Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Favourite 135mm lens
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Benedikt

I posted a sample of the Viv 135/2,8 Close Focus lens earlier in the thread. I love that lens for getting into the subject. It realy does work well as a close-up. It is much different than the other Viv 135/2,8 and I think a lot better. This most recent post was my real favourite at that focal length - the nikkor f2. My version is beat up on the outside so I got it very cheaply, but the lenses and mechanicals are perfect. Here it is in a lineup for comparison - it'ss the last on the right and it's alongside the nikkor 135/2,8:



patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've got five "normal" 135 mm lenses, I think, a Leitz Elmarit-R 2.8 (last version), a CZ Sonnar 2.8, a CZJ Sonnar 3.5, an Asahi S-M-C Takumar 3.5, and a Pentacon 2.8, all good and bad in their various ways. Overall among these I slightly prefer the Elmarit. However, having got the old, uncoated TTH Cooke triplets at roughly the same FL, I've grown to prefer them for their very balanced IQ. They aren't perhaps as bitingly resolving as the Elmarit or the CZ Sonnar can be, but at any decent print size the difference is mostly rather minimal and of no consequence for my style of photography - and for most normal people, I might add.

Every now and then I'm tempted by still another 135, but the only one I've really seriously considered is the old CZJ Triotar 4/135, a triplet, which seems to exhibit some of the same qualities as the Cookes and would sometimes be easier to carry around than these bellows mounted ancient lenses. (Similarly, I've considered the Meyer Domiplan 2.8/50, another triplet.) The larger format Cookes are sharp edge to edge on a 5D, but the M42 triplets may be slightly soft at the edges, probably insignificantly for most uses and counterbalanced by their other qualities. However, I've already got too many lenses...

Veijo


PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
vilva wrote:
... However, I've already got too many lenses...

Veijo


Shocked Shocked Shocked Wink


PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
In low price league an unbeatable lens...


I got my Tamron 2.5/135mm yesterday, it has a very nice finish (definitely a very sexy lens).
I will do some test shots today or tomorrow.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is not the sharpest lens, so don't make sharpness test only , find a nice subject and this lens will perform very well.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my slightly limited experience its hard to find a bad 135mm from the MF era especially if you go for a modest aperture design like f3.5. These were part of the normal photographers bread and butter kit of 35-50-135 so manufacturers had a lot of stake in getting them right.

Amongst the main brands I have used several versions of the Takumar f3.5 and the f2.5, the Canon FL mount f 3.5 and f 2.8 and the Nikon f 3.5 and f2.8 and like them all. I have not at this time tried many off-brand ones but I am sure there are plenty here who have and who can comment on which are best.

Right now I am going thru a "love Nikon" phase and Patrick that line up of yous is great. I seriously am thinking of expanding my repetoir to some faster lenses in the 105-135 range.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:38 am    Post subject: Panagor 135/2.8 - nikon fit Reply with quote
Just got it and am still trying to learn its foibles. Here is a sample of what is I believe a Kiron:




Seems decent


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice capture!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just a sample shot from my super-multi-coated Takumar 3.5/135, which I used to photograph the buildings inside our ancient gas tanks area, that are probably going to be torn down by the city hall idiots.
Taken on full frame (5D) at about full iris closed, or almost (I wanted the deepest possible DOF), which is some unusual choice for a tele lens.

Whole image:



Some 100% crops:















PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Just a sample shot from my super-multi-coated Takumar 3.5/135, which I used to photograph the buildings inside our ancient gas tanks area, that are probably going to be torn down by the city hall idiots.


Great shots, Orio. The lens renders beautifully and the colors are gorgeous.

I love these brick buildings from the last century. We have many schools and industrial buildings like that in France but they have shifted out of fashion and many have been replaced by concrete cubes looking more "trendy."

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio

That looks like a very fine lens, the detail on the edges is very sharp and I see no obvious distortions. How is the OOF?


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:

That looks like a very fine lens, the detail on the edges is very sharp and I see no obvious distortions. How is the OOF?


At least my copy of the S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135 has generally a very good OOF except for the quite normal tendency of most lenses of 100+ mm FL to produce some CA -- not necessarily visible at any decent print sizes despite being very conspicuous when viewed at 100%. Here are a couple of examples:





The above crop is from a wide open shot as the highlights are round, stopped down they would be hexagonal. However, it should be noted that this is rather an extreme sample, and I had to go through a lot of shots in order to find something this bad. On an 8" x 12" print most people probably wouldn't even notice this level of CA.

The S-M-C Tak 3.5/135 is a quite nice lens, and the solid metal build quality and the mechanical feel are something totally lacking from most lenses built today.

Veijo


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Veijo
You just made my life more difficult Smile Smile . Frankly that CA could be made to disappear almost compleely with a little judicious PP, I had to look very closely to see it even at 100%. I am not sure I would have seen it if you had not mentioned it. That tactile sensation of good engineering applied to top quality materials is one of the reasons I love my MF lens collection so much. My 50/1.8 AF nikkor may be one of the sharpest lenses out there, but it feels chintzy. Sad



patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio, thanks for those images. You always provide a fine bunch of examples. I know that takes time for you, so it is doubly appreciated. GREAT work involved in doing this for us.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The OOF seems very nice and smooth where there are no highlights.
With highlights, it produces a bit of the doughtnut effect that you can see on Veijo's sample.
Overall it's not as good bokeh as the Sonnars but for 17GBP it's excellent value.
I rate this lens near the Jupiter-37 (which is a Sonnar clone)
It is probably a tad more resolving than the Jupiter-37 - on the other hand, the Jupiter-37 has a tad more contrast and a better highlight bokeh, while the normal bokeh seems probably smoother in the Takumar, which also is more neutral in colour (the Jupiter gives slightly warm colour).
But all these are really subtleties.
The two lenses have comparable prices and comparable performances. Both are very good value for the money. Of course if you can afford to spend more you can also find something better. But not shockingly better.

