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

SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 3:57 am    Post subject: SMC Pentax-M 135/3.5 Reply with quote


Moscow

open aperture


PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a lovely little lens - very small and light.
I like mine for landscapes.
Yours is plenty sharp enough. Thanks for sharing these
Tom


PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seems sharp but bokeh on the first one is very distracting.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't used mine a lot yet. At 3.5 it is not a bokeh monster, but in this case the wire fence probably has a lot to do with it. This was taken with the K-5


Bench Bokeh by The lens profile, on Flickr


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 2:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice samples! Does anybody know how this version of this 135/3.5 lens compares to other versions?


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

invisible wrote:
Very nice samples! Does anybody know how this version of this 135/3.5 lens compares to other versions?


There are comparisons over on the Pentax Lenses website:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

This lens' great asset is its size and weight.
Not a bokeh monster as other 135's are but a very capable lens nonetheless.
Also relatively cheap
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:
invisible wrote:
Very nice samples! Does anybody know how this version of this 135/3.5 lens compares to other versions?


There are comparisons over on the Pentax Lenses website:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

This lens' great asset is its size and weight.
Not a bokeh monster as other 135's are but a very capable lens nonetheless.
Also relatively cheap
Tom

Thank you for this. I thought there was an A version, but it looks like the f/3.5 was discontinued after the M version. There is a K version which (going by the reviews on that page) is rated similarly to the M version. However, they have a different number of aperture blades and also a different number of groups/elements. The non-M appears to be slightly sharper, but also heavier.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

invisible wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
invisible wrote:
Very nice samples! Does anybody know how this version of this 135/3.5 lens compares to other versions?


There are comparisons over on the Pentax Lenses website:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

This lens' great asset is its size and weight.
Not a bokeh monster as other 135's are but a very capable lens nonetheless.
Also relatively cheap
Tom

Thank you for this. I thought there was an A version, but it looks like the f/3.5 was discontinued after the M version. There is a K version which (going by the reviews on that page) is rated similarly to the M version. However, they have a different number of aperture blades and also a different number of groups/elements. The non-M appears to be slightly sharper, but also heavier.


Yes, the K version is about one-third heavier again as well as one third longer.
The convenience of the M version is its big advantage. I use it for landscapes because it is so easy to carry about.

#1


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

These aren't bad lenses by any means, but there are so many decent 135s out there, I have never understood why these are considered so highly.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

martinsmith99 wrote:
These aren't bad lenses by any means, but there are so many decent 135s out there, I have never understood why these are considered so highly.


Because they are pretty compact, there are a lot of them, so they are great value. Also being from the late seventies/early eighties coatings are relatively modern. The Pentax-m lenses were designed to be very compact.

A lot of the earlier K-mount lenses were the same as takumars with a different mount. I guess compactness became an issue when cameras got to be more mass market articles. From the k series to the M-series only the 50mm 1.4 and the 50 and 100 F4 macro lens designs survived. (There were some new lens designs in the K series though but they are unique to the series, generally very good lenses and pretty sought after.)


PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olympus OM series cameras and lenses were a huge impetus toward smaller 35mm SLR's. My first camera, an OM-1, was dramatically smaller than my Mom's FTb. Both had the 50mm 1.8 kit lenses. Oly lens was every bit as good.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

After the Olympus OM-1 Pentax followed with the very compact ME and MX and the M-series of their lenses.
I had many 135mm-lenses - both the K and M 3.5 as well.
The K 3.5 is not only bigger and heavier but it doesn't have a built-in lens-hood but a screw-in one. this makes it even bigger.
I have a test of all 135mm-lenses from the early 1980's from a german photo magazin (ColorFoto) and waht they found out :
The K has a bit more sharpness but both have their sharpness across the whole Image right to the corners.
The K 2.5 is said to be better - and on film slr I found that to be true but not so on dslr. On dslr it's a bit tricky and the small M 3.5 much easier to use.
The M has different colours than the K Version too!
I loved the M much more and therefore sold the K and K 2.5 and bought me an additional M.
Wink

As for a comparison against other 135mm lenses:
The A 2.8 is not better but wide open less sharp.
The A* 1.8 is the best 135-lens I ever had.
(still sad that I sold it - and the other A*-lenses - years ago due to financial problems)

I also have a Canon dslr and what I found out with adapted manual lenses:
The Olympus 2.8/135 is very sharp - even if the test result of ColorFoto wasn't that good.
The Rollei 2.8/135 should expect better results but I found it only on film slr to be a great lens but nothing better (if not worse) on a dslr.
The best short tele manual focus lens I have is the Tamron SP 2.8/90 macro (adaptall-system).
BTW compared to the well regarded Canon L 4/70-200....


PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D1N0 wrote:
From the k series to the M-series only the 50mm 1.4 and the 50 and 100 F4 macro lens designs survived.
Just nitpicking. The K SMC 50/1.4 is a direct copy of SMC Takumar. It uses thoriated glass as Takumar does. On the other hand, the M SMC 50/1.4 is a bit smaller and doesn't use thoriated glass.

So the M SMC 50/1.4 isn't really a survivor from the K-series.