Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

which 135/2,5 lens do you prefer?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:40 pm    Post subject: which 135/2,5 lens do you prefer? Reply with quote
There are some 135 mm F/2,5 lenses.

Fujinon, Hexanon, Canon, Super Takumar (SMC. K mount), Tamron, etc.

Which is your prefer one?


PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can't say that 135mm is where I like to use a lens much,
but I have a Tokina-made Soligor 135/2.8 in T4 mount
which gives great results after cleaning fungus out of it.
Sorry, I have no examples.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
M42 Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 2.5/135 model II product 43812 6/6 elements/groups.

There is an earlier model product 43802 with 5/4 formula, same as the earlier Super-TAKUMAR. These are not as sharp wide open. I have owned all three.

Honorable mention is the Tamron adaptall-2 2.5/135, model 03B, a much more compact lens which should be an SP lens imho. Edit: Owned it too, kinda regret selling...

Last edited by visualopsins on Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:08 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:40 pm    Post subject: Re: which 135/2,5 lens do you prefer? Reply with quote
papasito wrote:


Which is your prefer one?


My prefer one is, of course, the Hexanon. Because it is only one which I have in possession. Tuzki with lens


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've had my Tamron #03B 135mm f/2.5 since the '70's, it was second-hand when I bought it and it continues to perform as well as it ever did. The only other f/2.5 135mm I've got is a Vivitar TX (Tokina manufacture), which is a relatively recent acquisition and, despite there being nothing "wrong" with the mages it produces, is even heavier than the Tamron so tends not to get chosen to be put in my bag.

None of my several other 135mm lenses have such a wide aperture, but they're all somewhat lighter Wink


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My only lens in this category is the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 4/4 lens from the 1980's. It's far better than expected. I've originally acquired it for my Pentax K20D and still own it. In comparison to my other 135mm lenses it's one of the better ones.
Here are some user-reviews: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-Takumar-135mm-F2.5-Bayonet-Lens.html


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My experience with MY COPIES was

Konica . Nice lens. Good sharpness médium contrast with moderate CA wide open to F/5,6.

I sold it because my F/3,2 was a bit sharper, mire light and with less CA.

Súper Multicoated Takumar (2 v.)

Súper sharp. With great contrast and super colors.
Very heavy
Strong Lateral and longitudinal CA.

Fuji is the best?


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have both S-M-C Takumar V2 and Tamron 03B. Both excellent. Both have green and purple fringing in the out of focus parts. The Takumar is probably more resistant to veiling flare. I haven't had the 03B for long enough to really compare though.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
M42 Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 2.5/135 model II product 43812 6/6 elements/groups.


I have this one. It also has an 8-bladed aperture, which is nice.

It's a very good lens, though I'm not sure it quite deserves its cult following. It would be interesting to put it up against the others in your list, especially the Fujinon.

My observations are based solely on my single copy, and that's always a risk with old lenses.

I find myself using my Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 3.5 more often. It's much smaller, much lighter, much less expensive, and it has excellent IQ.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
KEO wrote:
visualopsins wrote:
M42 Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 2.5/135 model II product 43812 6/6 elements/groups.


I have this one. It also has an 8-bladed aperture, which is nice.

It's a very good lens, though I'm not sure it quite deserves its cult following. It would be interesting to put it up against the others in your list, especially the Fujinon.

My observations are based solely on my single copy, and that's always a risk with old lenses.

I find myself using my Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 3.5 more often. It's much smaller, much lighter, much less expensive, and it has excellent IQ.


+1! about cult & comparison with others listed.

