| Author: | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: October, 2018 Location: Quebec City, Quebec Posts: 6,575 | | Review Date: August 30, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | All-metal build, SHARP, dedicated to close-up photography, deeply recessed optics. | | Cons: | Some purple fringing in high-contrast scenes, poor reputation in camera literature. | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: 645Z with 67 to 645 adapter
| |
I found a like-new copy of the late-model P67 135 mm f/4 "MACRO" lens for 60 $ on eBay in Japan. It is a "close-up" lens rather than a true "macro", as it offers only 1:3,2 X magnification. The lens is impeccable optically and mechanically, with an all-metal build but it remains quite light in weight. It is poorly rated in camera literature, which could explain its low price. The glass elements are deeply recessed, so no sunshade is necessary. Filter size is 67 mm. The focusing ring turns 270 degrees between infinity and 2.4 feet (MFD). A focal length of 135 mm on the 645Z sensor is equivalent to 108 mm in full-frame.
I went to take pictures of the Sainte Anne River today (one of my "benchmark sites"). I mounted my Pentax 645Z on my 028 Manfrotto tripod, set ISO at 100 and used autoexposure Av mode. The '67 to 645' Pentax adapter makes selection of an aperture opening easy. I manually focused each picture carefully as the groundglass image is quite bright in good light. I used openings between f/5.6 and f/32 and the resulting pictures are MUCH SHARPER than expected for such a low cost optic, though some PURPLE-FRINGING is visible in high-contrast pictures shot @ f/5.6.
 @ f/22
 @ f/11
 @ f/5.6
 @ f/6.3
 @ f/11
 @ f/8  @ f/32
 @ f/11
 @ f/16
Performance remains very good between f/6.3 and f/32, with f/11 being the OPTIMUM. Wide-open and f/5.6 should be avoided in high contrast scenes.
| | | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: August, 2010 Posts: 648 | | Review Date: February 29, 2020 | Recommended
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | sharpness,colors rendering, bokeh | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-1
| |
Just pictures
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: September, 2017 Location: Medellín Posts: 1,322 | | Review Date: December 31, 2019 | Recommended
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Build quality, versatility, light. | | Cons: | Not 1:1 macro. | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: 6x7 MLU
| |
Mine is the 67 version. Sharp, light, easy to handle, if one doesn't need to go to life size. For this reason I find the 645N plus A120/4 much more usable in the field, albeit on a smaller format.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: February, 2013 Location: Schwarzwald Posts: 73
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: April 1, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $100.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Great photos; easy to get and cheap on the used market | | Cons: | It needs aditional close up accessories for more then 1.3 magnification | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
| |
I am using this lens mostly for close up animal photography; sometimes for childrens portraits. When using for small animals, mostly amphibians and insects, I have been using it with the 6x7 auto bellows. The only issue is not the lenses fault but the cameras: The slow sync speed causes ghost-images.  Concerning the lens quality, I´ll let some photos talk. I used the 135mm mAcro lens on the Auto bellows on a Pentax 67II; TTL-flash (Sunpak Auto DX12R Ringlight); aperture 8; 1/30 sec. | | | | | | | Senior Member Registered: November, 2014 Posts: 272 | | Review Date: January 28, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $65.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Extremely sharp, not too large, easy to use | | Cons: | None at all unless you consider manual focus to be a fault. | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-3, Canon 1000D
| |
I have fallen in love with the Pentax 67 primes and they get more usage than my vintage K-mount primes. The 135mm lens seems to be the best compromise between portability and usability. Everything about this lens screams 'high quality' from the buttery smooth focus to the Hollywood movie-style hood. The attached photo was taken with this lens on my Canon 1000D. I find it perfect for flowers and wildlife. | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: October, 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,090
3 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 21, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $139.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Good close-up and landscape lens. | | Cons: | Not a good macro lens. | | Camera Used: 6x7, 67 and 67II
| |
The 6x7 135/4 Macro was first released in 1971. I have the second and last 1989 version (67 135/4 Macro) and it has the same optics as its predecessor.
Usage:
My first comment about the 135/4 Macro is that it’s not really a macro lens, as it only has 0.31x magnification. If you want a real macro lens, that can get 1x magnification with no extension, then you will need to look at the 67 100/4 Macro.
