Author: | | Inactive Account Registered: December, 2006 Location: Boise, Idaho Posts: 27 | Review Date: January 8, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $49.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Lieghtweight, excellent performance at all apertures, inexpensive on the used market. | Cons: | None I can think of. | | This lens is a gem. Nice and lightweight, excellent performance at all apertures, built in sliding sun shade, excellent build quality. It becomes a beautiful lightweight 200mm f/3.5 equivalent on a Pentax APS sized sensor DSLR.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: North Idaho Posts: 696 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: January 9, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $65.00
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | very small for focal length, quality construction, built-in sun hood | Cons: | none | | Can a lens this small really be have a focal length of 135mm? With the Pentax M series, yes! Not only that, it is an exceptional performer. This lens has the usual K and M construction quality. Most of the M-series lenses were not as good optically as their K-series predecessors, but in the case of the 135mm, you don't lose anything. This is a great, little lens that takes outstanding images.
This was the 'default' telephoto that people in the late 70's and early 80's purchased for their SLR outfits. The 200mm lenses were too expensive and the faster, shorter focal length lenses were also financially out of reach for the masses. This 135/3.5 hit the sweet spot. It was not so very fast that it didn't require complex engineering and construction costs could be kept down.
Pentax sold 'tons' of these lenses, and because of that, they are readily available for nominal cost. If you have need of a prime in this focal length, and don't mind manual focusing and manual aperture, this would be the lens to get. You can very easily pay more for dinner at a nice restaurant for you and your wife.
| | | | Veteran Member Registered: February, 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 1,774 | Review Date: February 21, 2007 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Small, sharp, contrasty, cheap, built-in hood | Cons: | Minimum focus distance | | This lens is small, very sharp and its reputable performance carries over to the dSLR with added reach (equiv. to 202mm on dSLR)
I got my first real bird pic with this lens. (Thats my old devart account btw) The details are sharp and just be able to see a tree sparrow up close was rewarding.
This lens can easily be found on eBay for under $100 and is well worth your money.
The only thing that bogs me is the focus distance. With a marked minimal distance of 1.5m (longer on dSLR), you won't be able to shoot anything up close.
| | | | Senior Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: Ottawa, ON Posts: 134 | Review Date: February 24, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 6 |
Pros: | Small size, smooth focussing | Cons: | No A, min. focusing distance is about half a mile :-) | | Got one copy from eBay for about 30€ (how much is that in USD?).
It is tiny and cute. Great focusing ring, smart built-in slide-out hood.
135mm should be great for portrait, but on a DSLR it turns into a 200mm equivalent.
I love this lens but rarely use it. Why ?
- No auto-aperture position so it's just a little bit less convenient to meter
- A bit long. Guess I am not a 200mm person.
- Finally, as it is a f/3.5 it is only marginally faster than the DA 50-200 zoom at the same focal length, and I find the zoom offers a lot more in terms of convenience (it is barely bigger too).
But if you are looking for a dirt cheap 200mm equivalent, by all means go for it !
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2006 Location: Mississauga, Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,517 | Review Date: April 7, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 9 |
| This lens is so small! It is about 2/3's the size of my Sears 135/2.8, is nice and light, and perhaps 3 times the length of my M50/1.7. The images coming from this lens are punchy compared to the Sears 135. The sharpness of the images when aperture is wide open is surprising! The IQ from the Sears lens will only come this close at F5.6. I guess that's the difference of getting a lens for $5 (Sears) vs. one that is 10x's more.
| | | | Senior Member Registered: November, 2006 Location: Sechelt, B.C. Posts: 229 | Review Date: May 10, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Light, small, build quality solid, looks great on a camera. | Cons: | Manual metering/focus | | I just recently picked up this fantastic little lens, and let me tell you, I've been stunned by its performance. While some may find it to be a little long for portraiture in a classic sense, I find it to be almost the perfect length for child portraiture. Even a 70mm lens with the crop factor tends to get you too close to kids, and they end up being more concerned with you and the camera than their environment. Not so with the 135mm. I can stand back, they pretty much ignore me, and I can get excellent work done with it.
