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

Which ist the best small 135mm f3.5?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
Don't forget the Oly Zuiko 3.5/135.

+1 smallest and good and excellent and cheap...


PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If NX able to mount Leica screw lens hard to find smaller and better lens than Jupiter-11 RF lens.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The smallest, lightest 135 I have is the Voigtlander 135/4. If I recall correctly, it's more or less a Zeiss lens. Nice colouring and contrast from it and still very cheap. You have to factor in the cost of a DKL converter though.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Komura 135/3.5 and 135/2.8 are both quite small and much sharper than they generally get credit for being. Following from f/3.5 version.



PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jesito wrote:
shyl wrote:
Weltblick 135mm f3.5 is fairly good and small also


Yes, it's a OEM version of the Tamron 860, it shows as well under "Sands Hunter" OEM brand, it's preset and weights only 280g.

In fact, I think it's T2 mount but uses to come with a fixed T2-M42 adapter on it.


Jes.


I have the Sands Hunter specifically for the NX100.
By far the smallest and lightest metal 135mm I've used and preset is always a bonus.
Usually peanuts on ebay.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

as you have already understood, you can't go wrong with a 135/3.5 (in a good condition).
nikkor Q was not quoted. (sonnar design if I remember correctly)
the best is perhaps to check the mfd... (czj, konica, etc...)


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phenix jc wrote:

nikkor Q was not quoted. (sonnar design if I remember correctly)


Great lens, but pretty big compared to others.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

S-M-C Takumar, a great lens, was mentioned, let me add that the early preset version is quite a bit smaller and very good too.
my smallest is a Tele Kominar and it's a stunning performer.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kuuan wrote:
S-M-C Takumar, a great lens, was mentioned, let me add that the early preset version is quite a bit smaller and very good too.


For my taste, the preset version is even better: while the later SMC is very sharp, i find its bokeh a bit nervous and distracting in many occasions, and, for me, this is quite an issue for a 135.
The earlier preset version looks maybe a little less sharp (i never owned one, i only saw many pics shot with it), but with a much more pleasant bokeh.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aanything wrote:
kuuan wrote:
S-M-C Takumar, a great lens, was mentioned, let me add that the early preset version is quite a bit smaller and very good too.


For my taste, the preset version is even better: while the later SMC is very sharp, i find its bokeh a bit nervous and distracting in many occasions, and, for me, this is quite an issue for a 135.
The earlier preset version looks maybe a little less sharp (i never owned one, i only saw many pics shot with it), but with a much more pleasant bokeh.


I could not possibly have said that..because I have one for sale Wink


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Out of interest, I've measured and weighed my 135s this afternoon.

In order of weight without caps or hoods (* indicates with retractable hood). Length is measured from mount face to filter ring.

Pentax-M 3.5/135 270g* 67.1mm
CZJ S 3.5/135 365g* 81.8mm
Jupiter-37A 3.5/135 366g 85.4mm
S-M-C Takumar 3.5/135 336g 87.6mm
Meyer-Optik preset zebra 2.8/135 504g 87.3mm
Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-PF 2.8/135 508g* 98.7mm


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's interesting. I weighed my 135s (I only have 3) and here are the results (no hood or caps):

Minolta MD 135mm/3.5 (49mm filter): 271g
Carenar 135mm/2.8: 364g
Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm/3.5 (zebra): 424g

I didn't measure length and diameter as they're all about the same. The Minolta is the only one with a built-in retractable hood. It's also probably the best although I haven't used it much yet.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kuuan wrote:
S-M-C Takumar, a great lens, was mentioned, let me add that the early preset version is quite a bit smaller and very good too.
my smallest is a Tele Kominar and it's a stunning performer.


+1 on early pre-set smaller than most 135mm slr lens and excellent.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The long and the short and the fat. Wink I had a look at my 135's and if they're short, they're generally fat. All these are fully extended with any built in hoods closed.

Left to right - Super Paragon 2.8. Samuron 3.5. Vivitar 2.8 (Komine ) Soligor 2.8 Canon FD 3.5. SMC Takumar 3.5. Minolta Rokkor 2.8. Jupiter 11 4.





