| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Which 135 lens is the most beautiful one? |
| CZJ Triotar 135/4 |
|
3% |
[ 7 ] |
| CZJ Sonnar 135/4 |
|
4% |
[ 9 ] |
| CZJ Sonnar zebra 135/3.5 |
|
2% |
[ 5 ] |
| CZJ Sonnar MC 135/3.5 |
|
15% |
[ 33 ] |
| Jupiter-11 135/4 |
|
7% |
[ 16 ] |
| Jupiter-37A/AM 135/3.5 |
|
4% |
[ 10 ] |
| Tair-11A 135/2.8 |
|
10% |
[ 22 ] |
| Super / S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5 |
|
7% |
[ 16 ] |
| Super / S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5 |
|
13% |
[ 29 ] |
| another one (specify) |
|
33% |
[ 73 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 220 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Boomer Depp
Joined: 08 Oct 2009
Posts: 552
Location: Kingston,Washighton
Expire: 2011-12-04
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Boomer Depp wrote:
| kansalliskala wrote: |
Jupiter version wasn't specified. Everyone seems to like their own lenses. It is the same thing with one's dogs.  |
Now that's funny...  and that's quite often the reason they keep them...
_________________
Trust that little voice in your head that says "Wouldn't it be interesting if...." And then do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kathmandu
Joined: 09 Dec 2009
Posts: 1479
Location: (Kathmandu,Nepal. Currently)Pacific Northwest, USA
Expire: 2012-04-08
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:14 pm Post subject: Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F 2.8 T*MM |
|
|
Kathmandu wrote:
"Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F 2.8 T*MM"- I think this is a very beautiful lens too. As long as we're talking beautiful -I liken this lens to Sophia Loren, not fat not thin but with curves in the right places . Sophisticated yet has withstood the test of time.
 
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 1416
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
| Boomer Depp wrote: |
| BTW this lens and all the other 135 Q's that I've seen have a metal lens hood...so you might want to check a little closer. |
Seems plasticy to me; if I tap it, it makes a different sound than the metal body of the lens. But, yes, it could be thin metal painted with plastic-looking glossy paint. Outwardly it looks identical to yours in the photo.
Still, I find the lens one of the ugliest ones I have, but obviously it's a matter of personal preference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 1416
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: Re: Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F 2.8 T*MM |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
| Kathmandu wrote: |
| "Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F 2.8 T*MM"- I think this is a very beautiful lens too. |
I happen to have one of these, as well. Totally gorgeous, there's something magical about seeing the “Carl Zeiss” and the red T* on the lens. Silly, I know, mine's not even made in Germany. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boomer Depp
Joined: 08 Oct 2009
Posts: 552
Location: Kingston,Washighton
Expire: 2011-12-04
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boomer Depp wrote:
| Arkku wrote: |
| Boomer Depp wrote: |
| BTW this lens and all the other 135 Q's that I've seen have a metal lens hood...so you might want to check a little closer. |
Seems plasticy to me; if I tap it, it makes a different sound than the metal body of the lens. But, yes, it could be thin metal painted with plastic-looking glossy paint. Outwardly it looks identical to yours in the photo.
Still, I find the lens one of the ugliest ones I have, but obviously it's a matter of personal preference. |
So,do you like using what you consider an ugly lens?
Do you collect ugly lenses as a habit?
Also do you like ugly women as well?
If you do....I sincerely hope you don't tell them their ugly.... 
_________________
Trust that little voice in your head that says "Wouldn't it be interesting if...." And then do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spiralcity
Joined: 02 Oct 2008
Posts: 1207
Location: Chicago, U.S.A
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
spiralcity wrote:
| Kathmandu wrote: |
Arkku:Must be daylight in Helsinki eh?
I dont know if it is camera shake - it was shot handheld and I know the depth of field is very narrow/shallow, and the bokeh is wonderully thick creamy and smooth(it would go wonderfully on a toast)-youll have to see my pictures on the Fujinon EBC lens group in on Flickr ,the actual photo size to confirm -but there's alway is more chance of camera shake on these light longer lenses -and the group admin there looks/sounds awfully like you- LOL .