Because of the manual focus and metering, it requires a little more work than an A or FA counterpart, but worth it in the end, if only for the cost.
If you're like me, and have very little extra money to throw towards lenses, and want something of this focal length that works well in most lighting conditions, do yourself a favor and look around for this one. You can also probably get the 2.8 or 2.5 versions without to much extra effort as well, if you need those extra stops.
| | | | Veteran Member Registered: July, 2007 Location: Seattle Posts: 393 | Review Date: August 13, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $79.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Build Quality, Focus Ring, Sharp | Cons: | Minimum focus is about two football fields | | I have only one complaint, the minimum focus is extremely far... while two football fields is a gross exaggeration, it is quite far. (Somewhere around 7 feet)
Sharpness is incredible, build quality is outstanding, the focus ring is silky smooth and well dampened just like all the other m-lenses. In my not so steady hands, this is about the perfect focal length to take hand held shots with my K100d.
| | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2007 Location: Near Utrecht, Netherlands Posts: 1,221 | Review Date: September 22, 2007 | Not Recommended | Price: $75.00
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | small, sharp, pretty cheap | Cons: | long min. focus distance | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 8
| | The lens may be very good, but it came after a 100mm F2.8. I had already gotten used to that. I found the 135 actually, too long, and a little bit too dark.
That seems to happen to more reviewers here, and I can only say I've got the same thing. That's why I hardly use it, and even sometimes consider selling it. But if that's just me...
The lens itself has hardly any cons. It's small, lightweight, easy handleable. (I mostly use M- or Av-mode on my cameras) The built-in hood is great. You just never forget bringing it with you. On the other hand, 3.5 may be too much a compromise between size and aperture.
Let's say it's me. I was spoiled. But I hardly ever use this lens. On my Dslr even less.... and that's still a pity.
| | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2007 Posts: 8,237 | Review Date: December 26, 2007 | Recommended | Price: $49.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Sharp, good bokah, small | Cons: | Convenience | | Nice sharp little lens, good bokah, capable of performing well enough to surprise you.
My AF zooms set at 135mm don't seem to quite match this prime for sharpness - at least when I get the shot right. The 135mm focal length isn't usually quite as convenient for me as 70 or 200, so I don't use this lens as much, bet when I find the time and situation it always manages to surprise me how good an inexpensive manual lens can actually be.
Little finds like this make photography fun, buy it if you run across it.
| | | | Veteran Member Registered: January, 2007 Location: Newcastle Australia Posts: 5,284 | Review Date: March 12, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $80.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Small, lightweight, sharp, built-in hood. | Cons: | Minimum aperture, Manual Focus, Minimum focus distance. | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 8
Value: 8
| | What great little lens, at a bargain price.
This lens produces very sharp excellent shots with great bokeh.
Focussing ring is as smooth as silk, and with built in hood, there's no going without it.
Lightweight and small and very sturdily built, what more could one ask for for under $100.
If you see it, I recommend go for it, if you are prepared to cope with the manual operation.
All round : a briliant little lens.
| | | | Inactive Account Registered: March, 2008 Location: Toronto, San Diego, Seattle Posts: 455 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: May 30, 2008 | Recommended | Price: $39.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Compact 135, Lightweight, Decent IQ, Good Saturation | Cons: | IQ outclassed by 50-135, not quite as good as the 100 2.8 | | I had this lens a long time ago on a MX. It was a terrific lens back then. I picked one up for cheap for use on a K20D. Still a very nice lens on its own, but compared to IQ and detail on the 50-135, it doesn't hold up as well. But not all photography is about 100% crops and resolving the most detail and getting the largest prints. Sometimes it's about the overall look of an image, and the shooting experience. This is a nice lens that does well with colors and contrast, saturation and detail (up to a point) and is a nice lens to hold and shoot with, very small, very light, easy to hand-hold with SR. A faster aperture and a closer minimum focusing distance would make it better. Still prefer the M 100 2.8 to this lens. But they are easily found and for cheap, so well worth adding to your M collection. I have not used the K counterpart....
| | | | Site Supporter Registered: January, 2009 Location: Champagne Ardennes, France Posts: 18 | Review Date: February 6, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $69.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Small size, nice pictures, cheap lens, built-in hood | Cons: | a little bit slow | | It's a nice little lens, that makes good job.