MACRO WORK: You can achieve 1x magnification by using the No. 1+2+3 Auto Extension tubes with the 135/4. However you will have a very long lens with an exposure factor between x5.1 and x7.1 due to light loss. Pentax does not recommend using the 135/4 with the Auto Bellows unit and reversing the 135/4 does not gain any magnification. I have tried single extension tubes on the 135/4, but the results were average compared to my 100/4 with similar magnification. The 100/4 is a much better choice for macro work and also has better optics as well as a lower exposure factor. (Only x2 at 1x magnification)
CLOSE-UP WORK: I find the 135/4 works best if used as a close-up lens with no extension tubes. It’s at its sharpest then and the “film to subject distance” is also very good. (The “film to subject distance” is much better than with the 100/4 Macro, due to the longer 135mm focal length) This makes the 135/4 a good option for handheld outdoor work if you don’t need much magnification. The 135/4 will also be sharper than using a close-up filter or extension tube on a regular lens, if you are going for equivalent magnification & focal length. I have found plenty of uses for my 135/4 doing close-up work. It’s my choice over my 100/4 for outdoor work, when I don’t want or can’t use a tripod.
LANDSCAPE WORK: The 135/4 also makes a decent landscape lens due to its minimum aperture of F/32. The 135/4 will give you more DOF than a regular telephoto lens in a similar focal length.
FILTER: The 67 135/4 uses 67mm screw in filters, or Pentax 6x7 67mm bayonet filters.
CASE: The 67 135/4 comes with the S90-140 soft case.
HOOD: The 67 135/4 uses a plastic clip-on PH-SA67 hood.
Summary:
The 67 135/4 Macro is a good close-up lens, but not a good macro lens. If you can live with that then its worth buying, otherwise the 100/4 Macro is a better option.
Price: I found my 67 135/4 Macro at KEH and it cost $139.00. It was in EX+ condition, I purchased the hood and case separately.
Sample shots taken with the 67 135/4 Macro. Photos are medium resolution Lab scans from original slides.
Camera: 67 Film: Fuji Provia 400X ISO: 400
Camera: 67II Film: Fuji Provia 400X ISO: 400
 | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: October, 2012 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,437 | | Review Date: August 7, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $84.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharp, Good Contrast, Lightweight, 67mm Filter Ring | | Cons: | Slow, Not a 1:1 Macro Lens | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax 6X7 MLU
| |
Aside from a relatively slow maximum aperture, it's a very pleasing lens to use. I take issue with calling any lens incapable of 1:1 reproduction (without tubes or bellows) a macro lens. So this should rightly be called a spherically corrected close-up lens.
Taking this lens out of the box, its weight surprised me. I thought this would be a heavy lens, but I think it's my lightest 67 lens.
Of note, I've only used this lens with black and white film, so I can't comment on color trueness. But, in terms of contrast, it is slightly less contrasty than my 55mm 1:3.5. The 55mm renders fantastically cinematic images. The 135mm, by comparison, renders very technical and slightly flat images. That said, with a contrasty film (like PanF 50 ISO), this yields very fine results. I also like it with Delta 100 and Fuji Acros 100. In all three cases it yields suitable contrast and very nice detail.
| | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2010 Location: Auckland Posts: 18
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 22, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $350.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Lightweight, colour, sharp stopped down, dreamy bokeh | | Cons: | Soft wide open. | | Sharpness: 10
Aberrations: 10
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
Image taken with Pentax 67135mm f4 macro at about f5.6 hand held:
Review updated 10th April 2014. When I first bought this lens I was impressed with its overall sharpness and lack of aberrations.
Some negative sentiment in some reviews made me quite critical and forced me to do some more comparisons with others in my line up.
I have tested this lens against the 645 80-160mm, the 75mm 645 and also the 67 200mm prime (second version) - see below.
My lens line up is:
645 - 35mm, 75mm, 80-160mm, 300mm
67 - 55mm and 135mm (1st version) and 200mm
SHARPNESS
I have seen reviews of the 67 135 macro that suggest that it cannot be used at infinity wider than f11.
I have used it at f8 at infinity and is still sharp. At all apertures the 135 prime achieves superior level of sharpness than the 80-160mm 645 lens.
The lens is very sharp from f8 to f22. At f32 diffraction starts to degrade the image quality. Between f 8 and f22 inclusive the lens is as sharp as the new 200mm 67 lens. Wide open the lens is quite soft but yet retains detail.
An ancient formal lens test (and comparison with other 67 lenses) can be found here: http://antiquecameras.net/pentax6x7lenses.html
BOKEH
Used wide open the smooth bokeh this makes softness the effect akin to the smoothness of the Russian Jupiter 9 lens and is a great 'effect', especially for portrait work.
COLOUR
The colour rendering is warm and rich.
