Junior Member Registered: August, 2009 Location: Lexington, KY Posts: 30 | | Review Date: December 25, 2010 | Recommended | Price: $150.00
| Rating: 10 |
| Pros: | Fast! Well built, adaptable YS mount | | Cons: | Tiny DOF shows any focus error, low contrast WO | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 7
Value: 10
| |
Over the past year, I saw plenty of these with various defects go for scary big prices... then came this pristine copy with an FL mount at a very reasonable price. The lens is actually a YS/T mount, so adapting it to anything is trivial; a minute after I got it, it was M42.
I had seen many reviews comment that this lens was really not very sharp, but my copy is acceptably sharp even wide open. I think the problem is that the tiniest little shift in subject distance -- or error in focus screen/detector alignment -- is going to make a visible difference with this lens. Hit rate for truly sharp focus on a moving subject will be zero. Then again, this cheerleader sat still long enough for me to focus as intended:
The transition to out-of-focus is very smooth, so a minor focus error really does just make it look like the lens is a bit soft.
Oh yes, the lens is a bit soft -- not in terms of sharpness, but in terms of having low contrast. The backlighting didn't help either; this lens definitely is susceptible to a general drop in contrast as a result of flare. Thus, the above photo had a little level adjustment applied. This low contrast also will hurt the standard measured MTF numbers... but I don't care too much, as the detail is still there and can be enhanced by simple unsharp masking and/or tonal remapping.
Bokeh? Generally as nice as you'd expect from a 135mm f/1.8, very easily providing a truly smooth background for things like portraits. Here's an evil example with resizing as the only PP:
The LED Christmas tree lights incorporate lenses, which explains the wild variety of PSF structures seen. The yellow disc to the right is typical of how a real point source is imaged, just plain discs with a slightly soft edge and very little "cat's eye" vignetting (on an APS-C camera). Note the smoothness of the OOF chair, etc. There is pretty strong bokeh CA, but that isn't unusual in lenses with better-than-average smoothness in their bokeh, and it isn't likely to be obvious in a portrait unless the subject is a zebra. 
Build quality? It doesn't feel like a consumer lens. It feels more like something made for industrial uses: very solid, but intentionally a little coarse. The flare issue probably comes from the shiny metal interior of the lens barrel; I don't know why they didn't use a little black paint.
Overall, I think this lens is a 10. However, this is a special-purpose lens for people willing and able to focus very carefully -- probably only effective using magnified live view. As a general-purpose "fast 135mm" this would be more like a 7 and you'd be much better off getting the f/2.5 135mm Takumar. The Tak is cheaper, relatively small and easier to hand hold, nearly as fast, and far less touchy to focus.
| |
New Member Registered: June, 2015 Location: Bern Posts: 1 | | Review Date: November 27, 2015 | Recommended | Price: $250.00
| Rating: 9 |
| Pros: | Fast, sharp (also at 1.8), little CA, nice colors | | Cons: | Very heavy | | Sharpness: 9
Aberrations: 9
Bokeh: 10
Handling: 7
Value: 10
Camera Used: Canon 5D Mk1
| |
Auto Admiral 1.8 / 135mm (1975)
My lens is branded as "ADMIRAL". This is the name of a companie in Switzerland, reseller for optical products.
I think it is the same product as the Spiratone. For photos like portraits, i can only recommend this lens.
@ 1,8
@ 1.8 (1200 ASA / Available Light)
 | |