As papasito mentions it is big & heavy, like 66x85mm 58mm filter 444kg! Looks quite awesome on full size Cannon EOS camera for example. Front heavy on a7r2, no doubt.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have two: Canon FD 2.5/135 and SMC Pentax K 2.5/135 (which is same optics as v2 Takumar)
The Canon is not as sharp wide open as the Pentax but has smoother bokeh, so great for some portraits. Both are heavy.
The only Hexanon I have is the 3.2/135.
It is at least as sharp as the Pentax at widest aperture, and maybe a whisker sharper, but bokeh is busier.
It is lighter and focuses closer, mfd just under 1m.
Ladies and children portraits, Canon FD
Landscapes, Hexanon
Great all rounder and used on ME Super for film, SMC Pentax K 135/2.5
Tom


PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a few 2.5/135mm lenses, among them the Canon FL and FD 2.5/135mm (not the same optics!), the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm and an early M42 Super Takumar 2.5/135mm. I don't use them, because i prefer either the Canon nFD 2/135mm or the Nikkor AiS 2/135mm. Especially the Canon is relatively lightweight. It balances well, and its focusing ring is not too large (the Nikkor has a too large diameter IMHO).

I may take a few comparing images later today to show the differences between the four 2.5/135mm lenses mentioned above, and the 2/135mm Canon nFD.

S


PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
I have two: Canon FD 2.5/135 and SMC Pentax K 2.5/135 (which is same optics as v2 Takumar)
The Canon is not as sharp wide open as the Pentax but has smoother bokeh, so great for some portraits. Both are heavy.
The only Hexanon I have is the 3.2/135.
It is at least as sharp as the Pentax at widest aperture, and maybe a whisker sharper, but bokeh is busier.
It is lighter and focuses closer, mfd just under 1m.
Ladies and children portraits, Canon FD
Landscapes, Hexanon
Great all rounder and used on ME Super for film, SMC Pentax K 135/2.5
Tom


Yes totally agree with the Hexanon 135mm f3.2, great lens, I’ve had a lot of 135mm pass through my fingers over the years is this far and away my favourite, need to track another Jupiter 11A down as impressed by this one also.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
I have a few 2.5/135mm lenses, among them the Canon FL and FD 2.5/135mm (not the same optics!), the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm and an early M42 Super Takumar 2.5/135mm. I don't use them, because i prefer either the Canon nFD 2/135mm or the Nikkor AiS 2/135mm. Especially the Canon is relatively lightweight. It balances well, and its focusing ring is not too large (the Nikkor has a too large diameter IMHO).

I may take a few comparing images later today to show the differences between the four 2.5/135mm lenses mentioned above, and the 2/135mm Canon nFD.

S



Thank you.
Very informative comparing to come


PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
Oldhand wrote:
I have two: Canon FD 2.5/135 and SMC Pentax K 2.5/135 (which is same optics as v2 Takumar)
The Canon is not as sharp wide open as the Pentax but has smoother bokeh, so great for some portraits. Both are heavy.
The only Hexanon I have is the 3.2/135.
It is at least as sharp as the Pentax at widest aperture, and maybe a whisker sharper, but bokeh is busier.
It is lighter and focuses closer, mfd just under 1m.
Ladies and children portraits, Canon FD
Landscapes, Hexanon
Great all rounder and used on ME Super for film, SMC Pentax K 135/2.5
Tom


Yes totally agree with the Hexanon 135mm f3.2, great lens, I’ve had a lot of 135mm pass through my fingers over the years is this far and away my favourite, need to track another Jupiter 11A down as impressed by this one also.


Out of the post. I found the mamiya SX (rolleinar MC) 2,8/135 to be more sharp from wide open (f/3,5) than the great hexanon 135/3,2.
So I sold the 3 2


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 4:45 pm    Post subject: Konica AR Hexanon 135/2.5 Reply with quote
Konica AR Hexanon 135/2.5 at full opening. Camera Sony a7s From the RAW file Only rised up the contrast.

https://scontent.fiev21-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/90320011_2844539425633376_8289402304231112704_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQlneFEekg4mm7cHnyYChTNNF5QkYvHYXVlDfRKhqd1RxeB5DvpQN4FCbcdDuxF1qew&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-1.fna&oh=20fa9ecbf21432bd5e79f63b65eddf46&oe=5E98DD32



https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/90232347_2844696295617689_3899467667794296832_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQneO54y8LaAuvRRX6QMotq4Shve7ZZ-cXfEJWshOYNaDnHwDBTqX6dRaNuZBgawy6s&_nc_ht=scontent-waw1-1.xx&oh=84ef130ef09821f048356874fb2d529b&oe=5E986E7D

