View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
altwebid
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 Posts: 28 Location: Cape Town, RSA
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:04 am Post subject: 135mm Lenses |
|
|
altwebid wrote:
Hi
For one reason or another I've ended up with 5 135mm lenses.
I've just tried to do my first ever comparison, but it's another overcast, cold grey day here in the North of England, so the results were pretty poor.
The list is as follows:
Rollei Rolleinar MC 135mm f/2.8-22 - Made In Japan QBM
Super Multi Coated Takumar 135mm f/3.5-22 M42 with diaphragm coupling lever
Exaktar MC 135mm f/2.8-22 M42 Made in Japan with built in hood
Jupiter 37A 135mm f/3.5-22 M42
Auto Optomax 135mm f/2.8-22 M42 Made in Japan
I know the reputation of the Jupiter 37A and it's in great condition with lens hood, caps and case, so that's a keeper, and I'm guessing the Takumar is up to the usual standards, but I wondered if anyone had any information on the others.
I can't find any details on the Exaktar at all.
The Rolleinar is in great condition and as it was the first 135mm I owned I've actually used it quite often and it's lovely to use and produces much more vivid colours than the rest.
I should really get rid of some of them!
Any info or help in the decision would be appreciated.
ps. The Optomax was a freebie and is very scuffed on the outside with a lot of cleaning marks on the lens so I think that will be the first to go! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mal1905
Joined: 30 Oct 2008 Posts: 1705 Location: Dublin, Ireland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:38 am Post subject: Re: 135mm Lenses |
|
|
Mal1905 wrote:
Welcome to the wonderfully weird world of 135mm lens collecting!!! Trust me when I tell you that you are merely one of many of us here who's ended up in that situation
My tuppence-ha'penny worth:
1. In my experience, the Rolleinar is very similar to the Contax mount Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/135 in terms of rendering and results. It's a lovely lens, and costs a fraction of what the Sonnar does. Keep it for sure.
2. Again, the Takumar should be a keeper - it's got a deservedly good reputation, and the S-M-C is probably the 'purest' version. There are older versions which can be had for small money, but your version is the last of the classic M42 mount 3.5/135 Taks.
3. Haven't heard of Exactar either, so just throw it away... (Joking, of course )
4. The Jupiter-37A is another beauty, and should also be kept. I've got several iterations of this lens and can't part with any of them. They're cheap and cheerful and are capable of really nice results.
5. Please see response at #3 above
So, to sum up, what you actually need is not advice - it's even more 135mm lenses
There are some glaring omissions from your collection, some of which I will now list:
Meyer Optik Orestor 2.8/135
Pentacon 2.8/135 - the famous 15 bladed 'Bokeh Monster'
CZJ Sonnar MC 3.5/135
CZJ Sonnar 4/135
Tair-11A 2.8/135
Finally, please take everything I say with a pinch of salt - I'm riddled with the '135 fever'
altwebid wrote: |
Hi
For one reason or another I've ended up with 5 135mm lenses.
I've just tried to do my first ever comparison, but it's another overcast, cold grey day here in the North of England, so the results were pretty poor.
The list is as follows:
Rollei Rolleinar MC 135mm f/2.8-22 - Made In Japan QBM
Super Multi Coated Takumar 135mm f/3.5-22 M42 with diaphragm coupling lever
Exaktar MC 135mm f/2.8-22 M42 Made in Japan with built in hood
Jupiter 37A 135mm f/3.5-22 M42
Auto Optomax 135mm f/2.8-22 M42 Made in Japan
I know the reputation of the Jupiter 37A and it's in great condition with lens hood, caps and case, so that's a keeper, and I'm guessing the Takumar is up to the usual standards, but I wondered if anyone had any information on the others.
I can't find any details on the Exaktar at all.
The Rolleinar is in great condition and as it was the first 135mm I owned I've actually used it quite often and it's lovely to use and produces much more vivid colours than the rest.
I should really get rid of some of them!
