Author: | | Pentaxian Registered: August, 2008 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 11,250 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: December 5, 2010 | Not Recommended
| Rating: 6 |
Pros: | compact, great build quality | Cons: | large minimum focusing distance, IQ not outstanding | | There are three main reasons why photographers consider primes instead of more flexible zooms. - compactness
- speed
- IQ
Some also claim that the limitation imposed by a prime helps them to get better images because they cannot be simply “lazy” and frame by zooming. However, as this is simply a matter of discipline – fix your zoom to one focal length with tape if you must – I’m not counting this as an argument.
Regarding 1. (compactness), the M135/3.5 fully scores. It is very small indeed and you thus you get quite some reach with a very inconspicuous lens. The M135/3.5 is also a gem in terms of build quality. It feels very sturdy and I personally really like its classic look. The built-in hood is a nice feature and the lens is a pure joy to focus. In terms of ownership, an M135/3.5 has a lot more to offer than a “plastic” FA lens.
Regarding 2. (speed), unfortunately f/3.5 is not exactly fast. The Pentax M series had compactness as its prime objective and while it is great that you can use inexpensive 49mm filters on the M135/3.5, its compactness implies that it cannot be an f/2.5 or even faster lens. At 135mm, however, even f/3.5 is sufficient to achieve good background blur in many situations. The bokeh is nowhere near FA-Ltd. bokeh quality, but it isn’t bad either.
Regarding 3. (IQ), the M135/3.5 is competent but not a winner. I tested it against my Tamron 18-135 and at 135mm the latter isn’t as fast but produces more contrasty and crisper images out of the box. Out-of-the box sharpness is not the M135/3.5’s forte. I thought I could use the M135/3.5 on a 2x TC to get a 270/7 combination but results have been disappointing (maybe the TC is to blame as well). I was puzzled by these results given that my copy is in pristine condition and the praise the M135/3.5 received elsewhere. Before I wrote this review, however, I thought I’d better do some final test shots. And lo and behold, looking at them using LR 3.2 with the appropriate sharpening applied, the M135/3.5 images look very detailed indeed and with just a little bit of PP, it will produce great looking images. It seems that the lens is not bad at all but requires a bit of coaxing to deliver.
On the downside, the minimum focusing distance seems huge compared to modern lenses and there is a lot of Bokeh-CA if you don’t sufficiently stop it down. You have to manually focus and use stop-down metering but you know that when you buy any pre-A lens. In terms of speed and IQ, it doesn’t blow modern zooms out of the water, so its main attraction is the small size.
On the plus side, for the price you can get this lens nowadays, it is a steal. I doubt you’ll get a better built, smaller and as capable 135mm lens from any manufacturer.
| | | | | 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.
| | | | Junior Member Registered: October, 2015 Posts: 36 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: March 5, 2024 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Light, well built, | Cons: | soft | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K1, K3 III Monochrom
| | I bougth this lens for its low weight and small price, hoping to use it in a kit of small lenses. The goal was to get 3 lenses I could get in my pocket to get rid of big photo bags during my travels. And it workd just as intended.
The lens is really small and lightweigth and most importantly It deliver nice images. For such a small lens ( it's about the same size as the DAL 18-55), the pictures taken with this lens are clean with a lot of details, but a bit soft if you zoom in. For my intended uses, I consider it a fair tradeoff.
View from Angers Castle heights:
Phone and birds: | | | | New Member Registered: August, 2017 Location: Ronneburg Posts: 1 | Review Date: August 23, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Built like M high Quality | Cons: | none for me | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-3
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: September, 2020 Location: Derbyshire Posts: 3 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: August 21, 2021 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Beautifully built, smooth focus, sharp, fixed telescopic hood. | Cons: | None | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: MZ5n/MX
| | This lens is reviewed using film NOT digital capture.
To me this was an amazing lens. It had no right to be this good at this price level. I did not really see any distortion.
My sample was in great condition, outrageously cheap. It is the only M lens I ever got on with due no doubt that its short telephoto form factor made it so easy for my large hands.
On the MZ5n, I could use centre weighted or spot metering.
The only comparator I have is with a Zuiko 135 3.5. The Zuiko was really too contrasty - I mean over the top - and was not as sharp in rendering detail. My main 135mm lens I have today is actually a Nikkor 50-135mm zoom that is sharp all the way through the aperture range and I think is just as sharp even though it is a zoom.
I used my Pentax for landscape photography mostly for picking out detail. I got nicely coloured pictures (it's rendering can be cool) that benefitted from a warming filter with plenty of detail. Otherwise I would describe bokeh as pleasant.
I'm not surprised people are using these on digital - lets put it that way. What's good is good after all. An unassuming but wonderful tool. Beautifully made too - precise and robust.
