| Author: | | New Member Registered: May, 2020 Posts: 1 | | Review Date: December 15, 2020 | Recommended | Price: $45.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Very sharp | | Cons: | chromatic abberation wide open | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 9
Handling: 9
Value: 9
Camera Used: Minolta SRT102
| |
Great value lens, gives a very cinematic desaturated look to my portraits.
| | | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: November, 2017 Posts: 756 | | Review Date: January 28, 2019 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Very Clear, Good Color Reproduction, Pleasingly Heavy | | Cons: | Difficult to Focus Properly, Focus Ring is Taut | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 10
Camera Used: K-3
| |
I received this from a Goodwill sale - it seemed like a fairly fast 135mm with which to experiment. I took some photos of my kids, my cat, and other stuff and found a few interesting things.
1. When focus is on, it's quite good, esp. for $4.99 with $11.00 shipping. But it's somewhat trying to get the focus on (as compared to my Tamron 60-300...but then, this is basic vs. quasi-legendary comparison). Therefore, I got one quite good, and two decent shots (below) out of ten.
2. I needed very little de-hazing or other adjustment in LightRoom to get the color I wanted. Played around with exposure a bit, but was otherwise happy.
3. It will bear further experimentation, but otherwise, I am pleased.
   | | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2017 Posts: 19 | | Review Date: September 24, 2017 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Handling, hood, size | | Cons: | | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 9
| |
Who likes home repairers? Me neither. I got this lens cheaply as the aperture was stuck. After repairing it, the lens didn't seem to focus correcly and the image quality wasn't a praise. It took me a while to figure out the rear lens element was inserted the wrong way. Now it works like a charm.
It's reasonably sharp, especially on the center while corners get a bit blurry.
The construction is metal (of course) and handling is nice and smooth. Moreover, as the size is pretty compact and there is a built-in lens hood, the Sears is pleasing to use and thus it's a keeper.
Recommended.
 | | | | | New Member Registered: January, 2014 Posts: 13
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: February 15, 2016 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | fast-ish, sharp-ish, handling | | Cons: | contrast in lower light, CA-ish | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
A pretty swell lens if you find a way to squeak the right shots out of it!
Mine was in a kit with a Sears-Ricoh KSX in mom's closet a decade ago.
Reasonably sharp at even wide aperture-- sharpness is aided by the lens's ability to catch a distant subject in a relatively narrow DOF (at 135 and f2.8). Colors can be a little muted but the lens still manages to bring out some poppy colors, especially on a desaturated or OOF background.
SERIOUS magenta/green CA even stopped down, and it's sharp enough that you can get actual dupicate images of thin veritcal branches. Fixable in PP but JEEZ.
Despite fast aperture, doesn't perform too well in low light. Low contrast and can have weird WB. Use 2.8 for DOF composition, not light.
 | | | | | | | Site Supporter Registered: September, 2010 Location: MD Posts: 1,029
2 users found this helpful
| | Review Date: October 4, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Center sharpness, quite good at f2.8 | | Cons: | soft edges, green/red coma | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 6
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 8
Value: 8
| |
I can compare this lens to a SMC Takumar 135mm f3.5, Takumar Bayonet 135mm f2.5, and a DA 18-135 at 135mm.
The strength of this lens is its center sharpness, especially at fast f-stops. It is quite good even wide open, and noticeably better than the others up to f5.6 when things start to get closer.
BUT... both the TakBayonet and the SMCTak have noticeably better borders and corners at all f-stops. Further, there is green/red coma--of which they all have some--that never entirely goes away even when stopping down. (Fixable in pp)
Of the 3 primes, the Takumar Bayonet may be best compromise overall, but if the most important aspect is shooting at f2.8-5.6 and center sharpness, this Sears does the best job.
