Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

135mm Tele Prime choices?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Normal usage - using them to make pleasing pictures, rather than a fringe obsession such as squinting at 100% crops of the outer corners of the image looking for signs of uncorrected aberrations.





The other 135 I really love is the Konica Hexanon 3.2/135, it's amazing close up, whereas the Sonnar shines more at distance.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Two more that I didn't think of when I wrote my first response. The Canon LTM 3.5/100 (which is an absolutely stunning performer, small but surprisingly hefty for its size as Canon was into chromed brass lenses back then) and the Canon LTM 3.5/135mm, another stunning performer but larger and heavier than the 100mm.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 17, 2017 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My best 135mm is by far the Sony Sonnar Zeiss 135/1.8. I bought it second hand, in mint condition, for less than half the new price. The lens is heavy and bulky, but sharpness and bokeh are outstanding, even wide open. I also think the AF is a plus, although I mostly use MF.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hexanon 3.2/135 going cheap on ebay UK:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Konica-Hexanon-135mm-f-3-2/192399714982?hash=item2ccbeaaaa6:g:kzEAAOSwZlZaFxle


PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

a slower Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 3.5/135 i really enjoyed using
for its handling and for its colours .... The thing was as old as me !

a faster EBC Fujinon-T 2.5/135 from the '70s wasn't mentioned, really nice colours

Unless your a pro, shooting for posters, you'll have fun with most of these old things !


PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quite happy with my compact Minolta MD Rokkor 135mm 2.8 (5/5 lens) as it is compact, has integrated shade and focuses smoothly on top of what Steve had to say about it. Very cheap.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 18, 2017 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Normal usage - using them to make pleasing pictures, rather than a fringe obsession such as squinting at 100% crops of the outer corners of the image looking for signs of uncorrected aberrations.

I will make a separate posting and explain why such things are quite important in my work. Just one example from this morning - a large 14m high coloured glass window i had to shoot, for a fine-art book.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

...
The other 135 I really love is the Konica Hexanon 3.2/135, it's amazing close-up ...

We certainly agree about that Wink

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry guys, just had a rush of blood and ordered this Praktica 135 2.8 , this is the part where you tell me I bought the worst 135mm Laugh 1

On the plus side it was cheap, and will let me have some time with the focal range and decide if it suits me, then (assuming this one isn't amazing) I can start looking for something better. I promise all your great advice has not gone to waste and is very much appreciated.







PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AAddict wrote:
Sorry guys, just had a rush of blood and ordered this Praktica 135 2.8 , this is the part where you tell me I bought the worst 135mm Laugh 1

On the plus side it was cheap, and will let me have some time with the focal range and decide if it suits me, then (assuming this one isn't amazing) I can start looking for something better. I promise all your great advice has not gone to waste and is very much appreciated.







I would be very surprised if this was anything other than a good lens.
Most 135mm lenses are.
On the plus side - it looks unused.
Share your images with it if you would like to
Tom


PostPosted: Wed Dec 20, 2017 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:


I would be very surprised if this was anything other than a good lens.
Most 135mm lenses are.
On the plus side - it looks unused.
Share your images with it if you would like to
Tom


Thanks, fingers crossed, I'll be sure to share a few and my findings.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A nice one that I use and it is light and compact is the EBC Fujinon X 135/3,5 .Good oltics for everyday use.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 23, 2017 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The 135s in my collection
-Vivitar VMC 135/2.3, heavy lens, not tried it yet
-Vivitar 135/2.8 CF, most versatile one, sharp at inf and works well on close too when stopped down, purple fringing is quiet visible at F2.8.
-Steinheil Quinar 135/2.8, beautiful lens, the corner never become sharp, excellent for portraits.
-Rollei HTF Sonnar 135/2.8, zeiss color with good contrast, sharpness is decent, mfd is a bit long(1.5m)
-Piesker 135/3.5, an interesting triplet with long mfd.
-Various 135/4.5 enlargers..... Although they are slow, they do have different characters.

You can find samples on my threads forum or my flickr, except the first one.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry for the delay in replying. I finally got out to have a go with the Praktica 135 f/2.8 today. The sun was very low, but got a few nice photos for my first real attempt with the lens. Since I posted this thread I've picked up two more praktica lenses, the 50mm f/1.8 and the 28mm f/2.8 macro capable. I also have a 35mm Flektogon f/2.4 on the way so I have a few to be playing with now.

Here's a link to today photos

https://flic.kr/s/aHsmaHzAJ6

DSC07230 by Anthony Andrades, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a Tamron 135mm F2.5 (03B). It so happened that I sold it. I want to get something to replace, inexpensive. Common 135mm f2.8 (2.5), Minolta MC (6/5) , MD-III (5/5) , canon nfd 135mm f2.8, konica 135mm f2.5 ? Still have adapters for OM and Fujica x ) Interested in more than just the pattern (unusual or interesting)

Tamron 135 mm f2.5 (model 03B)


PostPosted: Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Minolta MC 135mm 1:2.8 [6/5]
: available as MC-I/-II and MC-X; MC-II and MC-X have a very smooth focusing. Quite heavy, very well built.
Minolta MD-III 135mm 1:2.8 [5/5]: Better optical performance and lighter than the [6/5] MC variant, but less smooth to focus. Relatively lightweight. Less than 1% distortion.
Canon nFD 135mm 1:2.8: Detail resolution and CAs nearly identical to the Minolta MD-III [5/5], but i prefer the Minolta colors
Konica Hexanon AR 135mm 1:2.5: Very nice lens if you don't mind its rather hefty weight and the annoying aperture mechanism of the Hexanons.
Almost no CAs at f5.6 (see my test here: http://artaphot.ch/konica-ar/lens-tests/505-135mm-ar-hexanons-f25-f32-f35)

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just realized I didn't mention in my first post the 135s I actually own. So for the sake of completeness, here they are. As it turns out, I own only two 135s -- the much praised Vivitar 135/2.8 CF, and a quite obscure, yet very good performer -- the Kyoei Super Acall 135/3.5 LTM.

