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: Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All later brand name multicoated 135/3.5 are excellent. Minolta MD and Canon nFD are great, SMC Pentax-M is spectacular, SMC Takumar is very good, and so is Zuiko. Later model Nikkors are much lighter, but they cost like Zeiss these days it seems. I have not tried Konica but it is also probably a safe bet.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gardener wrote:
All later brand name multicoated 135/3.5 are excellent. Minolta MD and Canon nFD are great, SMC Pentax-M is spectacular, SMC Takumar is very good, and so is Zuiko. Later model Nikkors are much lighter, but they cost like Zeiss these days it seems. I have not tried Konica but it is also probably a safe bet.


The Hexanon 135mm f3.5 (AE) is a nice lens but if a person is only interested in sharpness then IMO there are sharper lenses, in my film tests would put it the same as a Meyer 135mm or Super tak but not in the Sonnar class......but then with copy variation maybe some one would class this version of a Hexanon as superb.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All the Hexanon 3.5/135s are very sharp, I must have 6 or 7 of them. The 3.2/135 is sharper though.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I concur with the posts recommending the Minolta MD variants, OM Zuiko, Super Tak, and Hexanon AR f3.2.

The Minolta MD-I is probably the sharpest but also heavier and larger. It's a 4 in 4 formula.
The MD-II and MD-III versions with a 49mm filter are much smaller and lighter. They are 5 in 5 formula. I have both the MD-I and II. The build is not as good and serviceable as the MD-I. But that lost in size and heft had to come somehow.

Olympus OM Zuiko is tiny and well made. Issues wide open as noted. Could be due to the single-coated model. (Silver nosed, like mine.)

Pentax Super (Multi-Coated) Takumar is heaviest of these small 49mm filter models. No built-in hood either. I think it's remarkably sharp and the bokeh is very good.

I have EE and AE versions of Hexanon f3.5, and they are smaller and lighter, but as noted, not as good as their f3.2. Only a little larger and heavier...about the size of the Minolta MD-I f3.5. No built-in hood for the f3.5 EE or the f3.2.

Honorable Mentions:
There is a Sonnar spec Canon FL and early FD S.C. f3.5 that is superb.
I recently got a Minolta Rokkor-TC f4 which is a Triplet w/ 12 blade preset aperture. It's narrow, but long. Imaging is wonderful.


If I had to make such a choice, it would be the Olympus OM with a MC version.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a Minolta MD 135/3.5 with the 49mm filter size, weighs 276 grams. Unable to test it, though, because I don't have a Minolta adapter for my NEX.

Years ago, there were two 135/3.5s I owned that I really liked: the Nikkor AI 135/3.5 -- it's much smaller than the pre-AI 135s -- and the Canon New FD 135/3.5, which is also much smaller than the old breechlock FDs. I think the Canon is also internal focusing, but I'm not totally sure on that one. The Takumar 135/3.5 is also quite compact, and in typical Pentax fashion, is razor sharp.

I also own a Vivitar 135/2.8, which is as compact as many 135/3.5s, and which is a very good performer. Built by Komine (S/n begins with 28 ), M42 mount, has a 55mm front filter, rubberized focusing collar, built-in hood, stands about 75mm tall, weighs 399 grams. I have shot with this Vivitar on my NEX and it does a good job. Very nice color and contrast, excellent sharpness. It is headed for eBay. I hope to get $20 for it.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's also the Fujinon one, I have it, from the old Fuji mount SLR's. Alas the only samples aren't on this phone. Not much use am I. Wink
It is small though.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have two 135/3.5 only and they are not quiet small. The Topcor seems pretty good but the Piesker have pretty decent bokeh.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll say again that Komura is quite small, even if heavier than some others. Other factors not often considered but important are whether preset and number of blades to the diaphragm. And by the way, I have just now decided to sell two Komura 135 lenses because I just accidentally bought another. I have for sale a f/2.8 and f/3.5, both excellent. I have posted them in the market/for sale forum.
[url]
http://forum.mflenses.com/komura-2-8-135-and-3-5-135-t74395.html[/url]


PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Angenieux 135/3.5 M42 mount, is the smallest 135mm lens I have ever seen. But it's made of metal, not light. JPG file, no PP.





PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Count RF lenses if you can I love them all, maker almost no matter, Zeiss, Russian or Canon or Leitz.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Count RF lenses if you can I love them all, maker almost no matter, Zeiss, Russian or Canon or Leitz.


Or Kyoei Super Acall 135/3.5:



Kyoei Super Acall LTM 135mm f/3.5 @ f/11:


Not particularly small or lightweight, but it does an excellent job.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guys... someone bumped a 4 year old post LOL

but if he was still interested in an answer 4 years later my choice would be the compact CZJ 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar

--mike


PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would add Porst (Enna) 3.5/135, the half-plastic version. Some shots were already exposed in the forum, for example here. I am not sure if Attila used the same half-plastic version I have. Even it is not the best build quality, it is sharp and renders well.

And if to hunt for the low weight, Revuenon MC 2.8/135, an all-plastic version, gives you the max score, with a very acceptable IQ. Here is some more about it, once again not sure about the version. It's small, extremely cheap for the plastic look (see one currently on the bay), does not burden your bag and you do not have an especially careful attention to it when handling.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

leemik wrote:
Guys... someone bumped a 4 year old post LOL

but if he was still interested in an answer 4 years later my choice would be the compact CZJ 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar

--mike


I noticed this as well, but it sure seems there's still a lot of interest in the subject. I know I've learned a fair bit about lenses that I have no experience with.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

leemik wrote:
Guys... someone bumped a 4 year old post LOL

but if he was still interested in an answer 4 years later my choice would be the compact CZJ 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar

--mike


....but old lenses haven't changed in that time Smile


PostPosted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bump Bump, Double Bump I prefer the MC 135mm F3.5 and this is a good thread to extend, however I don't compare apples to apples....I compare tomatoes to oranges, bloody mary or a screw driver, whatever taste better at the moment ?

My MD ROKKOR 100 2.5 can fetch a fair penny my MC Rokkor-X 4-4 (MC-X), in the box cost me $6 mint perfect like new. Straight out of my mft jpegs, no processing.... no advantage...more importantly? No disadvantage either. Consistent color and contrast, 2 hours apart 1:20 to 3:10 pm cst....i cropped out and resized not to micropeep, to demonstrate resolving power ..... not sharpness, detail.....

People really underestimate the alcohol in a screw driver... and can't put enough in a bloody mary, it's not always about the flavor sometimes it's about your needs, every once in a while a cheap drink hits the spot and an expensive one cost too much...


#1


these models ain't cheap either, have you priced bird feed, er squirrel feed lately? Know what's squirrel proof? Me neither....


PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of my favourite lenses if 135mm Super Ozeck it runs rings around my Zeiss 135mm and is a stunning lens for flowers and stick an extension tube on the back and its great for insect macros, they are cheap but VERY good and before ya dismiss them buy one and see for yourself how good they are.


PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigiChromeEd wrote:
Asahi Pentax Takumar SMC 3.5/135.


Agreed, great lens. Fantastic mechanical quality also.