| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57849
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:13 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Attila wrote:
Yes they are different lens, I have Jupiter-11A only that is an excellent sharp lens.
I guess you asked Tair-11A the newest probably MC version. I have an older Tair-11 133mm M39 lens I just love it.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paul
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 173
Location: Hamburg-Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: Best 135mm? |
|
|
Paul wrote:
Hi,
I'm new here (came across this link over the site adaptall-2.com because I have some/many Tamronon-lenses in use).
In former years I tried several different camera-systems in order to find the best for me.
Due to financial reasons I had to find the most economic way between quality and money.
I compared Canon FD, EOS, Contax/Yashica, Leica R, Rollei, Olympus OM and Pentax.
I usually tried 28 or 35 and 50 and 135mm lenses.
Here's my result (from memory) - with film-slr!
1. C/Y Sonnar 2.8
2. Pentax A 1.8
3. Rolleinar 2.8
4. Pentax K 2.5 on par Leica 2.8
5. Canon FD 2.8 on par Pentacon MC 2.8 (non zebra-version, one of the latest)
6. Pentax 3.5
7. Olympus 2.8
Quite disappointed with the Leica lens - I expected much better results...
Pics had a different 'feeling' though - but sharpness/contrast wasn't the strongest thing from the Leica.
Formerly I had made a comparison between the Pentax lenses and the Porst 1.8/135:
The Porst was obviously weaker!
At F 2.8 it came a bit closer - but only in the real center of the pic, the corners were really still quite bad.
I never tested apertures from 4.0 and above.....
When I compared some 135mm lenses with my dslr (Pentax DS) I hadn't all these lenses (esp. the 1.8 had to go in the meantime... sadly):
1. Pentacon MC 2.8
2. Pentax K 2.5
3. Pentax 3.5
4. CZJ Sonnar 3.5
5. Mamiya SX 2.8
Surprisingly the differences between the Pentacon and the Pentax 2.5 on dslr!
Perhaps my copy of the CZJ was not that good (as I ecpected) but the others were simply better!
One thing about the 50mm race:
Zeiss 1.4 and Pentax K 1.2 on par at the top - better than Leica R 2.0 !
(never had an Oly 50mm-lens or the Canon EF 1.4/50 USM)
_________________
 Paul
(SLR-experiences since 1981)
Pentax and Canon - Sony digital as well
too many lenses and flashes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57849
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Nice to see you here Paul! Thank you for joining us! Your list is very valuable for me, because you have or had many lens what I certainly don't have. Interesting you also marked Pentacon 135mm as one of the best lens same than me. I don't know why so low priced on the market. Perhaps the quantity , the reason too much available on the market.
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Himself
Joined: 01 Mar 2007
Posts: 3215
Location: Montreal
Expire: 2013-05-30
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Himself wrote:
| stopwind wrote: |
Hi all, I'm a new guy here~ nice to meet all of you~
Is the Asahi Super Takumar 135mm F2.5 good? 
I got a Carl Zeiss Jena MC 135/3.5, dunno which one is better~ |
There are 2 version of Takumar 135mm, f/2.5.
Second one is the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul
Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 173
Location: Hamburg-Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paul wrote:
| Attila wrote: |
| Interesting you also marked Pentacon 135mm as one of the best lens same than me. I don't know why so low priced on the market. Perhaps the quantity , the reason too much available on the market. |
I guess it has different reasons:
1. Made in GDR (former eastern Germany) but not the Zeiss Jena name
2. GDR exported quite cheaply to get international/western currency
3. M42-mount that not many do like to handle with (except for lenses with extreme big apertures like 1.8/135 or CarlZeiss Jena lenses for the Zeiss name)
I bought this lens from a collegue who was the 1st owner. Wanted it for indoor sports shots with my EOS (via adaptor) for 2.8-Canon-lenses are much too expensive!
Then I found some guy in dpreview (if I remember correctly) who confirmed my findings. He made some superb shots with a dslr. I find the results from this lens from a dslr even better than with film-slr....
_________________
Paul
(SLR-experiences since 1981)
Pentax and Canon - Sony digital as well
too many lenses and flashes |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
