New Member Registered: April, 2015 Posts: 11 | Review Date: August 31, 2019 | Not Recommended | Price: $60.00
| Rating: 5 |
Pros: | Cheap | Cons: | Poor sharpness wide open | Sharpness: 6
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 8
Value: 1
Camera Used: K-30
| | Poor sharpness wide open, but surprisingly good at handling chromatic aberrations.
My version looks like these: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59293345 | |
| Review Date: May 9, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $10.00
| Rating: N/A |
Pros: | | Cons: | | Handling: 7
Value: 8
Camera Used: Sony Nex-7
| | I have just got a Hanimar f2.8 135mm lens with a T2 to M42 mount but it is a preset with 10 apertures blades. Not sure how optically different it will be from the one above. The manufacturer's mark is a rectangle box with red line and red dot at the end above the f2.8 mark for the depth of field. Serial number is 24970
Came in a bag with Praktica MTL5, Helios 44-2, Carl Zeiss 50mm and other bits and bobs so difficult work out cost. Quite a mix.
So far in testing out with out taking images the focusing is a bit stiff so it needs to be screwed on tight or it unscrews from the camera.
The aperture movements are lovely and smooth and produces a lovely round circle at most apertures.
Have given it an 8 for value as it was dirt cheap.
Will update once I have some results.
| |
Site Supporter Registered: November, 2012 Location: North Wales Posts: 2,868 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: January 24, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $10.00
| Rating: 6 |
Pros: | fast prime, metal'n glass | Cons: | IQ poor wide open, persistent CA | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 4
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 7
Value: 8
| | This came with a tak 55mm - the main objective of my bid - and so I have checked it out.
Indoors, tripod and flash, compared to a tammy 22A at 135mm and a tokina at 135mm - the prime, unsurpisingly, was better at providing a sharp image.
Outdoors this lens proved distinctly ugly at f2.8, strong CA, very soft. Rather disappointing - one of the key points that distinguishes the good ones. Sharpened up at f4 and up, but, I would have to say, not really better than my best zooms eg Kiron 80-200 f4, also compared to the Kiron contrast isn't as good. Didn't seem prone to flare though.
I ll get an impression of close up shots later.
Its not that the lens doesn't have some decent IQ, but even at F8 CA is still evident see 100% crop below. Pentax k-r Hand held jpg, "auto-levels" adjust of exposure, no sharpening.
A very similar hanimar "Auto S" lens is mentioned here (M Pollet does a comparison of a number of 135's including this) http://oomz.net/135/
and here (Hanimar/Hanimex background) http://photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Wofz
I can suggest this is an archetypical lens for the era: solid all metal construction, bright optics, (pretty) sharp, tendency to CA. I won't not recommend it, its worth checking out if one passes by, and judging from what the links say, might be good.
There is a Hanimex 135/2.8, PK mount, reviewed separately.
| |