There is at 8.0 However, I did a lot of processing for the final image.

https://scontent.fiev21-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/89920269_2844779468942705_5646934262461497344_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQmx6RnW2BI2_-AKVYzg3mzTVgAPXfMdgp9kkuuona498cOhywWEdnu5vHBhorx8t3g&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-1.fna&oh=fa649fa9617e7826c0c569a918b3769b&oe=5E96F79A


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:29 pm    Post subject: Re: Konica AR Hexanon 135/2.5 Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
Konica AR Hexanon 135/2.5 at full opening. Camera Sony a7s From the RAW file Only rised up the contrast.

https://scontent.fiev21-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/90320011_2844539425633376_8289402304231112704_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQlneFEekg4mm7cHnyYChTNNF5QkYvHYXVlDfRKhqd1RxeB5DvpQN4FCbcdDuxF1qew&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-1.fna&oh=20fa9ecbf21432bd5e79f63b65eddf46&oe=5E98DD32



https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/90232347_2844696295617689_3899467667794296832_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQneO54y8LaAuvRRX6QMotq4Shve7ZZ-cXfEJWshOYNaDnHwDBTqX6dRaNuZBgawy6s&_nc_ht=scontent-waw1-1.xx&oh=84ef130ef09821f048356874fb2d529b&oe=5E986E7D

There is at 8.0 However, I did a lot of processing for the final image.

https://scontent.fiev21-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/89920269_2844779468942705_5646934262461497344_o.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQmx6RnW2BI2_-AKVYzg3mzTVgAPXfMdgp9kkuuona498cOhywWEdnu5vHBhorx8t3g&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-1.fna&oh=fa649fa9617e7826c0c569a918b3769b&oe=5E96F79A


Thank you, very much.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Konica AR Hexanon 135/2.5 Reply with quote
papasito wrote:


Thank you, very much.


One more, upon 8.0 However, also edited very much

https://scontent.fiev21-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/89931925_2845081605579158_5357673094158745600_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQkb822jWGWJ-LtJ_oyjPkXdt5rwlZbvA3rKzGgYZYkHxBQT0fz-ta0NsN_jXIPzK48&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-2.fna&oh=8654a697e17fc9c76aebd6332592ab5f&oe=5E992471


PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of those I have the Fujinon, Hexanon and Canon.
I prefer the EBC Fujinon (the bayonet one) to the other two. It's a great lens, head and shoulders above the other Fuji's 135s (I also have Fujinon 135/3,5 and Fujinar 135/2.8 ).
And it is much more compact and light than the Konica or Canon.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Manichaean wrote:
Of those I have the Fujinon, Hexanon and Canon.
I prefer the EBC Fujinon (the bayonet one) to the other two. It's a great lens, head and shoulders above the other Fuji's 135s (I also have Fujinon 135/3,5 and Fujinar 135/2.8 ).
And it is much more compact and light than the Konica or Canon.


I am sure that this is a fine lens.
Hard to find and expensive when found.
I am not sure that I would be prepared to pay today's prices for it.
Do you have any images from it that show its beauty?
Tom


PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I often see the SMC Pentax K 135mm 1:2.5 Go for not so much. It used to be quite popular among Pentaxians. The S-M-C Takumar version was usually cheaper, but since the advance of mirrorless the tables have turned. Optically they are still the same lens though. I do like the metal hood from the takumar better.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
I often see the SMC Pentax K 135mm 1:2.5 Go for not so much. It used to be quite popular among Pentaxians. The S-M-C Takumar version was usually cheaper, but since the advance of mirrorless the tables have turned. Optically they are still the same lens though. I do like the metal hood from the takumar better.


Yes, the metal hood is quite lovely as well as being useful.
It is strange that prices for the SMC Takumar are higher, but that was also the case when I purchased mine some years back. And so I have the Pentax K model.
I do think that there is some nostalgia built into the prices of Takumars that doesn't make its way into the K mount lenses.
As a film shooter with Pentax, it is easier to carry a couple of K mount lenses rather than a mix of M42 and K mount.
Tom
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1