The ISO level may have been a little high? I do not have the exif data on these handy to confirm.
Ladenla |
Yes, the bokeh the Fujicas produce are creamy smooth. Great lenses!
_________________
Nikons : F4-EM-FG-FE2-FA-EL-FTN-N2020-N70-F Nikkorex
Fujica: ST605N-ST701-ST705-ST705W-ST801-ST901-AZ1-AX-3
Chinon: CE4s-CM4s-CM5
Pentax: ME-Soptmatic
Ricoh:XR6
Pentax- K10D
Lenses- M42's-Nikon F mount, Pentax PK
FREE PHOTOGRAPHY COURSE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
folderholder
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
Location: California
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
folderholder wrote:
I have always been impressed by the look of the 135mm f/3.5 silver Re-Topcor lens. It's a work of industrial art.
_________________
Best wishes,
Peter
www.pandacollector.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 1416
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
| Boomer Depp wrote: |
So,do you like using what you consider an ugly lens?
|
If it produces good images and doesn't get in the way of taking them.
| Boomer Depp wrote: |
Do you collect ugly lenses as a habit?
|
I don't collect lenses for their looks but for photography.
| Boomer Depp wrote: |
Also do you like ugly women as well?
|
This question is absurd and inappropriate in so many ways that I can't help but wonder if aren't taking my personal opinion of the aesthetics of a certain lens (which, to my knowledge, you did not design) a bit too personally. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Boomer Depp
Joined: 08 Oct 2009
Posts: 552
Location: Kingston,Washighton
Expire: 2011-12-04
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Boomer Depp wrote:
Oh no...not at all...ugly is a term I don't make a habit of using,I was just using your term.Yes,I was indeed wondering if you liked collecting lenses,collectibles that you cherish or hanging with girls that you don't find appealing to the eye....and using the term ugly to describe them.
I also find it odd,when the unique Nikkor 135mm 3.5 is shown on the previous page,you make no reference to it's looks.
I would say that you were being deliberately rude,rather then using an appropriate term like odd or unique or unappealing...you used a more derogatory term.
Rather then post another inappropriate post...even if I didn't find your lens collection appealing to me,knowing that you cherish them I would make a point of admiring them with you.
BTW...I've always found that true beauty comes from within and no where else,whether inanimate or living ...and for what it's worth,I like hanging around unique looking characters both men and women,quite often they can be quite entertaining and a fathom of knowledge and they do indeed become quite beautiful and you look forward to seeing them again.
I was also wondering if we're talking about the same lens....because,it doesn't even look like plastic as you say....looking at the knurling on the front of the hood confirms this....can you post a pic of your lens?
Compared to many of the finest lens of the era,it's an engineering beauty and build is rock solid of exacting tolerances that many lens manufacturers can only hope to replicate....even after almost 35 years of use,the focus ring is still quite smooth with absolutely no looseness or play.
_________________
Trust that little voice in your head that says "Wouldn't it be interesting if...." And then do it.
Last edited by Boomer Depp on Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:54 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 1416
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
| Boomer Depp wrote: |
| Oh no...not at all...ugly is a term I don't make a habit of using,I was just using your term. |
I don't see anything wrong with the term “ugly” when applied to an inanimate object, particularly when none of the participants of the conversation were responsible for creating said object (e.g. as a work of art).
As the term is entirely subjective, I don't see how it would be better for me to express my opinion of the lens in a more “politically correct” manner instead of saying what I mean.
| Boomer Depp wrote: |
Yes,I was indeed wondering if you liked collecting lenses,collectibles that you cherish or hanging with girls that you don't find appealing to the eye. |
As I already stated earlier, I collect lenses for photography, not for how they look on the shelf. Do you buy books for the picture on the cover? Do you like “hanging” with boys that you find appealing to the eye?
Seriously, do you really not see how inappropriate it is to label some girls as “ugly”* and to discuss my personal preferences regarding them as though they were objects just like lenses?