Highly recommended.
| | | | Site Supporter Registered: December, 2020 Location: Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago Posts: 39 2 users found this helpful | Review Date: March 17, 2021 | Recommended
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Size, weight, bokeh, randering | Cons: | I can't think of any | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-1
| | Okay, I finally found a 135mm that is acceptable to me in the sharpness department. The SMC Pentax-M 135mm f3.5 is adequate and then some. It renders bokeh beautifully, has clean transitions from in focus to out of focus, good center sharpness wide open, great color rendition, and good contrast. Overall, not a bad performer. Then there's the build quality and package size. This lens is LIGHT, small, and even has a built in metal hood that extends out when needed. This is a perfect travel lens, or just a walkaround short tele. I really enjoyed using this lens and was very pleasantly surprised.
Here's my Flickr Album through this lens. https://www.flickr.com/photos/lordawesome/albums/72157717208816542 | | | | New Member Registered: June, 2017 Posts: 15 | Review Date: December 1, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $12.00
| Rating: N/A |
Pros: | small and lightweight | Cons: | None | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: P30 and Micro 4/3
| | You have read all you need to know about using this on full frame film cameras - compared with carrying a zoom this offers more light, less weight and sharper images. On Micro 4/3 it is a great value buy. - The crop means it is a 270mm - about the angle of view where the compression of a "super telephoto" perspective starts to be seen.
- It is a wonderful lens for isolating a middle-distance subject in a landscape.
- At this weight and size and current cost it is easy to justify having in my camera bag - even with a PK to M4/3 manual adapter
- It makes a very cost-effective alternative to the M4/3 45-150 and 45-200mm zooms from Panasonic-Lumix or Olympus
The light weight means that it puts no strain on a M4/3 camera body and does not need a tripod ring. - At F3.5 it is 1 stop wider than an Olympus or Lumix zoom;
- also - with far fewer lens elements, its light transmission is higher - so gives you 2-stops of practical exposure advantage.
- With the shutter speed set to 1/250 or faster - it can be hand-held well. Any lower - and it benefits from a lightweight monopod or tripod.
- on some of my M4/3 cameras I can use in-body stabilisation
- Focus is easy - at near 300mm equivalent it just "pops"
- Like all telephotos of the 1980s, there is some chromatic aberration - but it is easily suppressed in photoshop and DXO (or use black and white!)
The big image quality jump comes from fitting a longer lens hood to block out sidelight wich creates "veiling flare" that kills colour and contrast - I like those 3-position rubber folding ones.
[B]So, for
| | | | New Member Registered: August, 2015 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 4 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: March 26, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $15.00
| Rating: 10 |
Pros: | solid and compact | Cons: | 1.5m minimum focus distance | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-70
| | Great little lens. Very sharp and fun to use.
| | | | Pentaxian Registered: February, 2010 Location: Northern Michigan Posts: 6,153 6 users found this helpful | Review Date: December 29, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 7 |
Pros: | compact, built-in hood, build quality | Cons: | flat rendering | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 9
Camera Used: K-1, KP
| | This is a difficult lens to review. Prima facie, there seems very little to complain. Copies of this lens are easy to find at bargain basement prices. The lens is delightfully compact, with 49mm filter rings and even a built-in hood. It produces images which, at first glance, look sharp and contrasty. Yet I find myself not liking the output of this lens, and if the 135mm focal length was important to me, I'd be looking to replace this M series telephoto with the K 135/3.5 or the A 135/2.8.
There exist lenses which, although they seem very impressive at first glance, on longer acquaintance create a vague dissatisfaction. Images from these types of lenses just don't wear well over time. The sharpness of the lens, which often makes a strong initial impression, later on comes to seem shallow and meretricious. The fact that a lens can resolve very fine detail may be an asset, but if detail isn't rendered in a way that's natural (i.e., "precise but smooth," like the human eye sees detail), it can lead to images that look flat and/or vaguely dissatisfying. If a lens produces images with more "global" than "local" contrast, this can also lead to problems, particularly in terms of retaining detail and vibrance in shadows.
I'm well aware that this sort of analysis may strike some as overly fastidious and fussy, emphasizing, as it does, qualities of the lens performance that our not only immeasurable, but which many photographers either don't notice or don't care about. Fair enough. For those who merely want a sharp, compact, especially well-made moderate telephoto lens at a very cheap price, the M 135/3.5 really is a no brainer. For those who are more finicky about lens performance, particularly in relation to the rendering of detail and color/contrast, perhaps other options should be considered.
