Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in
The most beautiful 135mm lens
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Which 135 lens is the most beautiful one?
CZJ Triotar 135/4
3%
 3%  [ 7 ]
CZJ Sonnar 135/4
4%
 4%  [ 9 ]
CZJ Sonnar zebra 135/3.5
1%
 1%  [ 4 ]
CZJ Sonnar MC 135/3.5
15%
 15%  [ 33 ]
Jupiter-11 135/4
6%
 6%  [ 15 ]
Jupiter-37A/AM 135/3.5
4%
 4%  [ 10 ]
Tair-11A 135/2.8
10%
 10%  [ 22 ]
Super / S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5
6%
 6%  [ 15 ]
Super / S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5
13%
 13%  [ 29 ]
another one (specify)
33%
 33%  [ 71 ]
Total Votes : 215



PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.... Wink


PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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!


PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


Last edited by Boomer Depp on Sat Mar 20, 2010 3:54 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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 definitionafter 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.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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



PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Very Happy

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! Shocked


PostPosted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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/


PostPosted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Blue: Thanks for that link. It really performs well in macro extension!


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't like it's appearance in terms of camera porn. But i would trade many better looking for it Smile.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have seen a 135mm Steinheil lens at the last fair. That was a beauty!
I can't remember which one it was. Embarassed


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Embarassed

Maybe the Quinar ?
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=18177&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60&sid=37ea9a3ad4954f3e4127d95b4cd4d424


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Embarassed

Maybe the Quinar ?
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=18177&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60&sid=37ea9a3ad4954f3e4127d95b4cd4d424


Yes! Thanks for directing me to your picture. What a beauty!


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


PostPosted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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


The first one is very good (black squirrel) !


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ive got the winner by default Wink

CZJ Triotar 4/13,5cm T - chromed brass


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just for contrast Laughing



PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:
Ive got the winner by default Wink


Is that Praktina mount?


PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mflex-on wrote:
Is that Praktina mount?

No, its M42.


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 10:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In your opinion, should i change my zeiss m42 sonnar against the C/Y version ?


PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 3:18 pm    Post subject: Re: The most beautiful 135mm lens Reply with quote

no-X wrote:
In connection with the discussion in my Sonnar thread, I decided to prepare a poll.

Please vote Wink


But you did'nt add the beautiful Sigmatel Multi Scalematic 135mm f1.8, so I cant vote. Crying or Very sad



PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i think that the best 135mm lens... is the Planar 2/135mm....
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Wed May 19, 2010 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heathcliff wrote:
In your opinion, should i change my zeiss m42 sonnar against the C/Y version ?


I have both the M42 MC 135mm f/3.5 and the C/Y MMJ 135mm f/2.8 (non-destructively converted to M42 mount). I admit that the f/3.5 has fallen into disuse after I got the f/2.8, but it does have a major benefit over most other vintage 135mms: close focusing down to 1 metre, in a small package.

(The superb Steinheil-Mnchen Quinar 135mm f/2.8 also goes to 1 metre, but it's a huge lens for a 135mm. Even has a tripod socket!)