I have the K135/2,5 which is sharper at large apertures, but the M135 is similar to it stopped down at f8 for half-price.
The K135/2,5 sometimes shows PF, M135 is better.
The M135 is easy to find and worths the money you usualy pay for it...
Test picture at f5,6 | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2006 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 10,685 3 users found this helpful | Review Date: March 4, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $70.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | great size & price for reasonably fast telephoto lens | Cons: | some CA / color fringing issues in rare situations | | I've used this lens for a couple of years (on APS-C), and have been quite happy with it. I use it mostly for low light concert photography if I'm not going to be right up front. It's enough faster than my DA50-200 to make a difference, and given that I often need manual focus in these settings anyhow, the manual focus ring is so much nicer with the M135/3.5.
At first, I did not notice the chromatic aberration issues I had read about, but after a year or so, I have on *rare* occasions seen this. At first, I started to get concerned, but I'm convinced the issue had as much to do with the nature of the lights that were lighting my subject (strongly colored magenta stage lights) as anything to do with the lens, and in any event, it hasn't turned out to be very common.
I did a comparison of this lens against the M100/2.8 and M120/2.8 that readers of this review might be interested in: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/137220-shootou...ml#post1443290
My conclusion (posted a few responses further down in the same thread): Quote: The 135 is the slowest of the three by a half stop (or a little more), but it can resolve the most detail in distant objects (by a small margin over the 120 and a larger margin over the 100). Thus, it's the pretty clear choice for most outdoor shooting, where you want the reach and where being half a stop slower isn't as much of an issue. Indoors, its length and slower speed make it not as good a choice as the others most of the time. Although in large and reasonably well lit spaces, I have found that it can and does shine. This lens is easily found any day of the week for under $100. Here are a couple of the sort of shots I have used it for and I am very happy with. I think it makes a fine lens for low light concert photography if you're back just a bit from the stage or want to come in really close. I've taken *many* shots I am just thrilled with using this lens wide open: | | | | Junior Member Registered: March, 2009 Posts: 46 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: March 10, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | light, sharp, usable | Cons: | CA wide open | | This was the first fully manual prime I picked up. It is very small, light and it's taught so much about manual focus and aperture it's not funny. It is my most used lens right now. For trackdays as I've been doing recently, it's perfect. A real short telephoto allowing me to get close without overdoing it.
I don't like the CA wide open. It's very, very pronounced; my copy has an ancient Izumar UV filter on the front which loses saturation and gives a very seventies feel to the shots. The minimum focus distance is a pain sometimes; it does seem unnecessarily long.
Great lens to learn about setting aperture and focus manually.
Some example shots:
I'm not sure about the source of the dark corners.... minimal post processing applied, but it is ISO 320 / 1/4000.
Mild USM applied, Saturation set to 2.00 (!!)
Overall: Useful, shame about the purple fringes.
| | | | New Member Registered: June, 2008 Location: Oregon Posts: 6 | Review Date: May 30, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | sharpness, small size and weight, sun shade built in | Cons: | long minimum focusing distance | | I shoot with a film camera so this is still a 135 lens for my use.
This lens has incredible sharpness when wide open and is even better by f5.6. It's metal and glass but very lightweight and compact and it's a perfect fit for my compact ME Super body.
Yes, it lacks the overall versatility of a zoom but I've found that my zoom seldom comes out of the camera bag as the 135's easy handling and super quality more than make up for not having the extra focal lengths.
I wish it focused a little closer than 7 feet but I can live with that as I do have a Pentax Macro lens.
When I go to a DSLR this lens will be a part of that kit, too.
| | |