* Of course I realise that the definition of an “ugly girl” may take in to account attributes other than physical, but the question makes even less sense in this context if we use such a definition—after all, I've already stated that I enjoy the image quality of the Nikkor lens despite its ugly exterior. And if we continue to use “ugly” as a term limited to looks alone (as I have used it when speaking of the lens), consider how some girl insecure of her appearance might feel reading such discussion (“yes, I like hanging out with ugly girls despite their appearance”, “no, I wouldn't enjoy hanging out with such a person”).
| Boomer Depp wrote: |
I was also wondering if we're talking about the same lens....because,it doesn't even look like plastic as you say....looking at the knurling on the front of the hood confirms this....
|
As I said earlier, the lens looks identical to the one in your picture. (Except it looks as though you have a filter on; if not, there's a difference in that part.)
However, looking at the minor wear on the knurling on the hood, I can verify that you are right and it looks as though there's metal underneath. My apologies to the lens for incorrectly claiming that the hood is plastic. That doesn't change how I feel about its feel or aesthetics, however.
| Boomer Depp wrote: |
Compared to many of the finest lens of the era,it's an engineering beauty and build is rock solid of exacting tolerances that many lens manufacturers can only hope to replicate....even after almost 35 years of use,the focus ring is still quite smooth with absolutely no looseness or play. |
The lens is well-engineered (except for the hood) and produces excellent images; that's why I got it. The only reason I commented on its looks in the first place was because I found it funny how differently we feel about how it looks. It's a matter of personal aesthetic preference and I thought the point of this thread was to poll/discuss that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
natebarnz
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 331
Location: Los Angeles / Tucson
Expire: 2013-01-23
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
natebarnz wrote:
In an attempt to revive this tread from it's apparent dimise...
I would love to see some images from this lens. It not only looks spectacular it is very fast. Does anyone have it?
| Blue wrote: |
Here is one that deserves an honorable mention
 |
_________________
500D / SPII / FTn / Contax D / 137MA / Contaflex
Contax 28/2 - 35/1.4 - 35/2.8 - 45/2.8 - 50/1.4 - 100/3.5 - 135/2.8
CZJ 20/4 - 35/2.8 - 50/2.8 - 58/2 - 135/3.5
Rokkor PG 58/1.2 - PF 58/1.4 - X 85/1.7
Nikkor S 55/1.2 - H 85/1.8 - P.C. 55/3.5
Helios 44-2 58/2 Meyer Oreston 50/1.8
Elmarit-R 90/2.8 Sears 55/1.4
--> Visit My Picasa Galleries <-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Posts: 1888
Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
| Blue wrote: |
| Wow. The hood makes this lens! It would be great without it. It is awesome with it. |
That's the case with a lot of lenses - especially those huge vented hoods that the rangefinder crowd uses. 
I added an Asahi Takumar hood to my 135mm f3.5 Soligor, and now it looks more like a piece of artillery than a lens! 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Blue
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 304
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Blue wrote:
| natebarnz wrote: |
In an attempt to revive this tread from it's apparent dimise...
I would love to see some images from this lens. It not only looks spectacular it is very fast. Does anyone have it?
|
Douglas Nilsson from Sweeden has one but I don't know if he reads this forum. Here is his set at flickr from this lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/douglas_of_sweden/sets/72157609014256252/
_________________
Pentax: K, H2, H3, S3, SV (late & early), SV black, Spot F, K2 chrome, K2 black, ME F, SuperProgram, 6x7, Auto 110, Asahiflex IIB late
Pentax "modern": MZ-3, *istD, K200d, K20d
Mamiya: C3 TLR, NC1000
Canon: EOS 10s, AE-1
Chinon: CP-7m
IKON: Contax D, Praktiflex FX & Victar 50mm f2.9
Contessa-Nettel Piccolette - 7.5 cm Tessar & Compur shutter
Rangefinders: Argus C4 and Ricoh Five-One-Nine |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
natebarnz
Joined: 14 Jan 2010
Posts: 331
Location: Los Angeles / Tucson
Expire: 2013-01-23
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
natebarnz wrote:
@Blue: Thanks for that link. It really performs well in macro extension!