I'm going to show the best shots I've made with this lens, starting with APS-C (with the KP):
While this image shows what the lens is capable of achieving, there are some important caveats to bear in mind. First, I spend quite a bit of time post processing, significantly more than I would have if it had been shot, say, with the HD DA 55-300 PLM. When I raised the shadows on the forested section of the hillside it was all washed out, and I had to do quite a bit of contrast burning to fix that (and even then it's not as micro-contrasty as I would prefer). Nor could I quite get the colors exactly where I wanted them — although admittedly I came close.
I actually had better luck with the lens shooting it on APS-C. Perhaps the sharpness of the lens pays greater benefits on the smaller sensor, where resolution is in higher demand. On FF, I've been much less pleased with the lens' output. Here's best shot I've made with the M 135/3.5 with the K-1:
One nice thing about the image is the starbursts: eight aperture blades is definitely better than six. But I'm not thrilled with the color. I tried to fix it as much as I could, but the bridge has a slight bluish-aqua tone that I find non-optimal. Attempts to fix it through WB adjustments caused the sky to become too purple and yellowish. This suggests a poor color balance in the color rendering of the lens. And I'm not thrilled with the local contrast on the pillars of the bridge. I worked on that a fair amount in post and never could get it precisely where I wanted.
| | | | Pentaxian Registered: September, 2018 Location: Poland Posts: 1,776 | Review Date: December 23, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $45.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | build quality, price | Cons: | soft wide open | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 8
Camera Used: K-50
| | This lens has the famous build quality of the M-series lenses. Focus ring turns smoothly and focusing is a pleasure. It is a bit soft wide open and while I got some not-bad results at f/3.5, usually I had to stopped it down to improve sharpness. On APS-C it is quite a long telephoto which makes it less versatile for portraits but better for wildlife.
The first shot is wide-open. | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2019 Posts: 11 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: November 20, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $15.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Nice build quality, in-built lens hood, very sharp, Bokeh, size | Cons: | No A setting on aperture ring (doesn't bother me), some chromatic aberrations but nothing too bothersome | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| | A fabulous little portrait lens. Great value sharp some drawbacks compared to other Pentax/takumar 135mm but having tried all three they isn't that much difference and the price is amazing. I picked mine up for just under 15Eur
| | | | Site Supporter Registered: October, 2017 Location: Lancaster Posts: 3,821 2 users found this helpful | Review Date: November 8, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Price, sharpness, colour, build | Cons: | Non as such | | I am currently using this lens in the single in challenge and it is stellar. Strangely it worked better with my K3 than my KP, not that I mind as I love the K3. Focusing is fairly easy as it is quite a long throw, the difference between in and out of focus however is a twitch. I had a bit of purple fringing but haven't suffered any noticeable aberrations. This is a mega cheap lens and is tremendous value as the build quality and capability are superb. PXK36790 by Peter Kay, on Flickr PXK36714 by Peter Kay, on Flickr
| | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: June, 2013 Location: Utrecht Posts: 250 4 users found this helpful | Review Date: October 11, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $15.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Compact, sharp and contrasty stopped down | Cons: | Edges and corners on full frame unsharp wide open | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| | This M135 is extremely compact with a build in hood as bonus. I like this very much on my K-01, on APS-C this is a good performer stopped down a little. On full frame this M-lens shortens at the edges and corners until F5.6 and wider. Unsharpness and fringing will appear while opening the blades to F4 and F3.5.
I compared this on full frame with the K135 2.5. The K is real good on full frame, the M is not.
I would score this M135 for Full Frame a 7 and on APS-C a 9.
Shot on K-01 at F8
Shot on K1ii, RAW, day light, auto settings, no sharpening: | | | | New Member Registered: July, 2019 Posts: 8 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: August 21, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $44.00
| Rating: 9 |
Pros: | Cheap 135mm with good results | Cons: | None really when factoring size & cost to performance | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 5
Handling: 10
Value: 9
Camera Used: Nikon Z6 & Pentax Me Super
| | Like most SMC M Lenses the results you can get v price and portability makes these lenses a must buy. Its 135mm small as anything and gives good results. Like most Pentax old lenses you get robust construction with great focus throw and did I mention the portability. | | | | New Member Registered: March, 2019 Posts: 2 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: June 17, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | size and weight | Cons: | not as sharp as my other pentax m lenses | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Sony a6000
| | I couldn't believe just how small and light this lens was when I opened the packaging it came in for the first time. It makes it a perfect stealth lens on my a6000; people have no idea that I have a 200mm equivalent focal length.
The build quality is fantastic. My lens is in great overall condition and a genuine bargain given the price I paid. The sharpness isn't quite what I would have hoped for and certainly isn't up to the standards of the 35mm and 50mm m primes I own.
| | |