ABERRATIONS
No appreciable CA and no appreciable rectinlinear distortion
HANDLING
Although large the lens is light and handles beautifully.
The following are extensive formal lens test of the 67 135 macro with a limited comparison to the well regarded 67 200mm f4 and the 645 75mm f2.8. All photographs taken on a tripod with mirror up using 2 second delay and all shot at ISO 200. Post processing limited to exposure equalisation only.
Pentax 67 135mm macro F4 centre
Pentax 67 135mm macro F4 edge
Pentax 67 135mm macro F8 centre
Pentax 67 135mm macro F8 edge
Pentax 67 135mm macro F11 centre
Pentax 67 135mm macro F11 edge
Pentax 67 135mm macro F22 centre
Pentax 67 135mm macro F22 edge
Pentax 645 75mm f4 centre
Pentax 645 75mm f4 edge
Pentax 645 75mm f11 centre
Pentax 645 75mm f11 edge
Pentax 67 200mm (new version) f4 centre
Pentax 67 200mm (new version) f4 edge
Pentax 67 200mm (new version) f11 centre
Pentax 67 200mm (new version) f11 edge
Please draw your own conclusions !
In summary
This lens is an excellent portrait lens that renders a slightly soft feel wide open which it does in a pleasant way with a smooth unobtrusive bokeh. It performs well for landscape work retaining high sharpness levels from about f 8 through to f 22 inclusive. Although not a true macro lens it renders sharp close up images and can used with extension tubes.
Again I will restate that this is an under rated lens, and can now be bought very cheaply.
NOTES
I have been granted permission from Bob Atkins to reproduce his chart in this publication.
I may just have a very good copy of the 135mm f4 macro as there is a history of marked sample variation in some of the 67 line up from this era and the 135mm macro is one of them.
UPDATE 31/03/2016
I have done comprehensive tests of this lens against the 67 200mm f4 and the 67 105mm f 2.4 over the last few days and the 135 macro beats both of these by a margin even at infinity stopped down. I have now given this lens a 10/10 rating in all categories
| | | | | Giveaway winner! Registered: December, 2007 Location: beantown Posts: 944 | | Review Date: December 13, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $99.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | It is handy | | Cons: | Not close enough | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 9
| |
I've only used it a few time now and was pleased with the results. It was nice to use a few time and the colors were very good. I experimented with the extension tubes, but didn't have the rules down for the compensating so... ok results. Pity they could not have engineered a dual helicoid to really give some reach to this thing.
| | | | | Pentaxian Registered: February, 2009 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,272
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 21, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $200.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Fairly sharp for macro use. | | Cons: | Really needs an f/45 stop. | |
One can tell that a lot of thought was put into the design of this lens, being that it is nearly symmetrical, which is good for close work. It is a 5 element Dynar type. Both the Takumar and Pentax 135 are the same optically. I just love the look of the Takumar with its fluted barrel. This lens was intended for macro use and does a good job at that, however it is limited by its f/32 stop and really needs an f/45 stop for better DOF. It is corrected for spherical aberration at close distances, so when shooting at or near infinity, it must be stopped down to compensate. Also, since it is corrected for close up work, reversing this lens with a 67mm reverse adapter is not advised and will actually degrade your image. One cannot get anywhere near life size with this lens unless tubes are used. Without tubes, the max magnification is .31x. With all 3 tubes, one can get life size mag. This lens is actually no better for macro work than the other lenses in its focal length range. The 200 Pentax and 90-180 zoom come to mind. When these lenses are stopped down for macro work, it doesn't matter that they are not macro lenses. The close up aberrations that they have, are reduced by the diaphragm. I sold my 135mm and now use the 90-180 zoom for 90% of my macro work. The 135 is great for macro if you are on a budget, as the zooms are quite expensive. It is sharp enough for professional work and my estimate concerning LP/mm is 70-75.
This lens does very well for landscape work when stopped down, especially at f/32. That small stop gives this lens an advantage over the 165 f/2.8, the 165mm LS and the 150 Takumar as far as DOF is concerned. Since DOF is a problem with the 6x7 system in landscape work, this lens helps solve this problem. The 135 is very affordable on the used market.
A nice lens overall.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: February, 2009 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 527 | | Review Date: February 20, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Very sharp lens, relatively light | | Cons: | Requires too much extension to get to 1:1 | |
A nice lens for the 67, but when you havew the full extension to get to 1:1 it is a beast! I purchased a Bogan long-lens adaptor to deal with this beast when using extension. Still a nice lens.
| | |
;)
;)