Any info or help in the decision would be appreciated.
ps. The Optomax was a freebie and is very scuffed on the outside with a lot of cleaning marks on the lens so I think that will be the first to go! |
_________________
Canon EOS 5D / EOS 40D
Carl Zeiss Jena: Flektogon 2.8/20, 2.4/35, 2.8/35, Pancolar 2/50, MC 1.8/50, MC 1.8/80, Triotar 4/135, Tessar 2.8/50, S 4/135 1Q, S 3.5/135, Sonnar 3.5/135 MC, 2.8/180, Biotar 2/5,8cm, 2/58, 1.5/75
Carl Zeiss: Distagon 2/28 T*, 1.4/35 T*, Ultron 1.8/50, Tessar 2.8/50, Planar 1.4/50 T* MM, 1.7/50 T* MM, 1.4/85 T* AEG, Sonnar 2.8/135 T*
Asahi Optical Co.: Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 4.5/20, 3.5/24, 3.5/28, 2/35, 3.5/35, 1.4/50, 1.8/55, 1.8/85, 2.8/105, 2.8/120, 2.5/135 I & II, 3.5/135, 4/150, 4/200, 4/300, 5.6/400, 4/45-125, 4.5/85-210, Super-Takumar 4.5/20, 3.5/24, 3.5/28, 2/35, 3.5/35, 1.4/50, 1.8/55, 2/55, 2.8/105, 3.5/135, 4/150, 4/200, 4.5/70-150, Fish-Eye-Takumar 4/17, Macro-Takumar 4/50, Super-Macro Takumar 4/50, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-Takumar 4/50, 4/100, Bellows-Takumar 4/100, Asahi-Kogaku Takumar 3.5/50, 2.4/58, 3.5/100, Asahi-Kogaku Tele-Takumar 3.5/135, Auto-Takumar 2.3/35, 3.5/35, 1.8/55, 1.8/55 (Zebra), 2/55, 2.2/55, 1.8/85, 2.8/105, 3.5/135, Takumar 4/35, 2.2/55, 2/58, 2.8/105, 3.5/135, 3.5/200, 5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 5.6/200, 6.3/300, SMC Takumar 1.4/50, 1.8/55, 2/55, SMC-M 1.4/50, 1.7/50, 2/50
Tomioka: Tominon 2/5cm, Auto-Chinon 3.5/21, 1.4/55, Auto-Yashinon DS-M 1.2/55 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Keep the Jupiter, the Takumar and the Rollei (sometime an f/2.8 is nice to have and you won't get much money for it anymay due to the QBM mount). _________________ 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 |
|
|
BRunner
Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Posts: 705 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
BRunner wrote:
Keep Rollei and sell all other including Takumar and Jupiter. Then buy MC CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135, it's opticaly better than Takumar or Jupiter and as bonus offers great close focus capability. _________________ .: APO-Maniac :. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
BRunner wrote: |
Keep Rollei and sell all other including Takumar and Jupiter. Then buy MC CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135, it's opticaly better than Takumar or Jupiter and as bonus offers great close focus capability. |
+1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
altwebid
Joined: 25 Jan 2011 Posts: 28 Location: Cape Town, RSA
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
altwebid wrote:
LucisPictor wrote: |
Keep the Jupiter, the Takumar and the Rollei (sometime an f/2.8 is nice to have and you won't get much money for it anymay due to the QBM mount). |
One sold on ebay yesterday for £53... that's more than I paid for the Jupiter or Takumar! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ducdao
Joined: 19 Jun 2010 Posts: 288 Location: Montreal, Canada
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:55 pm Post subject: Re: 135mm Lenses |
|
|
ducdao wrote:
altwebid wrote: |
Hi
For one reason or another I've ended up with 5 135mm lenses.
I should really get rid of some of them!
