Which 135mm lens to get?

starlights · Joined: 04 Apr 2015 Posts: 96 Location: Washington DC

One just has to look a little harder to find good deals. I picked up all of these from eBay, so everyone had an equal chance Smile

I wonder how the popular websites started to report 535g for the Minolta 4/4. Its a substantial difference from what it actually weighs.

enzodm · Joined: 11 Sep 2010 Posts: 350 Location: Italy

When I started collecting old lenses, the standard answer was Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135/3.5 for sharpness, Pentacon 135/2.8 for bokeh... fashion changed. Anyway, I agree that is difficult to find a bad 135mm.

CBokeh · Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2016 11:03 pm Post subject: Re: Which 135mm lens to get?

Two pages of comments from someone with 2 posts and nobody has still bothered to ask what camera the OP owns. Guess it doesn't matter! Wink

On the other hand, I've yet to personally use a "bad" 135...

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

I have ONE I recommend against. Bittco Super Vemar. All others I have tried have been pretty good. Mamiya Sekor, Yashica, Sears (tomioka), Schacht, CZJ, Schneider, Konica all of them, 3.5, and 3.2, the 2.5 is very good though a bit more expensive. Olympus, Pentax, Minolta. It kind of depends on what camera you use, and what you intend to shoot. It must be an easy focal length to optimize. I notice you have only 2 posts so I'm not quite sure of your experience with MFL. Some lenses will not work with certain camera systems. A great resource can be found here:
http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-alphabetical.html#vBessamat

and here:

http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~westin/misc/mounts-by-register.html

Flange distance refers to how far the base plate of the lens fits from the surface of the film. Its important because shorter flange systems (eg Konica) cannot function normally on longer flange cameras (eg Nikon or Canon SLR) as infinity focus is lost. Modern mirrorless camera systems eliminate that problem. If you can use it on your camera the Konica 135mm 3.5 would be my recommendation. Price to IQ is phenomenal.

memetph · Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 942 Location: Poland

Some of you mentioned the Hexanon 135 f3.2 for its sharpness. I agree . I have one but I don't use it .Why? I did not like its bokeh on the first shots I made with it.

WNG555 · Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA

With the recommendation of Minoltas' f/2.8 4 in 4 version as probably their best, I found one at a reasonable price and looking forward to it.
Tried a year ago to get one but turned out I bought a MC Rokkor-X (6 in 5). Should've been more careful that there were two versions during that period.
Does anyone have all three formulas and can comment on their strengths and weaknesses?

pinholecam · Joined: 26 Nov 2012 Posts: 223

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong

pinholecam · Joined: 26 Nov 2012 Posts: 223

Super Takumar 135/3.5
A rather 'universal' M42 mount and all round reliable lens.
Meaning sharp enough wide open even off center and gets good sharpness stopped down, not many situations with funky bokeh but nothing as great as some offerings too.
Good size, very nice build, rather contrasty o/p.
A bit longish though.
I'm starting to consider using it more as my go to short tele for tours, where I find less of a need for a faster aperture.

DSC0230820140809ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr

Raleigh MV8 by jenkwang, on Flickr

Super Takumar 135/2.5 (the non SMC ver 1)
Under rated imo.
Not as strongly contrast as the vII and K versions, though clearly not lacking vs many lenses of the same vintage.

20130501-IMG_0119Canon EOS 5D by jenkwang, on Flickr

20130707-IMG_0262-50 mm-Pentax_K1 by jenkwang, on Flickr

Pentax K135/2.5
Going towards a bit bigger in size for me, but a very good consistent o/p.
Usable right from f2.5 and less funky bokeh than some faster options in more situations too.
Also tending towards a bit more money though its a fair price still.
Contrasty and deep colors.
The biggest lens I will want to take out for a long trip as a short tele.
Isolation thru shallow DOF, stopped down for landscapes, not a problem for this lens.

20151121-DSC08230 by jenkwang, on Flickr

20151121-DSC08292-1 by jenkwang, on Flickr

DSC0317820140125ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr

Rick1779 · Expire: 2014-06-06

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

Steinheil are good quality lenses, especially the "Q" (quinon, quinaron) and so forth but the poster asked about inexpensive and I've not seen any of those that fit that category. I just got an Enna Tele Enalyt 135 3.5 with a nice liechtenstein bellows in M42 for 45 USD shipped.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

As most here know, there are any number of good 135mm lenses, but certain ones will always get more praise than others. Like others, I have way too many 135mm lenses and not a bad one among them. However, there are four that stand above in my estimation and get the most use. The fourth is the Orestor. The top three in alphabetical order (so I don't have to choose a favorite) are Rokkor PF, Tair-11, and Vivitar Series 1. The Orestor can be found at <$100 price, the Rokkor is very inexpensive at <50>$100, and the Series 1 can also be high priced at >$100+. I have acquired them for <$75 each.

