Senior Member Registered: December, 2013 Posts: 223 | Review Date: September 15, 2015 | Not Recommended | Price: $10.00
| Rating: 6 |
Pros: | no comment | Cons: | full stops, coma, build | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 6
Handling: 6
Value: 8
Camera Used: Chinon ce-3
| | contrast a bit flat below f5.6
aperture not always even
flares in most outdoor situations
recommend the sears lens over ricoh due to being easier to find and normally equal price or cheaper
| |
Forum Member Registered: August, 2010 Location: Belgium Posts: 60 | Review Date: September 23, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | Build quality, overall IQ, convenience. | Cons: | No multicoating, lacks "character". | | When reading this, please bear in mind that this review is nothing more than my opinion about one sample of a lens. I’m nothing of a scientist. I don’t play with test sharts and other static « prepared » subjects. When I want to try a lens, I usually have a walk and take pictures of things and places I know, adding some homeshooting if needed. There are lots of good 135mm prime lenses in M42 mount. This Rikenon f2.8 / 135mm looks like many japanese f2.8 / 135mm telephoto lenses, and I suspect there were more brands than makers. All those lenses are plentiful on the second hand market, at reasonable prices, and usually give good results with APS-C DSLRs. I don’t use 135mm primes that much (= 200mm on APS-C sized sensor), but I must say this Rikenon is a very good performer even wide opened and, for the price, a real bargain. It’s convenient, seriously made and can be used in various situations and light conditions. IMO, it’s an overall better lens than some old german (Carl Zeiss Jena) or russian (Jupiter, Tair) counterparts, but those are characterful while the Rikenon is not. My sample is probably an older model, maybe from a different maker (see pictures). I didn't encounter the problems mentioned by Lowell in his review. | |
Site Supporter Registered: January, 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 17,869 1 user found this helpful | Review Date: February 10, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 8 |
Pros: | sturdy and sharp lens good for portraits and indoor shots | Cons: | impossible to use this lens in bright daylight due to flare caused by the rear lens retainer. This issue is correctable see the text of the review | | NOTE: This lens review has been modified due to the resolution of the flare problem reported below. With no intervention the lens is useless, however there is a very simple modification that changes everything Initial lens review
This lens was to be the round out lens for my M42 kit, but is very disappointing.
the overall construction of the lens is good, with firm consistent damping on the focusing collar, and 270 degree throw,
Aperture clicks are positive.
Note that this version of the lens differs in description from the technical data for the lens in the database.
Weight : 446 G
Length 90.45mm (excluding mount)
Diameter 68,25mm (over focusing ring)
Aperture increments in full stops only
Aperture is 6 blades
Intgral lens hood extends 14mm
This lens has a serious issue with flare, which I have been able to mitigate by using a home made lens hood that extends to the very edge of the field of view. (i.e. the hood is as long as the lens) Without this hood, the lens is useless outdoors due to flare, which appears as a low contrast donut in the images. I am not sure if this is off the sensor and rear element or internal to the elements.
The built in lens hood is useless as it only extends about 10mm over the front element.
the aperture, like my other rikenon lens (XR rikenon 50mmF2) has a tendancy to have the blades not close uniformly, resulting in what approaches a triangular opening at minimum aperture. Aperture clicks are full stops only
The aperture blades are very strait with no curvature so the opening is hexagonal at all apertures except wide open.
Although I would not recommend this lens for general use, indoor, under artificial light and including flash, the lens performs well and has good color rendition. It is just a shame about the flare.
Edit Note: This lens was initially rated 5 with a No for recommendation to purchase. Modified lens review
After another forum member posted a correction for flair on his 645 lenses due to the adaptor, I went back and reviewed this lens.
My follow up investigation into the internal flair of this lens, found that the retaining ring for the rear element was shinny black.
Simply applying 2 coats of acrylic flat black craft paint the problem was resolved. See the attached link for photos https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/103669-sensor-...tion-myth.html
As a result, this changes considerably my opinion of the lens, and I believe the rating should be increased to about an 8 if the flair issue is corrected.
The lens still requires a warning, for purchase. and I have changed the recommendation of purchase to Yes, conditionally on repainting the rear element retaining ring flat black
This lens also needs to be considered carefully in respect to low light applications because the light transmission seems very poor, requiring a full stop compensation (i.e. 1/2 shutter speed) compared to other 135mm lenses at any comparable aperture setting
| |