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

SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:57 am    Post subject: SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 Reply with quote

Moscow

open aperture


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is a lovely little lens - very small and light.
I like mine for landscapes.
Yours is plenty sharp enough. Thanks for sharing these
Tom


PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Seems sharp but bokeh on the first one is very distracting.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I haven't used mine a lot yet. At 3.5 it is not a bokeh monster, but in this case the wire fence probably has a lot to do with it. This was taken with the K-5


Bench Bokeh by The lens profile, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice samples! Does anybody know how this version of this 135/3.5 lens compares to other versions?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
invisible wrote:
Very nice samples! Does anybody know how this version of this 135/3.5 lens compares to other versions?


There are comparisons over on the Pentax Lenses website:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

This lens' great asset is its size and weight.
Not a bokeh monster as other 135's are but a very capable lens nonetheless.
Also relatively cheap
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
invisible wrote:
Very nice samples! Does anybody know how this version of this 135/3.5 lens compares to other versions?


There are comparisons over on the Pentax Lenses website:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

This lens' great asset is its size and weight.
Not a bokeh monster as other 135's are but a very capable lens nonetheless.
Also relatively cheap
Tom

Thank you for this. I thought there was an A version, but it looks like the f/3.5 was discontinued after the M version. There is a K version which (going by the reviews on that page) is rated similarly to the M version. However, they have a different number of aperture blades and also a different number of groups/elements. The non-M appears to be slightly sharper, but also heavier.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
invisible wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
invisible wrote:
Very nice samples! Does anybody know how this version of this 135/3.5 lens compares to other versions?


There are comparisons over on the Pentax Lenses website:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

This lens' great asset is its size and weight.
Not a bokeh monster as other 135's are but a very capable lens nonetheless.
Also relatively cheap
Tom

Thank you for this. I thought there was an A version, but it looks like the f/3.5 was discontinued after the M version. There is a K version which (going by the reviews on that page) is rated similarly to the M version. However, they have a different number of aperture blades and also a different number of groups/elements. The non-M appears to be slightly sharper, but also heavier.


Yes, the K version is about one-third heavier again as well as one third longer.
The convenience of the M version is its big advantage. I use it for landscapes because it is so easy to carry about.

#1


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
These aren't bad lenses by any means, but there are so many decent 135s out there, I have never understood why these are considered so highly.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
These aren't bad lenses by any means, but there are so many decent 135s out there, I have never understood why these are considered so highly.


Because they are pretty compact, there are a lot of them, so they are great value. Also being from the late seventies/early eighties coatings are relatively modern. The Pentax-m lenses were designed to be very compact.

A lot of the earlier K-mount lenses were the same as takumars with a different mount. I guess compactness became an issue when cameras got to be more mass market articles. From the k series to the M-series only the 50mm 1.4 and the 50 and 100 F4 macro lens designs survived. (There were some new lens designs in the K series though but they are unique to the series, generally very good lenses and pretty sought after.)


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Olympus OM series cameras and lenses were a huge impetus toward smaller 35mm SLR's. My first camera, an OM-1, was dramatically smaller than my Mom's FTb. Both had the 50mm 1.8 kit lenses. Oly lens was every bit as good.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
After the Olympus OM-1 Pentax followed with the very compact ME and MX and the M-series of their lenses.
I had many 135mm-lenses - both the K and M 3.5 as well.
The K 3.5 is not only bigger and heavier but it doesn't have a built-in lens-hood but a screw-in one. this makes it even bigger.
I have a test of all 135mm-lenses from the early 1980's from a german photo magazin (ColorFoto) and waht they found out :
The K has a bit more sharpness but both have their sharpness across the whole Image right to the corners.
The K 2.5 is said to be better - and on film slr I found that to be true but not so on dslr. On dslr it's a bit tricky and the small M 3.5 much easier to use.
The M has different colours than the K Version too!
I loved the M much more and therefore sold the K and K 2.5 and bought me an additional M.
Wink

As for a comparison against other 135mm lenses:
The A 2.8 is not better but wide open less sharp.
The A* 1.8 is the best 135-lens I ever had.
(still sad that I sold it - and the other A*-lenses - years ago due to financial problems)

I also have a Canon dslr and what I found out with adapted manual lenses:
The Olympus 2.8/135 is very sharp - even if the test result of ColorFoto wasn't that good.
The Rollei 2.8/135 should expect better results but I found it only on film slr to be a great lens but nothing better (if not worse) on a dslr.
The best short tele manual focus lens I have is the Tamron SP 2.8/90 macro (adaptall-system).
BTW compared to the well regarded Canon L 4/70-200....


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
From the k series to the M-series only the 50mm 1.4 and the 50 and 100 F4 macro lens designs survived.
Just nitpicking. The K SMC 50/1.4 is a direct copy of SMC Takumar. It uses thoriated glass as Takumar does. On the other hand, the M SMC 50/1.4 is a bit smaller and doesn't use thoriated glass.

So the M SMC 50/1.4 isn't really a survivor from the K-series.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1