WNG555 · Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA

[pinholecam]

Fantastic results posted from the f3.5 and K-f/2.5.

The K version of the f/2.5 is outputting better results than what I got from the S-M-C Tak version of the f/2.5! Of course, the photographer has a lot of the do with it. But I think the Tak f/2.5 is over-hyped and overly expensive no thanks to that youtube video.

Always felt the f/3.5 deserved more respect. Easier to compose, sharp and colorful, bokeh is pretty good, exudes Takumar build quality, and a bargain.

Just keep in mind folks, OP requested best buy as well as image quality. Some great 135s recommended, but also pricey.

vanylapep · Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312

Is the Pentax K 135 2.5 this one?

WNG555 · Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA

Yes, that's the Pentax K. The wrong one is Taiwanese-made, and should say Bayonet-Takumar on the barrel.

calvin83 · Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7554 Location: Hong Kong

Rigel · Joined: 26 Nov 2015 Posts: 121 Location: Belgium

I was wondering if I could do better than what I have ...

I have a Canon FD 135mm f3.5 in near mint condition and a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 (Komine) (Minolta mount, although slightly damaged, lens 1 scratch but invisible on the pictures) ...
I was chasing the Takumar 6-6 but I always came second Wink

Any advice on what to get and what to get rid of ? Smile

TIA

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

The Steinheil 2.8/135 I had, while very pretty to look at, was a rather mediocre lens, not upto the usual West German standards.

My favourite 135s :

Konica Hexanon 3.2/135 - amazing for macro shots
Zeiss Opton Sonnar 4/135 for Contax - a legend and rightly so
Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 4/135 for Diax - virtually identical design to the Sonnar and perhaps the sharpest 135 I've used
Topcon RE Auto Topcor 3.5/135
Carl Zeiss Jena Prakticar 3.5/135 (Sonnar)
Jupiter-11 4/135 (especially the 1950s ones, I have a few J11s)

sceptic · Joined: 01 Jun 2013 Posts: 255

There are certainly plenty of 135 mm lenses to choose from, with very few true "lemons" and quite a few very good ones. The lens that ended my search for a "perfect" 135 was the Samyang 135 f2. Its optics are truly second to none. Don't take my word for it, though. Try and find a review for it that isn't filled with superlatives.
It's huge and of course expensive when compared to 20$ EBay bargains, but the IQ makes up for it.
Here's wide open on an A7R (click for full-res):

Samyang 135 f/2 meets Mira - b/w by scepticswe, on Flickr

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

I have tested quite a few 135mm lenses, including the state-of-the-art Zeiss ZA 1.8/135mm. While this one truly is much better than all the old MF 135mm lenses from the 1950 - 1990 period, you can find very useful 135mm MF lenses for next to nothing. Some of my "cheap and good" favourites are:

* Minolta MD 3.5/135mm (later, small version: very light and small; the eralier version is not as good)
* Konica Hexanon AR 3.2/135mm (very sharp, focus down to 1.0m!!; paid CHF 30.--)
* Minolta MC/MD 2.8/135mm (four lens version; about CHF 50.--) or later MD 2.8/135mm (five lens version, about CHF 50.--); the early six lens version is not as good!
* Konica Hexanon 2.5/135mm (very good as well, better for portrait, i paid CHF 40.--)
* Canon FD 2.5/135mm SC (nice for portrait, usually quite cheap)

I know neither the new FD 2.8/135mm nor the Nikkor 2.8/135mm; therefore i can't say anything about them.

The Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 3.5/135mm doesn't match the above mentioned MD-II/MD-III 3.5/135mm and AR 3.2/135mm. And it usually is much more expensive.

My overall favourites for portrait are the 2/135mm lenses. They, however, are more expensive: For my Minolta MD 2/135mm i paid about CHF 200.--, the Canon nFD 2/135mm i got for CHF 138.--, and the Nikkor was ... nearly CHF 400.--!! Their rendering is slightly soft wide open, the bokeh is fantastic, and their pronounced vignetting (at f2.0) increases the feeling of "3D".

Stephan

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

Stephan: Are you the one who did the artaphot site?

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07