The Vivitar renders unusually good images, no matter the distance. I generally shoot with mine set to f/8 and the results are outstanding.

The Kyoei -- most of my experience with it is using it on my Canon LTM cameras and I have found it to render very good images. This is the second one I've owned. The first one was mounted to a Canon IVSb rangefinder I bought back in the early 80s. When I sold it back in about 1989, it went for peanuts because it was generally thought of as a sub-standard lens. But when I bought it back several years ago, I was amazed at the amount of interest thee was in the old Kyoei glass. I had to dig around on eBay for quite a while before I found an auction for this lens that I could afford. I don't recall anymore what I paid for it but it was probably more than the $75 I paid for the outfit back in 1982 or so. Mine even came in its original plush-lined display box.




The Kyoei 135 even came with a brochure, showing all of Kyoei's products. I have decided not to show them here, but started a new thread instead. You can find it here:

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic,p,1508032.html#1508032


PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A really nice one, in my opinion, with good sharpness, nice bokeh and contrasty colour rendering is the Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestor f/2.8 135mm.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've been shooting with a Schact 135 f3.5 LTM lately. Love it.

/Users/andrewsdesk/Desktop/Sch135-9045RW6400-Chinatown-030218v3.jpg[/img]


PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

Minolta MC 135mm 1:2.8 [6/5]
: available as MC-I/-II and MC-X; MC-II and MC-X have a very smooth focusing. Quite heavy, very well built.
Minolta MD-III 135mm 1:2.8 [5/5]: Better optical performance and lighter than the [6/5] MC variant, but less smooth to focus. Relatively lightweight. Less than 1% distortion.


Stephan, I am a little bit confused as on your site you state that the 4/4 version with the heavy LD-glass element is the best version and here you don't even mention it.

I only have this rather heavy MD II version from 1978 which produces CA's under certain conditions when used open but performs quite nicely when stopped down; at least on digital APS-C.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
stevemark wrote:

Minolta MC 135mm 1:2.8 [6/5]
: available as MC-I/-II and MC-X; MC-II and MC-X have a very smooth focusing. Quite heavy, very well built.
Minolta MD-III 135mm 1:2.8 [5/5]: Better optical performance and lighter than the [6/5] MC variant, but less smooth to focus. Relatively lightweight. Less than 1% distortion.


Stephan, I am a little bit confused as on your site you state that the 4/4 version with the heavy LD-glass element is the best version and here you don't even mention it.

Oh, i just "copy/pasted" serguns list, and added my comment ... that's why!

tb_a wrote:

I only have this rather heavy MD II version from 1978 which produces CA's under certain conditions when used open but performs quite nicely when stopped down; at least on digital APS-C.

On 24MP FF these vintage 2.8/135mm lenses are not perfect at all. But the Batis 2.8/135mm is quite a bit more expensive!

The best vintage 2.8/135mm i know is the Carl Zeiss CY 2.8/135mm. Very good corner resolution even at f2.8, and less CAs than the e. g. the Minolta 2.8/135mm [4/4] or [5/5].

Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

On 24MP FF these vintage 2.8/135mm lenses are not perfect at all. But the Batis 2.8/135mm is quite a bit more expensive!

The best vintage 2.8/135mm i know is the Carl Zeiss CY 2.8/135mm. Very good corner resolution even at f2.8, and less CAs than the e. g. the Minolta 2.8/135mm [4/4] or [5/5].


OK, thanks for your answer.

That's the reason why I prefer my ancient Leitz Elmar 135/4 which is already tack sharp without any traces of CA's wide open.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course the vintage lenses we are discussing aren't 'perfect' that goes without saying. But some people seem to want us to think they are all crap, not worthy of our use.

The simple truth is, there are lots of vintage 135mm lenses that are very capable of producing excellent results on modern digital cameras, even 24mp FF ones.

I've found the humble J11 to be very good on my 24mp FF a850, as is the CZJ MC Electric 3.5/135 and the Schneider Tele-Xenar 4/135, I haven't tried many of my other 135s on the a850 as most won't fit.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I ordered Konica AR 135mm f2.5 . But before Re Auto Topcor 135mm f3.5 was bought, I shot it four years ago on Fuji. Like the blur and wanted to try on ff.
Fuji e2 + Re Topcor 135mm f3.5 (f3.5-4)


PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve,
Not clear to me from your website.
Apart from the focusing difference (Cu-Al versus Al-Al) and weight, what are the differences between the Minolta 4/4 and the 5/5 135mm f2.8 optically?


PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sergun wrote:
I ordered Konica AR 135mm f2.5 . But before Re Auto Topcor 135mm f3.5 was bought, I shot it four years ago on Fuji. Like the blur and wanted to try on ff.
Fuji e2 + Re Topcor 135mm f3.5 (f3.5-4)


I love the RE Topcor, certainly one of the best 135s from that era. My favourite of the Hexanon 135s is the f3.2, but there is little to chose between it and the Topcon, I did once compare them.