_________________
500D / SPII / FTn / Contax D / 137MA / Contaflex
Contax 28/2 - 35/1.4 - 35/2.8 - 45/2.8 - 50/1.4 - 100/3.5 - 135/2.8
CZJ 20/4 - 35/2.8 - 50/2.8 - 58/2 - 135/3.5
Rokkor PG 58/1.2 - PF 58/1.4 - X 85/1.7
Nikkor S 55/1.2 - H 85/1.8 - P.C. 55/3.5
Helios 44-2 58/2 Meyer Oreston 50/1.8
Elmarit-R 90/2.8 Sears 55/1.4
--> Visit My Picasa Galleries <-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008
Posts: 3693
Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
I don't like it's appearance in terms of camera porn. But i would trade many better looking for it .
_________________
---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
I have seen a 135mm Steinheil lens at the last fair. That was a beauty!
I can't remember which one it was. 
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator 
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivier
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 5077
Location: France
Expire: 2015-08-06
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Olivier wrote:
| LucisPictor wrote: |
I have seen a 135mm Steinheil lens at the last fair. That was a beauty!
I can't remember which one it was. |
Maybe the Quinar ?
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=18177&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60&sid=37ea9a3ad4954f3e4127d95b4cd4d424
_________________
Olivier - Moderator 
Dslr : Olympus Pen E-P2 - Fujifilm X-Pro2 - Canon 5D MkII.
SLr and MF lenses : for feedback and helping people, cameras and lenses I own : full list here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1442740.html#1442740 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Yes! Thanks for directing me to your picture. What a beauty!
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
womble
Joined: 28 Sep 2009
Posts: 987
Location: Hertfordshire
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
womble wrote:
| natebarnz wrote: |
In an attempt to revive this tread from it's apparent dimise...
I would love to see some images from this lens. It not only looks spectacular it is very fast. Does anyone have it? |
The Pentax Photo Gallery has some examples.
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/home#section=EXIF-LENS&subSection=500&subSubSection=114648&language=EN
_________________
Kris Lockyear
Digital: Pentax K-3iii
35mm film SLRs: various Pentax bodies from a H2 to a SF7, favourites the MX and LX
Rangefinder: Zeiss Super Ikonta IV, FED2, Zorkii-4, Industar 26m, Jupiter 8, 11 and 12 lenses
Medium format: various folders, Yashica Mat 124 G. Lubitel 2
LF: Horseman LE 5x4 view camera.
MF lenses (favourites) Pentax "K" 200mm f/2.5; "K" 135mm f/2.5; "K" 50mm f/1.2; "K" 35mm f/2; "K" 30mm f/2.8; "K" 28mm f/3.5 shift; "K" 15mm f/3.5; M 100mm f/2.8; M 40mm f/2.8; Jupiter-9 85mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Olivier
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 5077
Location: France
Expire: 2015-08-06
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Olivier wrote:
The first one is very good (black squirrel) !
_________________
Olivier - Moderator
Dslr : Olympus Pen E-P2 - Fujifilm X-Pro2 - Canon 5D MkII.
SLr and MF lenses : for feedback and helping people, cameras and lenses I own : full list here http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1442740.html#1442740 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 705
Location: Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
I´ve got the winner by default
CZJ Triotar 4/13,5cm T - chromed brass
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mflex-on
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mflex-on wrote:
Just for contrast
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mflex-on
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mflex-on wrote:
| BRunner wrote: |
I´ve got the winner by default
|
Is that Praktina mount? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 705
Location: Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
| mflex-on wrote: |
| Is that Praktina mount? |
No, it´s M42. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zippie
Joined: 11 May 2009
Posts: 80
Location: Belgium
|
| Posted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
zippie wrote:
I like the Jupiter-11A 135mm f/4 a lot. It differs quite a bit from the jupiter 11 in terms of picture quality. Out of focus parts are very nice and sharpness is very good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
