Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Best m42 100/135mm lens
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
One aspect to consider: if the lens is to be used n a digital camera, how do you want to use aperture?

A preset aperture gives you a lot of comfort because it can be used "blind", with camera kept on the eye you are able to close the aperture to the pre set aperture.

So: I would suggest to take a preset lens if it is optically side by side with the auto. The auto close feature of manual lenses is in vain in the digital age.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Plokko wrote:
kuuan wrote:
I'll throw in the f2.8/105 Takumar..
but many good 105 and 135 lenses indeed, one may find a jewel in a no name cheapy
agree for the quality but takumar SMC is a big name so it's very hard to find one cheap!

Also see this test(it's not professional but it's STUNNING!!!)
http://www.lowcost4dslr.com/tests/lenses-match/30-135-jupiter-37a-vs-minolta-af-135-28-vs-beercan-vs-big-beercan-vs-d-kit-telezoom?start=1
the jupiter 37A PWNS the minolta 135mm(at least they're very similar)and it's a 30€ lens against a >300€ rare and acclaimed lens!!!!

At this level i can agree:
sharpness don't count,all of this lens are MORE THAN PERFECT!!!

P.S.:damn i MUST get another jupiter now!!! Crying or Very sad


Im sorry, but the test didnt say too much to me. I prefer a full blown test if your actually doing comparison. I want to see color contrast, flare performance, bokeh, corner to corner fall off, the whole nine yards.

The test left me saying "So what?"

When your talking about a 135mm lens, I feel it becomes a matter of preference. There are many good 135's and we all will have our favorite performers. I for one will take an EBC 135 and I know for a fact that it will perform well above my needs.

As Attila mentioned, it's hard to find a truly bad 135.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
spiralcity wrote:

Im sorry, but the test didnt say too much to me. I prefer a full blown test if your actually doing comparison. I want to see color contrast, flare performance, bokeh, corner to corner fall off, the whole nine yards.

The test left me saying "So what?"

When your talking about a 135mm lens, I feel it becomes a matter of preference. There are many good 135's and we all will have our favorite performers. I for one will take an EBC 135 and I know for a fact that it will perform well above my needs.

As Attila mentioned, it's hard to find a truly bad 135.

yeah the test isn't showing a lot and it's not done professionally so it doesent' show nothig(the AF models may perform better on CA or flare etc.,also they're AF indeed!)
The only thing that this test show is that all of this 135mm performs VERY WELL even against a newer lens so sharpness at this levels it's a matter of taste!

Abbazz wrote:


The next lens is the 135/3.5 Jupiter-37A, which is another Sonnar clone. I slightly prefer the Jupiter-11A, maybe a matter of personal taste... or of sample variation.

The third Soviet lens I have is the 135/2.8 Tair-11A. It's not a Sonnar and it's the least interesting of the group in my humble opinion. It's a bit faster than the others, but it's also bigger and heavier -- quite heavy in fact. The bokeh is also inferior to the Sonnars'.
yes i read that the 11A(i found only 11 not A version that's newer and better)is very similar to the 37A but with a little less sharpness but a lot of people prefer the 11A boken(maybe because estetically the 37A is HORRIBLE!!! Very Happy )

Is the Tair so bad?
maybe it's heavy(how many KG?)but i found the boken even better than the Jupiters(and the jupiters are the king of boken)because it have 20 blades(even more than the jupiter series Surprised ).

Now i'm confused! Sad


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a mint condition Super Takumar 135mm F3.5 which is very sharp. These Asahi lenses are so well made.
Also I picked up a very cheap but as new Vivitar (Komine) 135mm F2.8 which is an excellent lens. I would highly recommend either of these. I also have a beaten up Pentax M 135mm (optics excellent) which is OK but doesn't compare with the Super Tak or Komine.
bb2


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
beachboy2 wrote:
I have a mint condition Super Takumar 135mm F3.5 which is very sharp. These Asahi lenses are so well made.
Also I picked up a very cheap but as new Vivitar (Komine) 135mm F2.8 which is an excellent lens. I would highly recommend either of these. I also have a beaten up Pentax M 135mm (optics excellent) which is OK but doesn't compare with the Super Tak or Komine.
bb2
takumar is know to be a top performer in sharpness(and also flare resistent because of the coating),also the other listed are top performer and also cheaper.

I found this comparaison of the boken
http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=13515&start=15
they're almost the same,i'm thinking i'll need the 2.8 aperture of the tair because i'll use it on a bellow for macro.

I don't know if the jupiter 11A have a better boken,i searched in the web and the samples are very similar to the others,maybe softer but very very similar.

Anyone know the weight of this lenses?

I FOUND IT:
a MTF test of all the lens listed!
http://digilander.libero.it/dueanni/fotografia/ottiche/obiettivi.htm


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eyemik is not "noname" ... I have several lenses of this brand . It is the production of Mitake Optical . They produced under the name of Admiral , WEP , and probably other brands. My 200mm is one of my best in this focal length. This 135mm can be a real bargain ....
My bests 135 are the Apo-Telezenitar 2,8/135 ,Smc Takumar 2,5/135 (6 elements version) , 3,5/135, J-37, Czj 135, TaÏr, J-11, Angénieux, Schneider, Steinheil, Schacht , Isco, Enna, and a bunch of other japanese Chinon, Mamiya,Fujinon ,Tamron ... In a 35 135mm collection , no "dog" , however . Smile


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Helios wrote:

My bests 135 are the Apo-Telezenitar 2,8/135 ,Smc Takumar 2,5/135 (6 elements version) , 3,5/135, J-37, Czj 135, TaÏr, J-11, Angénieux, Schneider, Steinheil, Schacht , Isco, Enna, and a bunch of other japanese Chinon, Mamiya,Fujinon ,Tamron ... In a 35 135mm collection , no "dog" , however . Smile


Right ... although 135mm is not my favorite focal length, i also tried quite a few 135mm lenses (including many trader brands, and noname brands). None were bad, however, some were just better, or better suited for my purpose.