Any info or help in the decision would be appreciated.
ps. The Optomax was a freebie and is very scuffed on the outside with a lot of cleaning marks on the lens so I think that will be the first to go! |
Hearing you, I must feel really "guilty" with over 100 135mm lenses but for some reasons I don't
Seriously, I really enjoy collecting those 135mm's as there is something really particular for each of them. Also, I don't think there is any "bad" 135mm per se _________________ Duc
Pentax K100D/K10D/K20D/K-x/K-7 | DA15/ 35/40/70 Limited | DA10-17 | DA14 | DA* 50-135
Takumar: 24/3.5 | 28/3.5 | 35/2 | 35/2.3 | 35/3.5 | 50/1.4 | 55/1.8 | 85/1.8 | 85/1.9 | 105f2.8 | 135/2.5 | 135/3.5 | 150/4 | 200/4 | 300/4
Pentax: K20/4 | M20/4 | M28/3.5 | K30/2.8 | K35/3.5 | M50/1.4 | M50/1.7 | K50/1.2 | K50/1.4 | K55/1.8 | A50/1.4 | M85/2 | M100/2.8 | K105/2.8 | M100/f4 | M135/3.5 | K135/2.5 | M150/4 | M200/4 | M300/4
M42: Too many to list
Stock Images
My Flickr: Sunny Skye
Last edited by ducdao on Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6627 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
The Optomax is I believe a Sankor (Sankyo), because most of the lenses in Optomax brand I have seen are from this maker.
Optomax was a brand used by a UK distributor.
Some of the Sankors are very good, the 105 particularly, both auto and preset. The preset 135/2.8 is also very good.
Better than a Zeiss or a Takumar ? Probably not, but it may not be that easy to tell the difference.
For sure it is of no value. On the other hand you have nothing to gain by selling it ! _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
dsmlogger
Joined: 14 Apr 2010 Posts: 178 Location: Athens, Greece
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
dsmlogger wrote:
I would keep the Rolleinar and the Jupiter-37.
The reasons are mentioned above, no meaning on repeating them.
However, all lenses are worth a try.
If not satisfied with their results, there is always the Marketplace or eBay. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uhoh7
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
What are the LIGHTEST 135mms?
esp in LTM
Jupiter 11? _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wupdigoj
Joined: 18 Mar 2010 Posts: 85
|
Posted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
wupdigoj wrote:
I have an Optomax 135 2.8 in PK mount. It is an O.K. lens (no bad 135, right ). I don't use it much because its minimum focus distance is nearly 3 m!!. Regards
Javier |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Big Dawg
Joined: 28 Jan 2009 Posts: 2530 Location: Thach Alabama
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big Dawg wrote:
Tak, Rolly and Jupey. _________________ Big Dawg |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shauttra
Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 778 Location: Latvia
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shauttra wrote:
Jupiter MC is exellent lens, i have two versions - MC and without MC, difference is amazing!! _________________ Mto-1000, Tair-3, Auto Exaktar 135mm 2,8, Samyang 14mm 2.8,
Jupiter 37A, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135/3.5,
Helios-44, Mir-1, Revuenon 50/1.4,
Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50/1.8, Samyang 24/1.4, Auto Vivitar 35/2.8
www.radosi.lv
http://shauttra.blogspot.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
altwebid wrote: |
LucisPictor wrote: |
Keep the Jupiter, the Takumar and the Rollei (sometime an f/2.8 is nice to have and you won't get much money for it anymay due to the QBM mount). |
One sold on ebay yesterday for £53... that's more than I paid for the Jupiter or Takumar! |
Not the typical price of that QBM lens. _________________ 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 |
|
|
uhoh7
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
I'm reading that the Rolleinar-MC is 305 grams?
Could that be true?
F/2.8 at that weight might really be usefull to me.
Sounds like colors are great,
the f/3.5 tak is 320 grams
I would prefer the brighter lens, but resoulution is also an issue.
It's for nex-5 so I can use any mount.
Sharp, Bright, Light...under 250USD
Rolleinar-MC? Many versions of the f/2.8?
TY as always _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spleenone
Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 1130 Location: Slovakia
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spleenone wrote:
Fujinon 135mm f2.5 with only 425grams. Price should be under 250usd and what next? Looks like my dream lens. Smooth bokeh with beautiful fathful color rendering. Also sharp.
But sometimes hard to find. _________________ Shoot on analog mainly with
Nikkor glass
then Pentacon6TL for squares
and Fujica GL690 in case of 6x9
Carpe diem! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
uhoh7 wrote: |
I'm reading that the Rolleinar-MC is 305 grams?
