| Author: | | Pentaxian Registered: May, 2012 Location: --- Posts: 6,802 | | Review Date: April 22, 2023 | Recommended | Price: $17.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Great build quality, good performance | | Cons: | A bit cool rendering compared to Pentax SMC | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K-1
| |
I think this is an underrated lens. I find it's aberrations quite well behaved and easy to deal with. It performs very well across the board without reaching the excellent anywhere except for handling and build (my copy at least). It renders a bit cool, but that is not really an issue on digital shooting raw.
Pretty kitty
 Miss Symmetry by The lens profile, on Flickr
Duck
 Duck Pose by The lens profile, on Flickr
Close up
 Swingkeh by The lens profile, on Flickr
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: May, 2020 Location: Evansville, IN Posts: 17
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: July 23, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | build quality | | Cons: | color rendition cool | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 5
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 8
| |
This lens is a fine inexpensive option for one who doesn't frequently use a 135 mm focal length - it's easily found and dirt cheap but looks like it's built to last, of similar appearing materials and heft of Pentax K series lenses. Concur with others that the two issues that detract from it are it's relatively cooler color rendition compared to Pentax SMC lenses and also fairly noticeable purple aberrations easily seen at hard contrast areas on digital APS-C camera. But it's easy enough to handle, you won't worry about it too much, just toss it in the bag, bring it along, and you'll find it's fun to use.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: October, 2011 Location: San Jose Del Monte Posts: 198 | | Review Date: October 22, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | Sharp, F2.8 | | Cons: | Low contrast wide open | |
I only use this lens wide open AV mode and I am satisfied with the images it creates.
Edit:
I maintain and clean my own lenses and I must report that the internal coating of this lens is so soft than can be easily scratched as compared to the touch coating of Pentax SMC.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: January, 2008 Location: Brampton, ON, Canada Posts: 2,456 | | Review Date: November 5, 2010 | Not Recommended | Price: $40.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | compact size, well built, built in hood. | | Cons: | CA, soft, astigmatism | |
Useful lens on APS-C, giving a ~200mm equiv FOV. Very portable, and it is a F2.8.
My copy doesn't like flare very much. OK once stopped down to around F4.
The main issue for me is the comma distortions about the edge of the glass.
This lens doesn't work for me unless inside a venue at night.
| | | | | | | New Member Registered: November, 2009 Posts: 1 | | Review Date: December 25, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $50.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | compact , relatively lightweight, very nice bokeh, sharp already at 2.8, low price | | Cons: | low contrast, colors not so great, some CA | |
Really not a bad lens at all. Delivers sharp images already at f=2.8. May be my copy is above average, definitely better than I expected. Bokeh also is very nice.
There is quite some CA in high-contrast situations. However this is not really an issue for me as I got this lens for low-light situations and portrait work from a distance mainly, where CA rarely can be observed.
Prone to flare in direct sunlight but very good for indoor usage, also with flash.
There are two issues with this lens that, although I did not mention them in my first version of this review, became apparent after some more months of usage:
- The contrast is low wide open. That can be compensated to a certain degree by boosting camera contrast, but still it is a downside.
- Don't like the color rendition too much. Is pretty cool which is not nearly as nice as Pentax SMC lenses when shooting portraits.
At its price point (got mine in mint condition for 30 Euros), it still is a good buy. Correcting my original rating "8" to a "7" because of the issues described above.
All in all i find this a lens difficult to rate because it delivers inconsistend results. In some situations it really shines but in others it pretty much fails. However, a sharp and fast telephoto lens with pleaseant bokeh for 50$ is a pretty good offer, even if it has some issues.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: November, 2009 Location: Slovenija Posts: 145 | | Review Date: December 24, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | lens hood, sharp, bokeh | | Cons: | heavy | |
I am very happy with my Rikenon. I bought this lens for 25 eur and I use it more often then SMC M 135/3,5. Sharp and very neutral colors.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: February, 2008 Location: Hawkesbury Posts: 1,899
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 12, 2009 | Not Recommended | Price: $32.00
| Rating: 5 |
| Pros: | Solid Build, reasonable performance under limited conditions | | Cons: | Old, No "A" setting, minimum focus is too long, serious colour fringing in bright light | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 2
Bokeh: 4
Handling: 7
Value: 7
Camera Used: K20D
| |
First impressions of this lens are similar to other XR RIKENON series lenses, that is, solidly built with a sound aperture mechanism and a nicely damped focus ring. The built in hood feels a little flimsy and is a little short, at least for APS-C service.
Initial results are fair but will require more testing.
In low contrast conditions, this lens produces sharp clean images, particularly once it is stopped down a bit.
In bright, high contrast settings, the results are not so pleasing, at least at the pixel peeping level. Colour fringing can occur in almost any part of the image. Not just one or two pixels, but substantial fringing, up to 12 pixels wide on the K20D.
The situation is improved considerably by stopping down to around f8, but where is the fun in that.
I have compared the XR with a similar vintage Sears lens of similar specifications. The Sears also produces colour fringing, but only towards the corners and in a much more controlled and predictable way. It is also at least as sharp and similarly robust. The Ricoh XR 135 has a slight advantage in having a better constructed eight blade aperture mechanism, but it still produces very edge heavy out of focus highlights where as the six blade Sears has much more even OOFH.
All this is a bit disappointing considering the nice handling of this lens and what a good performer another Ricoh lens I have used is (XR 50mm f1.7). Quite possibly the colour fringing issues are only apparent on Digital. The lens may be much better suited to film.
If indoor use was intended then I would recommend the lens. If you want to use it outdoors in bright, high UV situations, then forget it.
Tested on K20D.
Edit: Considering the 8 and 7s of other reviews, I have to seriously consider if there is something wrong with my copy, although the glass looks mint. Alternatively it is a conflict with harsh Australian light (higher UV?) or the other reviewers just used it indoors where its flaws are not obvious. I'm going to continue testing.
| | |
