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: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:32 am    Post subject: Which ist the best small 135mm f3.5? Reply with quote

Hi guys!

I would like to have a 135mm lens for my Samsung NX11. I had the Nikkor-Q 135mm f2.8, which was a very good lens but awefully heavy and huge on this camera.

At the moment I have the 135mm f3.5 Minolta MD my father gave me but I'm disappointed by the imagequality. It's neither sharp nor contrasty.

So, which is the best 135mm f3.5 around! I would like to have a small lens, that is why I'm searching for the 3.5 and not 2.8 Versions!

Cheers,

Karhallarn


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The ebc fujinon T, both in m42 and fujica x mount, is a very good lens, and noticeably smaller and lighter (290 g for the x mount) of all the other 135's I have.

EDIT:
The best overall I tried is the sonnar 135/3.5, but it is much heavier (more than 450g) than the fujinon.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:59 am    Post subject: Re: Which ist the best small 135mm f3.5? Reply with quote

Karhallarn wrote:
Hi guys!

I would like to have a 135mm lens for my Samsung NX11. I had the Nikkor-Q 135mm f2.8, which was a very good lens but awefully heavy and huge on this camera.

At the moment I have the 135mm f3.5 Minolta MD my father gave me but I'm disappointed by the imagequality. It's neither sharp nor contrasty.

So, which is the best 135mm f3.5 around! I would like to have a small lens, that is why I'm searching for the 3.5 and not 2.8 Versions!

Cheers,

Karhallarn


Very strange. The Minolta MD 135 3.5 is a sharp lens that only needs minor contrast correction. Does your copy have haze?


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a Minolta 135/3.5 and it's both sharp and contrasty. The CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 is indeed much heavier even if it's not that much bigger. In terms of IQ they're equally good (but quite different) but the Minolta is mechanically superior, at least when comparing my copies. Bottom line, I don't think there's anything smaller and better than the Minolta 135/3.5 as long as it's in good condition...

Last edited by miran on Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:05 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Asahi Pentax Takumar SMC 3.5/135.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The smallest 135 in my experience is the Jupiter 37A or the newer 37AM. It's a clone of the CZJ Sonnar so the image quality is extremely good, I often winder why it doesn't get more praise here.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
The smallest 135 in my experience is the Jupiter 37A or the newer 37AM. It's a clone of the CZJ Sonnar so the image quality is extremely good, I often winder why it doesn't get more praise here.


+1 .. but it is heavy.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CZJ Sonnar is probably the sharpest small 135 I have, but I do have a Chinon which is pretty good, with a 2.8 max aperture and even smaller than the Sonnar. The trade off is that the IQ isn't quite as good.

I tried the J37A and whilst it is good, I found it to be a bit, dare I say, boring. It's good, but it's not quite as sharp as a Sonnar and the colours weren't as pleasing.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
I have a Minolta 135/3.5 and it's both sharp and contrasty.


+1. MC/MD 135/3.5 is a wonderful lens, sharp and contrasty wide open. Btw I still have one for sale in almost new condition. However, my version is with 55mm filter thread, which is not super-light. If one looks for small size/weight, then he needs the version with 49mm filters. It is said, however, that 49mm version is less good optically, so I wonder maybe OP has this version.

Btw, if size/weight is your primary concern, don't limit yourself to f3.5 lenses. Hoya HMC 135/f2.8 is ridiculously compact, smaller than many 135/f3.5, beautiful aesthetically and very well built. It's my favorite 135mm. At f2.8 it's a bit low contrast, but already at f4 it matches pretty much any 135mm lens that I have and I have a few very well regarded (e.g. Pentacon or Minolta MD 135/f2.8 4/4 formula).


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hoya 135 I had was crap, not close to the same level as others being discussed here. Fairly small but quite heavy.

Topcon RE Auto Topcor 3.5/135 is quite small, certainly light and hard to find a better 135mm lens.

Jupiter-11 4/135 is very small and quite light, I've got three copies, 1957, 1958 and 1963, all three are wonderful.


Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:09 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cheers for all the replies!

I don't have a M42 Adapter at the Moment but I will think about it!

I made a mistake in the post! I don't have the MD 135mm but the MC 135mm QD! Is there a difference in performance between the MD and MC?

Maybe I'm just too picky!

I just took some pictures with the lens and noticed that eventhough the focus indicator on my Samsung says that an image is focused correctly, it is off when viewed later on the computer screen! I don't have this problem with other MF lenses! Any Idea?

When nailed, the lens seems reasonably sharp to my eyes at f3,5 and much better at f5.6.

Here are three images from f3.5 to f5.6 to f8.








Cheers,

Karhallarn


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't forget the Oly Zuiko 3.5/135.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, all 135/f3.5 Rokkors prior to MD with 49mm filters use the same 4/4 optical formula. However, the coatings progressed, so MD versions should be a little better. Looks like your problem is not related to the lens though, but rather to focusing/handholding.

Btw,135/f3.5 MD Rokkor with 49mm filters is just 265-285 gram compared to 370-415 gram for QD (depending on generation), so you might want to locate that lens anyway.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Weltblick 135mm f3.5 is fairly good and small also


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

I don't think you can go wrong with Olympus Zuiko 135mm f/3.5.

Compact and sharp even wide open.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can lso recomend the jupiter 37a a fantastic lens.
I would also recomend the korean carenar 135f2.8 super light but an excellent performer


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

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




+1.

S. Dynarex 4/135.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isco Westanar IMO, this lens is tiny and superb Wink

http://forum.mflenses.com/isco-goettingen-tele-westanar-13-5-135mm-m42-t49537,highlight,%2Bwestanar.html


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 4:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eddieitman wrote:
I would also recomend the korean carenar 135f2.8 super light but an excellent performer

As always that depends on the actual copy you get. I have this lens and it pretty much sucks in every respect. Or maybe there are several different Carenars 135/2.8, all different but branded the same, I don't know...


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always like the rendering of Konica 135mm f3.2. Not very big or heavy, and inexpensive.
Some wildflower shots



A few more in this album with a tag of "Konica AR 135mm F3.2".


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice image. "The" konica 135 mm. Lens to me.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got a 135 lens that I think is a bit of a sleeper, it's a good lens that out of my 6 or 7 135's is my usual 'go to lens' for my NEX.
Fully extended it's 88mm long, and there's a short built in hood. Closed it's a nice compact 77mm. It's 66mm diameter with a 55mm filter and weighs .35kg
My lens is branded Super Paragon, but it's a Cimko and I've seen it under other brand names. It's also f2.8.
It's a damn good lens, if you can find one.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DigiChromeEd wrote:
Asahi Pentax Takumar SMC 3.5/135.


+1

It's the smallest of my 135mm and it's quite good.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another vote here for the CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, wonderful little lens. Smile


PostPosted: Sun Aug 12, 2012 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.