Could that be true?
F/2.8 at that weight might really be usefull to me. |
Well, the smallest 135mm f/2.8 I have is an Olympus one and it's 330 grams so theoretically not impossible to be 305 grams. The Rolleinar looks larger, though. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Arkku
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 1416 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arkku wrote:
spleenone wrote: |
Fujinon 135mm f2.5 with only 425grams. Price should be under 250usd and what next? Looks like my dream lens. Smooth bokeh with beautiful fathful color rendering. Also sharp.
But sometimes hard to find. |
Yeah, it's a great lens like many other Fujinons. I have one on my desk right now and it weighs in at 439 grams without caps, but… =)
(Ah well, thanks for mentioning the lens anyhow, I'm been meaning to sell this extra copy I have but never seem to get around to taking photos of it. Maybe this weekend I will…) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uhoh7
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
Seems the CZJ sonnar and the jupi are a tad over 400g
I do need to be able to adjust aperture manually--can you do that on the fujinon f/2.5?
(i asume the rolleinar can)
Another speed issue: since I am APS-C the crop is 1.5x and so I need a good shutter speed handheld. Something really sharp at f/2.8 would help.
The Olympus OM Zuiko 135mm f/2.8 also looks pretty good--great size, and also seems quite sharp:
http://lawrenceripsher.com/blog/2009/12/olympus-om-zuiko-135mm-f2-8-lens-review-with-canon-eos.html
There are a bunch of them on the bay too, plus I already have a OM adapter, hmmmmm
best,
Charlie _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spleenone
Joined: 26 Dec 2009 Posts: 1130 Location: Slovakia
|
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spleenone wrote:
uhoh7 wrote: |
I do need to be able to adjust aperture manually--can you do that on the fujinon f/2.5? |
m42 Fuji lenses haven't A/M switch but if your adapter has rim for push screw lenses aperture pin then it would be okay. _________________ Shoot on analog mainly with
Nikkor glass
then Pentacon6TL for squares
and Fujica GL690 in case of 6x9
Carpe diem! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Banjo
Joined: 25 Jun 2009 Posts: 75 Location: Oz (Near Adelaide)
|
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Banjo wrote:
I have about 7 or 8 (haven't counted) 135mm lenses (Zuiko, Tamron, Takumar M42, Pentax K): all loveable in their own way!
Should use them more! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uhoh7
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
here's an interesting collection of 135s
http://www.flickr.com/photos/siimvahur/4525551616/
check his photostream: fantastic series of old cameras, very well shot. _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uhoh7
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
Well, I grabbed one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rt=nc&nma=true&item=260730403842&si=qMtTkjvR3CbHigxahGnFrGYGh%252BY%253D&viewitem=&sspagename=ADME%3AB%3AEOIBSA%3AUS%3A1123
TY for all the great input.
Turns out the Rolli is not under 400 grams.
I also have a bid in on a nice looking J-12....
That brings me to 4 135s....nothing, right? _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uhoh7
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
well the oly f/2.8 came and seems very nice
100:
In fact, it seems extremely nice, TY very much for pointing me at this one. A bit pricey at 102USD (they have a following), but this copy turned out to be mint.
Not bad for handheld, moving target and 1.5x crop, eh? _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
uhoh7
Joined: 24 Nov 2010 Posts: 1300 Location: Idaho, USA
|
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uhoh7 wrote:
Well I was turned on to a real sleeper over at dyxum.
Perhaps the smallest and lightest 135---and it's VERY cheap. It's also supposed to be quite good.
Minolta MD 135 f/3.5 w/49mm filter: somewhere between 26o and 280 grams and very small.
Three versions
rokkor-x
celtic
md
They appear identical, but the rokkor-x would be most desirable. "MD" is newest, but appears very slightly heavier. The celtic looks identical but has different dimensions according to one data base.
Only the 49mm filter models are this small.
Easily found mint for 25USD _________________ Making MFlenses safe for the letter *L* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|