| | | | | Loyal Site Supporter Registered: October, 2012 Location: Medina, OH Posts: 7,224
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 19, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $20.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Sharpness, quality build, color rendering | | Cons: | No A aperture setting, not auto-focus, not sharp wide open | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 8
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 9
Value: 10
Camera Used: Pentax K5II
| |
I have this lens left over from my film days with the Sears version of (I think) K-1000 camera. I travelled the world with this camera and lens for nearly 15 years, but mainly used the 50 mm lens, not this 135. I have not used it very much in digital days because the field of view is a little too narrow for most of my work. However, this morning I decided to mount it (on my camera, I mean) and give it a try. Actually, I was a little shocked at its sharpness, clarity, and color rendering in fairly low morning light. My shots were all hand-held, Manual mode, catch-in-focus, ISO 400, and around 1/60, and f 5.6. It seemed to me that the lens was very robust in terms of aperture and shutter speed; I mean once I made those settings, there was hardly any need for changes even when the target subject seemed a little lighter or darker. I have read that the lens was made by Samyang, which makes sense as I like their lenses very much--generally well built, few frills, mostly manual focus with large focus ring grip. I have generally liked all the Samyangs I have tried including some telephoto zooms that I have received along with film camera purchases. I am resolved to try this lens for some portrait work, and suspect it will do a great job. It makes me happy about Pentax K-mount interchangeability every time I run across one of these old inexpensive treasures. This Sears 135 is a real classic lens treasure for the low price you pay for a copy on eBay or elsewhere.
| | | | | Site Supporter Registered: March, 2014 Location: NY Posts: 1,564
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 9, 2014 | Recommended | Price: $25.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Sharp and Cheap | | Cons: | None | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 10
Value: 10
Camera Used: k-30
| |
  I was out and about look for a lens to buy and saw this lens ,I remembered the review from rickyfronvegas and his exemplary photos so I put on my camera and tried it out and then bought it. I havr to say I am happy I did she is very sharp and I believe she is a direct copy of the takumar version. Just a suspicion. After reading further on the WEB it turns out that it is made by Samyang and that cannot be BAD AS SAMYANG makes great Lenses.
| | | | | Senior Member Registered: November, 2012 Posts: 295
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: December 17, 2013 | Recommended | Price: None indicated
| Rating: N/A |
| Pros: | Handling, Build, Coating, Fast | | Cons: | Could be a bit sharper, Hood could be longer | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 10
| |
This lens handles nicely. The focus grip is large and easy to grip. The dampening is smooth. I like the solid build feel although I don't like the rubber grip as much as the Takumar metal grip if you need to touch the rubber knobs for a long period of time. It can get like those prickly massaging sandals =P. I like that this lens handles glare fairly well. I just wish it was a bit sharper at larger apertures. It is nice to have the larger aperture though. It's a good solid lens worth taking a look at.
| | | | | New Member Registered: December, 2012 Location: Novi Sad Posts: 1
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: January 15, 2013 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cheep, solid build... | | Cons: | wide open performance... | | Sharpness: 8
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 8
Handling: 10
Value: 9
| |
Cheep lens... Solid build, but poor wide open. At f5.6 is drasticly more sharp, contrasty, and usable... 
My lens has funny mrena at front glass group
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8079/8381254053_61f6af4ae4_b.jpg | | | | | Veteran Member Registered: May, 2011 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 366
1 user found this helpful
| | Review Date: March 14, 2012 | Recommended | Price: $35.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Not bad at all. | | Cons: | 1.5m minimum focus, "meh" color rendering. | | Sharpness: 7
Aberrations: 7
Bokeh: 7
Handling: 9
Value: 10
| |
I actually bought this lens as a mistake.
I thought I was getting the one with the Macro Zone, but got this one instead.
Seeing as I have other 135mm lens, there was no need for this one, but thought to check the lens out nonetheless.
A bit surprised at its performance. Contrast lacks a bit, but a hood might help. The built one hood is pitifully short, extends about 1.5cm.
It's quite compact, and the build quality is good. Focus ring has a good feel to it. The focus ring is wrapped in tiny rubber studs, your fingers won't slip.
It's not that sharp open wide, but gets quite nice one or two steps slower.
It has about 1.4 meter minimum focus, so that is somewhat a con.
Check the images below. Shot at 1pm under a bright sun. I believe they are shot open wide, but it could very well be anywhere from f2.8-f5.6.
