2.8 lens is "big", or a macro with Heliar design is "slow", i can't help but stop reading. :-)
The comparations between lenses must be relative, not absolute!
It's no surprise that a zoom with 16 elements is slightly worse that a very good prime, whatever the price of the zoom, or that the contrast is lower. Even given the extremely good coating of most of the latest objectives, each and every glass-to-air surface eats up at least a 2% of the light, which gets randomly scattered on the whole image, creating a "veil" which affects contrast.
Sometimes a certain degree of fringing, or some lack of contrast, are considered minor problems (or even irrelevant). That is misleading as well, everybody knows that the better the raw material (that is, the raw files), the better the finished product!
Hence, a zoom must be compared with zooms, a fast lens with other fast lenses, etc. etc.
I humbly invite other reviewers to follow this very simple rule. It would make the reviews more relevant, and definitely more useful (especially for the beginner photographers, who have no specific culture/experience to take it all with the necessary grain of salt).
Now, back to the lens, as per the title of the review.
IMHO, this lens shines.
Despite a certain increase in cost, the performance vs price ratio is still very high.
I have seen Vivitar f/2.3 lenses go for higher prices, and the Porst f/1.8 sell for crazy prices.
All in all, despite the higher speed of the two 135mm lenses i mentioned, i'd rather go for a Pentax lens of the golden age, with SMC coating!
Wide open at f/2.5, the Pentax gives that small hint of halation i tried to describe (and explain), closing half stop, or better a full stop, gives the same kind of performance of the best 135mm primes of that time.There are no floating elements, no IF, and no special glasses. That means:
1) the performance deteriorates a bit if the lens is focused close to its minimal focusing distance
2) the size varies while focusing
3) the use of more conventional glasses has a (small) impact on wide-open performance
BUT...
1) the contrast is good, thanks to the very good multi coating (in the old times, there were three good multi coatings: T*, HFT, SMC; Canon and Nikon lenses had a slightly inferior coating... but i'm just reporting common knowledge, not personal experience)
2) the build is awesome, probably series K lenses are the peak of Pentax mechanical construction
3) despite having no ED glasses, IQ is quite good: the optical formula is not a very old one, probably it's very close to "as-good-as-it-gets", if you consider the kind of optical glasses available at the time, and the price of the lens. In fact, it's the brother of the last version of the screw-mount one. It's 6 elements with SMC coating, while the older M42 ones had 5 elements and single-coating
4) i haven't tested the lens with my K-5 II, but i remember that with the sensor of the K200D and K10D i saw almost no fringing, which is quite uncommon. Most lenses of that age are VERY prone to fringing. Probably at f/2.5 it's possible to get some fringing, in some pictures.
Overall, it's definitely a very good lens for digital. I am sorry i didn't test it with my latest camera. The increase in resolution COULD make a difference (though i guess it will not).
I got my example many, many years ago, and of course i don't remember how much i payed. Anyway, it would be irrelevant, prices have changed A LOT in the meantime!
It came with no hood. If i'm not mistaken, the hood was sold as an accessory, but i'm not sure. I purchased the lens second hand, so the hood could have been lost.
The dedicated hood is of the clip-on type. I didn't buy one, which i regret, cause it would be useful.
Unfortunately those hoods aren't very common anymore, and usually don't come very cheap.
Somebody thinks that this lens is undeservedly popular, and that it's nothing special.
I have a different opinion. While there are many lenses which command an (undeserved) high price, and whose popularity is mostly due to unsubstantiated Internet hearsay, the 135mm f/2.5 series K (which is NOT the same thing as the Takumar one with the same specs!) is worth the current market price, and probably even more.
It is surprisingly good with digital sensors, and the character of the lens can be varied dialing different values with the diaphragm ring.
I must admit that i'm not using this lens very much. but i used it very much with film, and i liked it a lot: i own a few A* lenses, including the 85mm f/1.4 (which still is cutting edge optics at the highest level), but i always had a sweet spot for my 135mm f/2.5! :-)
Now it's different. I can't feel at ease using the green button. I don't know why, but i really can't. Probably it has to do with old habits, or perhaps i'm just plain lazy...
Whatever, i'm not using K and M lenses very much, with digital. That's why long ago i started exchanging my mechanical lenses with Pentax-A ones.
I still have three of them: the 28mm f/2 K, which is a monument you'd never sell; the 50mm f/1.4 M, cause it's too good for the price i would get; and the 135mm f/2.5 K, cause i simply love it, and cause buying a Pentax-A 135mm f/2.8 would san adding some money, and having a lens with a character too close to a good f/2.8 zoom, to be really worth the (not small) investment
If you find a good example at a decent price, buy it. You can't go wrong.
There are good chances that this lens will become a "cult" one (more deservedly so that some Cosina and Tomioka ones!), and that it will sell for much more in the future :-)
P.S.
The Takumar (bayonet) lens with similar specs is TOTALLY another lens.
It was NOT built in a transition period between the M42 Takumars and the new P-K lenses. I remember when it was introduced, it was built during the series M era, as a cheap, bottom of the line, tele for P-K cameras.
As far as i remember, it was much cheaper than this lens, and even cheaper than the Pentax-M 135mm f/3.5, and had NO SMC coating.
If it's true, i can't see a single reason for having a non-SMC lens made in the same production line which made nearly any other lenses with SMC. It could have been made by some third party maker, as the Pentax 90mm f/3.5 macro made by Cosina. Cosina is/was a very reputable maker, when they made high-cost lenses they made them extremely well, but most of their production consisted in cheap objectives, with decent optics and weak mechanic. Cosina, as anybody else, doesn't make miracles.
P.S. 2
I see that many users complain about fringing.
As far as i remember, i saw little fringing wide open, and almost none stopped down.
I really don't know why some reviewers (including myself) don't complain about fringing, while others (albeit satisfied by the performance of the lens) aren't so happy about CA.
Keeping in mind that's unfair to pixel peep for fringing a lens originally made for film, versus a new lens specifically made for digital sensors, i asked myself about the reason for such disparity.
I thought about that, and i made up my mind. There are 4 possible causes:
1) some lenses could have one or more elements a little out of whack; we know that it's an old lens, and some examples were probably subject to some kind of abuse
2) being a fast 135mm, some people probably tend to use it mostly wide open; most aberrations get much better stopping down a little (even half or 1 stop)
3) the shooting style and the kind of subject makes a big difference, high contrast scenes are more likely to show a little fringing, while many other subjects won't show any problem
4) some of the reviewers may be not aware that the Takumar (Bayonet) version isn't the same thing at all. Some of those who complain about green fringing payed the lens an unrealistic price. One or two may have been fortunate, but i know from experience that the best deals are scored by experienced photographers, who know a lot about this kind of stuff. It's not very likely that, well... not very experienced users could pay the lens a price well under market value. Possible, yes. Likely, not.
I guess that some reviews aren't about the real thing. More likely, they refer to the completely different Takumar (Bayonet) 135mm f/2.5
| | |
;)
;)
