MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
logovectorizer.com
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

The most beautiful 135mm lens
Post new topic Reply to topic
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
2%
 2%  [ 5 ]
CZJ Sonnar MC 135/3.5
15%
 15%  [ 33 ]
Jupiter-11 135/4
7%
 7%  [ 16 ]
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
7%
 7%  [ 16 ]
Super / S-M-C Takumar 135/2.5
13%
 13%  [ 29 ]
another one (specify)
33%
 33%  [ 73 ]
Total Votes : 220



Post
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:38 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:38 pm
Post subject:
Reply
In general I'd say that aluminium finish looks better than the more modern styles.


Post
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:09 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:09 pm
Post subject:
Reply
my (converted to Nikon mount) Pentacon 135/2.8 preset...



Post
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:46 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Considering after alu designs lens porn i'd choose this baby over Zeiss Sonnar (i agree with seller from Poland, but his photos does not show superb finish and coating of this lens in true way; lens also much smaller then Zeiss; najlepszy means the most beautiful):
http://www.allegro.pl/item874466732_aj_najlepszy_tele_ebc_fujinon_t_3_5_135_m42.html


Post
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:29 pm
Post subject: Fujinon EBC 135 f2.5
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:29 pm
Post subject: Fujinon EBC 135 f2.5
Reply



I know the topic is a little old but this is one lens in that focal range I've liked. I love its light all metal body with very good perfomance. I love the feel of the Rubber grip focusing ring and the aperture ring. My vote goes to this one.

Sample Pics Below:






Last edited by Kathmandu on Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:06 am; edited 1 time in total


Post
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
The 135mm f/2.5 Fujinon is indeed an excellent one, and I, too, am very fond of its looks. There's something about the “Fuji green” used for part of the distance scale and the EBC text… Something similar to seeing that red T* on Zeiss lenses.

P. S. The indoor sample looks a bit blurry; camera shake?


Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:00 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:00 am
Post subject:
Reply
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

Last edited by Kathmandu on Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:01 am; edited 1 time in total


Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:08 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:08 am
Post subject:
Reply
Another vote for the Nikkor 135mm f2.8 Q-Auto....one of my favorites for many years.



Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
I second this beauty!

Thom Yorke wrote:
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Minolta 135mm F2.

One of the finest 135mm's



Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:59 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:59 am
Post subject:
Reply
Boomer Depp wrote:
Another vote for the Nikkor 135mm f2.8 Q-Auto....


Heh, I have one of these as well, and while the images turn out very good, I think it's one of the ugliest 135mm's ever. It's way too fat, the built-in hood is hideous, plastic, and impractical, and the coloured text is disgusting (f/16 is pink). =)


Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:03 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:03 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Fat Girls need loving,too....Very Happy

I wish more lenses had this good of a build and quality of workmanship.

The size of the lens in my big mitts,makes it a joy to use and the lens hood is sign of practicability.

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.

To me the coloring of the inscription makes the lens unique and the skinny girls love it.... Wink

Last edited by Boomer Depp on Wed Mar 17, 2010 1:04 pm; edited 2 times in total


Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:25 pm
Post subject:
Reply
kansalliskala wrote:
Jupiter version wasn't specified. Everyone seems to like their own lenses. It is the same thing with one's dogs. Smile


Now that's funny... Laughing and that's quite often the reason they keep them...


Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:14 pm
Post subject: Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F 2.8 T*MM
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:14 pm
Post subject: Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F 2.8 T*MM
Reply
"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 Smile. Sophisticated yet has withstood the test of time.






Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:36 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F 2.8 T*MM
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm F 2.8 T*MM
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:56 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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


Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:35 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:35 am
Post subject:
Reply
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!


Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:15 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:15 am
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:17 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:17 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:26 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:26 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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


Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:42 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:42 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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.


Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:51 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:51 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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



Post
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:37 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:37 am
Post subject:
Reply
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


Post
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:54 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:54 pm
Post subject:
Reply
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/


Post
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:43 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:43 pm
Post subject:
Reply
@Blue: Thanks for that link. It really performs well in macro extension!


Post
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:20 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:20 pm
Post subject:
Reply
I don't like it's appearance in terms of camera porn. But i would trade many better looking for it Smile.
Post new topic Reply to topic
Goto pagePrevious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Page 4 of 8