Auto SEARS MC 135mm f/2.8 by RickyFromVegas, on Flickr
Auto SEARS MC 135mm f/2.8 by RickyFromVegas, on Flickr
Auto SEARS MC 135mm f/2.8 by RickyFromVegas, on Flickr
| | | | | Inactive Account Registered: May, 2011 Posts: 27 | | Review Date: May 23, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $27.00
| Rating: 8 |
|
This is the first manual focus lens I bought. It has more than lived up to my expectations (given the $27 I spent, including shipping). I am not experienced enough to be a lens connoisseur, but here's my two cents:
It meters well with the ol' Green Button in manual mode, and Catch-in-Focus works like a champ. This little guy has sent me spirling into cheap manual focus LBA.
A couple sample photos on flickr.
| | | | | Forum Member Registered: April, 2009 Location: Sterling, VA Posts: 70 | | Review Date: April 10, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $75.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Great lens for the price | | Cons: | Poor image qualithy wide open | |
While not in the same league as some other brands, this lens is pretty good. Image quality and color is excellentg stopped down to 5.6 and beyond, and compares favorably with similar lens from Pentax. The lens is built solidly but not so heavy as to prevent me from using the lens as a basic 135 for everyday shots.
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: February, 2011 Location: California Posts: 32 | | Review Date: April 10, 2011 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Cost, Built in hood, solid construction | | Cons: | No "A" setting, long focus min. | |
I got this lens in an old kit which contained a camera and four lenses. It was a pleasant surprise and after some initial testing I think I will get more than my money's worth from it. The large aperture give some challenges and a chance to be creative. What ever corner fringing mentioned in other reviews there might be is minimized by the sensor in the K-5 I was using it on. From the details of construction and marking I expect that the same maker built this lens as did most Albinar Lenses. It was Korean made.
| | | | | Veteran Member Registered: December, 2009 Location: Illinois Posts: 455 | | Review Date: December 19, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $30.00
| Rating: 8 |
| Pros: | Sharp, smooth focus, compact | | Cons: | Low contrast wide open, manual focus, stop down metering required | |
The Sears MC 135mm f/2.8 is probably one of the best "bang for the buck" purchases I've made.
The lens is made of metal and feels quite solid, and has a large and grippy focusing ring. There is an integrated hood that slides out into place, although it's usefulness is limited on aps-c cameras. Even on film, it's most likely too small to be optimally effective, but it's still nice to have. The aperture ring glides and clicks into place, but does so less securely than comparable Pentax M series lenses. I've never had it change on me unknowingly, but the aperture ring seems to be the least solid aspect of the lens.
The front element contains a beautiful green coating that is quite unlike any I've seen in other lenses. It appears to do a good job of protecting against flare, although it is most likely not as effective as SMC coatings, given that contrast can be low at times.
Performance overall is quite good. At f/2.8, if you can nail the focus photos are sharp but somewhat lacking in contrast, especially in the out of focus areas. Stopping down improves this, but shots taken will benefit from some post processing.
The lens does exhibit some purple fringing in high contrast situations, but generally it can be fixed in PP. This behavior is fairly typical of most older lenses which haven't been optimized for digital, so it isn't that great of a concern to me.
I haven't noticed any bothersome distortion or vignetting.
The bokeh can be nervous and a bit crazy at times. Since bokeh is fairly subjective, you can see some shots I've taken with the lens to judge for yourself.
Sample Images
For the 30.00 USD I paid for this lens, it covers the moderate telephoto focal length very well. Prices tend to hover around this range as well, which is around half the price of an M 135mm f/3.5. While I've never used the M lens, this Sears is a half stop faster and is still quite compact. If you see one, don't hesitate to pick it up and give it a try!
| | | | | Junior Member Registered: August, 2009 Location: Lexington, KY Posts: 30 | | Review Date: October 30, 2009 | Recommended | Price: $8.00
| Rating: 7 |
| Pros: | A perfectly workable 135mm f/2.8 | | Cons: | Resale value? | |
My copy is styled quite a bit differently (an earlier M42 version), and has a dent in the front thread, but the same general sentiment applies: this lens is undervalued. There isn't anything magical about it, but neither do I see any obvious IQ flaws. Perhaps this is yet another proof that 135mm lenses are easy to get right? Compared to other lenses in general this lens is an 8... it's a 7 here because it is slightly below average among the 135mm lenses I've used. Build quality, IQ, etc. all easily outclass modern zooms.
The roughly $8 cost included shipping (it came with two other lenses). Wow.
| | |
;)
;)
