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

Which 135mm lens to get?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

calvin83 wrote:
woodrim wrote:
calvin83 wrote:
woodrim wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
I believe it was here at this forum that I read the claim that there are no bad 135s -- some years back. So if this is true, then you can pretty much take your pick. My own experiences with the few 135s I've owned is that this truism seems to have some truth value to it.


I would like to go on record as having a bad 135mm. Maybe the only one... collector item.

How about a copy of Vivitar 135/1.5? Wink


Is there such a thing?

Sure.
http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-135mm-f-1-5-t-mount-converted-to-nikon-ai-s-t27558.html

Sample:
http://forum.mflenses.com/vivitar-professional-135-1-5-t69370.html


I owned one of those beasts for quite a few years. And I gotta say it was a pretty soft lens. But man-o-man was it an impressive piece of glass. I sold it on eBay in 2004 to a Japanese collector. Got pretty good money for it too, but not nearly what they're selling for now, if you can find one.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Builders of country by Lee Wooi Chun, on Flickr

You wont go wrong with Sonnar, literally any Sonnar!
A7ii with Carl Zeiss Jena MC Sonnar 135mm f/3.5. No sharpening, flickr tends to sharpen the preview image though, but still that pop...

Laugh 1


PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pinholecam wrote:
starlights wrote:
The two on the right are both 135s. (Vivitar Series 1, 135mm f2.3 VMC and Steinheil Munchen Q D 135mm f2.8 ). Steinheil is very tiny, just a little bigger than a computer mouse.[/url]



Excellent examples.
You caught my attention with the Steinheil. Smile


Thanks! All the images were wide open (for all lenses I posted to this thread)

Here is a picture of Steinheil compared to Fuji XF 35mm for size comparison.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The most impressive (to my eyes) "cheap" 135mm lens I have ever used was a Sears 135mm F 3.5 preset lens, which is a re-badged Tokina. Low CA, very sharp wide open, stellar sharpness at 5.6 and F 8. I paid 10 dollars for it. The only reason I do not have it now is because I gave it to my brother when I gave him my old Canon 450D, and a few other things.

I have a nice 135mm F 2.8 Carl Zeiss C/Y Sonnar, which I use all the time, but at the next camera show here, I may try to find another Sears 135mm F 3.5 preset-it was that good:)


PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


I have been very impressed by a few relatively inexpensive 135mm lenses:
Canon FD 135/2.5 SC (somewhat large, heavy)
Canon FDn 135/3.5
Tokyo Koki Tokina 135/3.5 (preset, with 12 aperture blades, light and compact, M42 mount)
Nikkor-Q 135/2.8 (large, heavy)
Tamron BBAR Multi-C 135/2.8 (also same under Expert brand in M42)
Konica AR 135/3.5 - (image shown here, taken with Sony A7 using a close-focusing helicoid adapter)

Like who commented before, I very seldom see a 135mm lens that is mediocre. The only kinda meh 135 I've found so far is a Makinon 135mm/2.8.


Last edited by Wadidiz on Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:09 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the hexanon 3,2 and the SX 2,8

Have both and have to sell one.

The question: Which?

Both.very good


PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Taken with Tokyo Koki Tokina 135mm/3.5 preset, on Sony A7. Highly cropped.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

135s are interesting. I’ve had a half dozen different ones. All were good. The cheapest (free) was the second best, a Super Takumar 135/3.5. The best was the opposite of free, a Carl Zeiss APO 135/2 Sonnar.

I now only have two, and I prefer using my Nikkor 135/2.8 AIS. It is excellent, quite compact, and not too heavy.

If you shoot Nikon, the 135/3.5 is smaller, lighter, and just as good, though ⅔ of a stop slower.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of the Nikon 135mm f/3.5, this is one of my favorites. And one of my most favorite images, I took using it. I used natural light, coming through our kitchen window.

Nikon FM, Nikon AI 135mm f/3.5, Kodachrome 64


I also really like the Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Close Focus. It's an exceptionally sharp lens and makes a great macro. All my photos are on another computer, so nothing to show right now. Maybe later, when I get to that machine.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ahblack wrote:
...
You wont go wrong with Sonnar, literally any Sonnar!
... Laugh 1


Like 1 +1. Pentacon 135/2.8!


PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote



Taken with Expert MC 135mm/2.8 on Sony A7. This lens is a re-branded Tamron BBAR and has an MC mount. Expert was a national chain of photo shops in Sweden. The lens came in a package and I paid almost nothing for it. I've since bought another Expert and the original Tamron, both in M42. I can't resist when I see them dirt cheap. A sleeper IMO.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wadidiz wrote:


Taken with Expert MC 135mm/2.8 on Sony A7. This lens is a re-branded Tamron BBAR and has an MC mount. Expert was a national chain of photo shops in Sweden. The lens came in a package and I paid almost nothing for it. I've since bought another Expert and the original Tamron, both in M42. I can't resist when I see them dirt cheap. A sleeper IMO.


Quite lovely and from my recollection of Tamron BBAR lenses, it shows the colour and rendering that they are known for.
Very nice find
Tom


PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:

Quite lovely and from my recollection of Tamron BBAR lenses, it shows the colour and rendering that they are known for.
Very nice find
Tom


Thanks, Tom! I realize even more from this thread that I'm way overloaded with lenses--mostly really decent--and need to stop saving good vintage lenses from getting tossed. There simply isn't enough time or Nordic light to put them to use. If only someone would release an auto-focus adapter for the Sony A7/A9 series that is actually dependable and doesn't become wobbling! Then demand might increase. I imagine the lens makers have no great enthusiasm for a good quality auto-focus adapter.

