135mm Lenses

[altwebid]

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!

[Mal1905]

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'

[LucisPictor]

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).

[BRunner]

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.

[Arkku]

[altwebid]

[ducdao]

[luisalegria]

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 !

[dsmlogger]

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.

[uhoh7]

What are the LIGHTEST 135mms?

esp in LTM

Jupiter 11?

[wupdigoj]

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

[Big Dawg]

Tak, Rolly and Jupey.

[shauttra]

Jupiter MC is exellent lens, i have two versions - MC and without MC, difference is amazing!!

[LucisPictor]

[uhoh7]

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

[spleenone]

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.

[Arkku]

[Arkku]

[uhoh7]

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

[spleenone]

[Banjo]

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!

[uhoh7]

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.

[uhoh7]

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?

[uhoh7]

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?

[uhoh7]

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