That's a very random bunch of 135's, and size doesn't really matter - there's barely 19mm difference in the lengths of these lenses and 16mm on the diameters. but the weight is a different thing, if grams are that important
The Jupiter and Samuron are lightweights at 278g. Next the Takumar at 337g, the Paragon 355g, Rokkor 373g, Canon 400g, Vivitar 413g and the Soligor is the lard arse at 491g.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2012 11:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll put a vote in for both the Voigtlander 135mm f/4.0 Super Dynarex (for Bessamatic) and the 135mm f/3.5 Super Takumar - both previously mentioned, and both wonderful. I like the Pentax better just because it has a slighly closer focus distance than the Voigtlander.

It's not super compact, but one of my favorite 135mm lenses for the NEX has to be the Leitz 135m f/4.5 Hektor. I know it is much maligned, and certainly is not the sharpest Leitz lens out there, but it has a beautiful rendering (in my opinion). It also has a very conservative close focus distance, but the high IQ allows its images withstand significant englargement. The Hektor can still be had very cheaply.

If you really want compact size, can you stand to drop from 135mm to 100mm? If you can, the Canon 100mm f/3.5 in Leica thread mount is a strellar lens, and incredibly tiny.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

im about to go out shooting with a rikenon 135 3.5, it isn't what I would call small or light. but I'll post the images for the hell of it anyway.

of course this depends on if I find anything photoworthy.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

images from the rikenon 135mm 3.5

There is alot of chroma in these shots, shooting into white clouds will do that though. These are probably the best shots I got with that lens. Not exceptionally sharp either, there doesn't appear to be any coating on the lens, so maybe it's been "cleaned" off at some point. I think that as a portrait lens this lens would be ok.

Red-Tailed Black Cockatoo, Female.




PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LucisPictor wrote:
Phenix jc wrote:

nikkor Q was not quoted. (sonnar design if I remember correctly)


Great lens, but pretty big compared to others.

Ok, tiny :
So he can go for a Tokina 135/2.8.
It as small as any small f3.5, as sharp as the best of them, faster, mfd 1m (macro 1:5). And...extremely cheap.
My Tokina is under "Tokura" brand. Many other names.

[EDIT] :

In fact, it is smaller, if not the smallest.
+ a built-in lenshood.
Not necessary the lighter Wink
(here, naked wit a J11-A, a Tak, a Konica f3.2)

#1


Last edited by Phenix jc on Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:05 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

+ for Fujinon 135 3.5
Mine is EBC in M42 mount and:

weight - 300g
filter - 49mm
long - 8cm


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
Pentax-M 3.5/135 270g* 67.1mm

I just checked - mounted on the PK adapter on the NEX, this lens projects just 95.7 from the mount face. That's shorter than the Minolta 2.8 with NO adapter.



PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't compare , but I own the Fujinon EBC on X mount . good lens ,good price :
http://forum.mflenses.com/fujinon-x-ebc-135-3-5-t43260,highlight,%2Bfujinon+%2B135.html


PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I read a fair amount of bad press both on this forum and elsewhere about older Sigma MF lenses but I am happy with the results I obtain with my Sigma 2.8/135mm Pantel. It doesn't have the best wide open performance of my 135mm's but then I very seldom use it at maximum aperture. From f4 on my copy is sharp and it is quite compact and lightweight. Just don't try using it at f64 - horrible! Smile



PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have like 12 different 135/3.5 lenses from just about all walks ancient and newer: Nikon, Pentax, Oly, Hexar, CZJ, Minolta, Canon, and etc. and having tested all of them on the lens rez chart and also used them in the real world I think the Canon FDn 135/3.5 wins in terms of sharpness, micro-contrast, and global contrast. For colors I like the Rokkor better by far though. For character and unique drawing style I like the Super-Takumar best. And if you don't mind moving up to a 2.8, a 2.5, or a 2.0 then lots of other possibilities open up - albeit usually with added weight. The DDR CZJ 135/3.5 is very good but has some CA the others don't wide open. - but then again it's got some of that "Zeiss look" the others don't too. The Zuiko 135/3.5 also has some CA WO that's not so nice.


PostPosted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank God one of my lenses made your list, the Super-Tak 3.5/135. Laughing Love the build quality, too. Smile

Bessaflex, ooooo nice!


PostPosted: Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have two single coated Takumar 135mm f3.5 presets; one is the very early variant. Both are very sharp wide open and the early one very small with 46mm filtre. I also have the last MD 135mm f3.5 4 x 4 MDII made in 1978 that is quite heavy but very sharp & contrasty. For travel I like to carry S_M_C Takumar 28mm f3.5, S_M_C Takumar 55mm f1.8 and the early Takumar 135mm f3.5. All of these in m42 mount on Lens Turbo II on my A6000.