Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Third-Party Pentax Lenses - Reviews and Database » Miscellaneous Lenses » Prime Lenses
Panagor 135mm f2.8 PMC AUTO TELE - M42 Review RSS Feed

Panagor 135mm f2.8 PMC AUTO TELE - M42

Sharpness 
 8.0
Aberrations 
 7.3
Bokeh 
 8.0
Handling 
 9.7
Value 
 9.0
Reviews Views Date of last review
3 21,168 Fri October 28, 2016
spacer
Recommended By Average Price Average User Rating
67% of reviewers $30.00 8.00
Panagor 135mm f2.8 PMC AUTO TELE - M42
supersize


Description:
According to a posting by well informed mflenses forum contributor ross, Panagor was a trading name for Kino Precision Optical Corp: " Their lenses were .... under the Panagor brand, then (by) Vivitar. In the early 1980s, they began direct marketing of an independent lens line in the U.S. under their new Kiron brand name. They were also producing some of the popular Vivitar lenses at the same time in their factories, including Vivitar Series I optics...

Kiron/Panagor Europe/Asia continued as a separate trading organization selling other manufacturers lenses as Kiron/Panagor into the 90's (these were organisations independent of Kino Precision)"

However in practice it is clear that Panagor lenses are not necessarily made by Kino Optical - the Panagor 55mm and 90mm macros are Komine made.
This 135mm has distinctive Panagor looks and was one of a range including 28mm, 35mm, 200mm focal lengths. Most commonly found as M42. There are two slight variants, one with built in hood, one without.

Optics: ? 4 elements/ 2 groups
Filter: 55mm
Minimum focus: 1.5 m
Focus throw: ~270deg, anti-pentax
Aperture: f2.8 - f22, half stop clicks. A-M switch.
Iris: 8 blades.
Weight: ~ 410g

There is another useful review of this lens (with video performance) here.
Mount Type: M42 Screwmount
Price History:



Add Review of Panagor 135mm f2.8 PMC AUTO TELE - M42
Author:
Sort Reviews by: Date | Author | Rating | Recommendation | Likes (Descending) Showing Reviews 1-3 of 3
Pentaxian

Registered: May, 2012
Location: ---
Posts: 4,468
Lens Review Date: October 28, 2016 I can recommend this lens: No | Price: $20.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Wel Built
Cons: sub par sharpness purple fringing
Sharpness: 7    Aberrations: 6    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 9    Value: 7    Camera Used: K-5   

This is a 135mm lens of which there are many cheap options out there. Amongst these it doesn't really shine. it's neutral rendering and colours en purple fringing even stopped down, a bit boring Bokeh and medium sharpness make it so so.

It is very well built though. Still smooth like a Pentax or Takumar after all these years and you can get some OK pictures out of it. But it is not a hidden gem and you can do better.






crop:
   
Site Supporter

Registered: November, 2012
Location: North Wales
Posts: 1,580
Lens Review Date: April 12, 2013 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $20.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: IQ, handling
Cons: slight but persistent CA, CFD not very close
Sharpness: 8    Aberrations: 7    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 10    Value: 10   

I tried a 2.8/135 before, but that hanimar didn't impress - inherently sharp particularly at middle f numbers but I was disappointed with it wide open and with strong persistent CA. My feeling was that the 135's, like the 50mm tessar, is a known formula since forever and proven IQ is out there...

So prompted by the good review below I have acquired the Panagor*. And so far I am pleased. Its a beautiful example of a classic metal'n glass lens (10 for handling). This was in immaculate condition.

Taking it out on bright cloudy = max CA type of day only suffered a distinct purpling of backlit branches at 2.8. Distinctly softer wide open see sample pic but not too bad (miles better than the hanimar mentioned above). At f8 this lens is sharp. It would be interesting to compare with eg CZJ ..(UPDATE: see below)

One minor gripe. My lens has a silver trim at the top end of the focus ring . This came loose.
Lens in pic above also seems to have a hood - not mine.

BTW: 55mm filter, 8 blade iris.

Kiron colour...

f2.8 ~ 50% crop (slight sharpening to compensate, but otherwise off the card jpg) using monopod.

f8 ~ 50% crop


UPDATE. 12/13

I now have a CZJ 135 F3.5 sonnar to make a comparison with.

f2.8 100% centre crop

f4

f8


Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f3.5 @ f3.5


At f4 the Panagor is a bit softer than the CZJ at f3.5 but at f8 the Panagor is distinctly better. The lack of contrast at f2.8 is very apparent with this subject and (dull winter) lighting conditions. At f8 the two lenses were pretty much equal IMO. The Panagor had a noticeably cooler tone. Overall the CZJ performs more consistently over its aperture range. I think 8/10 is about right for the Panagor, certainly I really like its performance at middling f's.
   
New Member

Registered: April, 2012
Location: Prague
Posts: 18
Lens Review Date: May 28, 2012 I can recommend this lens: Yes | Price: $50.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Build Quality, Sharpness
Cons: Better if there is a Pentax FF
Sharpness: 9    Aberrations: 9    Bokeh: 8    Handling: 10    Value: 10   

This M42 lens is too good with its price and works flawless.

Its max aperture is f2.8 and it is reasonable to use it. F4 gives image sharpness that surprise me.

135mm in Pentax K-5 is too much far for portrait and I hope Pentax will release Full-Frame soon.

The colour is fine, I think it is a little but under saturation but it is not the problem with me.

Build quality is great, solid and attractive.

I can only recommend this lens !
Add Review of Panagor 135mm f2.8 PMC AUTO TELE - M42



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top