So far, I must be among the few owners of a Sony A7RIII without a single autofocus lens. Am I missing much? I'm now looking for a native, compact, prime lens to try out auto-focus and to compare with my too-many vintage lenses. I'm still skeptical of modern, hyper-sharp lenses that are stacked with bunches of lens elements. Lens made for my digital camera certainly must be much easier to use and much more convenient, far more resistant to flare and far better corrected for optical errors. But I really want to know: Generally speaking, which type of lens is more likely to help produce the most pleasing images? Modern or vintage?

Here's a shot of my drummer friend using the Expert 135mm/2.8:


PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wadidiz wrote:
Oldhand wrote:

Quite lovely and from my recollection of Tamron BBAR lenses, it shows the colour and rendering that they are known for.
Very nice find
Tom


Thanks, Tom! I realize even more from this thread that I'm way overloaded with lenses--mostly really decent--and need to stop saving good vintage lenses from getting tossed. There simply isn't enough time or Nordic light to put them to use. If only someone would release an auto-focus adapter for the Sony A7/A9 series that is actually dependable and doesn't become wobbling! Then demand might increase. I imagine the lens makers have no great enthusiasm for a good quality auto-focus adapter.

So far, I must be among the few owners of a Sony A7RIII without a single autofocus lens. Am I missing much? I'm now looking for a native, compact, prime lens to try out auto-focus and to compare with my too-many vintage lenses. I'm still skeptical of modern, hyper-sharp lenses that are stacked with bunches of lens elements. Lens made for my digital camera certainly must be much easier to use and much more convenient, far more resistant to flare and far better corrected for optical errors. But I really want to know: Generally speaking, which type of lens is more likely to help produce the most pleasing images? Modern or vintage?

Here's a shot of my drummer friend using the Expert 135mm/2.8:


The Blatter, the better. At least in IQ


PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like this focal length. There I admitted it. I will only comment on lenses that I have used.

I agree with recommendations already noted about Takumar, Nikkor and Canon 135mm 3.5s.

But I prefer 6 element Minolta 135mm f2.8 lenses. I have and use an MC Tele Rokkor- X PF and an MC Tele Rokkor PF (with a mid barrel aperture ring).

Both provide me IMO with a more dynamic rendering. Either are available in the US for less than $30 shipped.


PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How about the CZJ DDR 135mm 3.5? It seems to be plentiful. Samples look pretty sharp. There is a comparison of Sonnars here: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=31562

surprisingly the mc coated version looks less contrasty than the zebra.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've used just two 135mm: Olympus Zuiko 135/2.8 and Jupiter-37A 135/3.5.
Both are supporting the famous thesis "there is no bad 135mm in existence".


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More evidence in support of the CZJ 135/3.5





I'd highly recommend it for the price. It feels sharper through the aperture range than the Pentacon 2.8/135 from what I've used of them but albeit slower...


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tb_a wrote:
starlights wrote:
Soligor 135mm f1.8


Certainly a nice lens but you're in a wrong thread. The OP was asking for a CHEAP lens, i.e. as reasonable as possible.

The Minolta MD 135/3.5 (MD Celtic, MD II Rokkor or plain MD III without Rokkor, 5 lenses in 5 groups, weight below 300 g) should be available very cheap (below $ 30) and is certainly an excellent lens. The F2.8 version (MC-X, MD I and MD II, 4 lenses in 4 groups, front heavy, 535 g) would be even better but normally slightly more expensive.



Weights of 135mm lenses:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51865628

It must be the MD III 135mm 3.5 that is at the top. I have that one (7 Euro) and it is has excellent resolution all over the frame of the A7RII. The Canon FD 135mm 2.5 is at the other end of the scale with 630 grams. Heavy like more Sonnar/Ernostar designs. Good for portraits though. To find a lighter 2.8 lens I bought a Mamiya Sekor CS 135mm 2.8. It is not in that list but would be the lightest 2.8 there. Sharp in the center but terrible PF. Hard to understand as the SX etc versions before this one are reported to be without CA issues. Different design but why would M-S drop a good design for one with issues?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wadidiz wrote:
..
But I really want to know: Generally speaking, which type of lens is more likely to help produce the most pleasing images? Modern or vintage?

...


Subjective; entirely. Smile See for yourself. Compare images at mflenses to images at almost any other photo website.


PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2019 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If physical size has any bearing on value-for-money you'll be hard put to better the old Tamron Twin-Tele 135mm f/4.5 weighing 195gm and measuring 73mm long (set to infinity) by 45mm (approx) diameter. The 13-blade aperture is a bonus Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ISCO Westanar 135/3.5 is very intresting lens (in my opinion)

DSC00412 by Mr TTT, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Strange and beautiful!


PostPosted: Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sergtum wrote:
ISCO Westanar 135/3.5 is very intresting lens (in my opinion)

Really nice Happy Dog

I recommend the Voigtländer Super Dynarex 135/4. Thin and lightweight (including adapter less than 300g).









The last photo was with a Focar B.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, very nice super dynarex pics

A con, the 4 meters minimal focus distance.

You can use with the portrait lens.

You can focus from 2 to 4 meters with the portrait lens.

That lense was made for the Icarex too