-


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laurence wrote:
Orio, thanks for those images. You always provide a fine bunch of examples. I know that takes time for you, so it is doubly appreciated. GREAT work involved in doing this for us.


No problem, Larry. I just had these lying around. a 5 min. thing.

-


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:

patrickh


A Nikkor 2.0/135! Wow!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
By reading the differents posts of this topic, I realized that I owned the Vivitar 135/2,8 "28xxxxx" in K mount , never tested ! So I tested it this afternoon (quick and "dirty") , and results are effectively at the level of my bests ! It won the second or third place in my current preferred 135mm list ...
(Smc-Takumar 3,5/135,J-37, Taďr, Jena Sonnar, Schneider Tele-Xenar etc ...)
I took these pictures 1 hour before the sunset , and this gave very warm tones ...
Village near Vittel, east of France , 30 km from my home ...







On the second picture , I erased a couple of TV Aerials ...
Recently , I took some portraits with the Meyer Orestor 2,8/135 and I placed this lens in the first position ... Followed by the smc-takumar 3,5/135 , the Taďr-11, the Jupiter-37 (For contrast's sake), Jena Sonnar , Steinheil Cassarit 4,5, and then Vivitar-Komine just beetween the S-tak and the Taďr . Really , these appreciations are very subjective ! In this list , some are unusable for portraits ....


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios
Those Viv Ser 1's are frequently very very good lenses. I must admit to a weak spot for them. I can see no serious flaw in your evaluation of favourites. although I dont own many of them. Lovely picture of a beautiful town.

Carsten
The second one to the left of the 135/2 is my real favourite in this group - the 105/1,8. Like the 2,5 in overdrive. Smile Smile


patrickh


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios,
I like both pictures very much. In this case, the warm tones fit the rural subject very well, making it look like old landscape paintings.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio , I appreciated your comments about 135mm lenses . Full frame or Aps formats doesn't matter , since the DOF rendition is exactly the same ... It is my preferred focal length for portraits and landscape , in addition with 85 /90 mm, and 200mm for landscape. Yes , it was not necessary to choose "old paint" filter in PSP to get this tone . However , these pics were a bit under-exposed ...
135mm are not only lenses of seventie's era , they came from the 9x12 cm plate cameras era : 1900 and after ... No need to redesign 135mm Tessar, Triotar, Cassar, Xenar ... Just adapt them in the convenient mount (Contax,Leica,Exakta ...) .


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios,
Does your Vivitar 135 say "close focusing" on the front of the lens?...There were quite a few different Vivitar 135mm F2.8 lenses..The close focusing model was not a Series One model, that was the 135mm F2.3, it has 62mm filter threads & goes to 1:2 @ 20 inches...Your samples pictures are quite nice...I love all of my Vivitar lenses (well most of them anyway)...


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios wrote:
Full frame or Aps formats doesn't matter , since the DOF rendition is exactly the same ...


Are you sure of this?
I always read everywhere that the smaller the frame, the deeper the DOF.
So, APS-C film cameras have deeper DOF than normal 135, and medium format 6x6 cameras have shallower DOF than normal 135.
Or maybe I understood it wrong.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I always read everywhere that the smaller the frame, the deeper the DOF.
So, APS-C film cameras have deeper DOF than normal 135, and medium format 6x6 cameras have shallower DOF than normal 135.


For a given lens, the depth of field is the same on the image plane, whatever the format of the image frame. Many people say that APS-C (or crop format digital) cameras have deeper DOF than full frame 35mm cameras, because one has to use a shorter focal length lens on the smaller format camera to get the same field of view than on the larger format camera.

It also applies to medium or large format photography. A 150mm lens has the same depth of field on a 24x36, a 6x6 or a 4x5in. camera, but it's a long telephoto on 24x36, a portrait lens on 6x6 and a normal lens on 4x5. To get the same field of view than a 150mm on 4x5, one would have to use a 75mm lens on 6x6 and a 45mm on 24x36 and of course the depth of field would then be different.

For nitpickers, the depth of field also depends on the final magnification of the image, because the more an image is enlarged, the smaller circle of confusion it needs to retain sufficient sharpness. As a full frame 35mm image requires less enlargement than an APS-C image when printed to the same size, then the enlarged 35mm image will appear sharp enough over a slightly wider focus range than the APS-C image. So, yes, when you consider the final image, APS-C has a slightly narrower DOF.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2008 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So, in other words, that of the medium format as having narrower DOF than 135 format is just bull crap.

It all boils down to the fact that to obtain the same angle of field, you need to use a longer focal on the medium format camera, and this means narrower DOF.

And the size of the frame has nothing to do with it (except for indirectly being the cause of the need of a longer focal lens as much as you elarge the film frame).
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4