If you just started with 135mm lenses, get a low-cost one first, you could buy an 135mm for eur10-20 and see if you like it.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:05 am    Post subject: Re: Best m42 100/135mm lens Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:

I have a Carl Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 Sonnar and a 135/4 Jupiter-11A (exact same optical formula, the Jupiter is a Soviet clone of the Zeiss 135/4 Sonnar with a 4 element/3 group construction) and my Jupiter is much better than


It is actually not the exact same optical formula. The formulas are very very close, but quite identical. There are diagrams for both CZJ Sonnars and many other CZJ lenses on http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/mlenses.html.

If a lens (any lens) is much better than your copy of 135/3.5 Sonnar, there is something really badly wrong with your Sonnar. Simply, there are no lenses made that are much better than the Sonnar (other than aperturewise). Maybe you should open the lens up, and put it back together - maybe an element or two are a bit loose or not properly in their place.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow i discovered that the 15€ jupiter was a 37AM,so it's less heavy and it have also the coating! Very Happy
i called the seller and he'll send it as soon as possible,i'll buy it for sure!!! Very Happy

Also the tair-11 is tempting me with his boken(very similar to the juptier but a little Softer)

for the eyemik the only photo available on the web is from the seller:


it's called "Multi Coated" so maybe it can be a copy of the takumar or it can be a crappy lens!


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Plokko wrote:
kuuan wrote:
I'll throw in the f2.8/105 Takumar..
but many good 105 and 135 lenses indeed, one may find a jewel in a no name cheapy


agree for the quality but takumar SMC is a big name so it's very hard to find one cheap!


I disagree. I had two samples of said lens, in Super and S-M-C designations, and it does not stand for its reputation. Not nearly so. Quite soft (full of spherical aberrations, very low contrast) wide open, it does not really sharpen until f/5.6 or so (both samples behaved exactly the same way). Some would say it's a good feature for portraits; however, bokeh is not that great wide open. It's quite busy in fact.

I have two other lenses sharing a similar optical scheme, Contax Sonnar 85/2.8 and Rolleinar 85/2.8, and both are miles ahead in IQ and bokeh (the Sonnar is the best by quite a margin).

Nikkor 105/2.5 (any version) is also a great lens, much better than this Takumar. I am quite surprised myself as 105/2.8 is a very modest optical design, easy to perfect. Asahi didn't excel with this one.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Plokko: All Jupiters-37 are coated. There are also MC models of 37A and 37AM, but they are rare. Difference in contrast isn't huge; I think the bigest difference is color cast (older models has purple/blueish coating, newer/MC have more green surfaces. Anyway, Jupiters give the best value for their price Smile


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:24 am    Post subject: Re: Best m42 100/135mm lens Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
It is actually not the exact same optical formula. The formulas are very very close, but quite identical. There are diagrams for both CZJ Sonnars and many other CZJ lenses on http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/mlenses.html.

It's quite surprising news to me. I have always heard that the first batches of "made in USSR" ZK (Zonnar Krasnogorskii) 135/4 lenses where in fact relabelled Zeiss Sonnar lenses that were seized by the Red Army as war reparations. With the help of the German engineers and machinery also "seized" by the USSR as war reparations, the production of the Jupiter-11 at the KMZ facility started around 1950. According to my sources, the Jupiter-11 used the exact same optical formula as the ZK and the German Sonnar, probably just because it was easier for KMZ to produce the same lens.

Anu wrote:
If a lens (any lens) is much better than your copy of 135/3.5 Sonnar, there is something really badly wrong with your Sonnar. Simply, there are no lenses made that are much better than the Sonnar (other than aperturewise). Maybe you should open the lens up, and put it back together - maybe an element or two are a bit loose or not properly in their place.

I don't see why a good Soviet Sonnar couldn't be as good as an East-German one. There sure are many lemons among Jupiter-11 and Jupiter-37A lenses, but the good ones perform at least as well as the East German Sonnars. See the nice samples in this thread about the Jupiter-11a: http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?pid=64867

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:28 am    Post subject: Re: Best m42 100/135mm lens Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:
According to my sources, the Jupiter-11 used the exact same optical formula as the ZK and the German Sonnar, probably just because it was easier for KMZ to produce the same lens.


That's right. Jupiter-37, however, is probably not identical to Sonnar 135/3.5, but just very close.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:

I disagree. I had two samples of said lens, in Super and S-M-C designations, and it does not stand for its reputation. Not nearly so. Quite soft (full of spherical aberrations, very low contrast) wide open, it does not really sharpen until f/5.6 or so (both samples behaved exactly the same way). Some would say it's a good feature for portraits; however, bokeh is not that great wide open. It's quite busy in fact.


I agree 100% with you. I have owned several Asahi 105/2.8's (even the K-mount version), but these really don't stand up to the hype surrounding them. It really isn't as nice as some claim it is. I'd certainly prefer the 6-element 135mm f/2.5 SMC Takumar, which can be had for almost the same money.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Jupiter 11 is a beautiful looking lens and a good performer too. The Jupiter 11A in black is even better, and cheaper to boot!

Here were my first shots with the Jupiter 11, from a while back:

http://forum.mflenses.com/my-new-best-friend-jupiter-11-in-m42-mount-t17153,highlight,friend+jupiter.html


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:50 pm    Post subject: Re: Best m42 100/135mm lens Reply with quote
Abbazz wrote:
Anu wrote:
It is actually not the exact same optical formula. The formulas are very very close, but quite identical. There are diagrams for both CZJ Sonnars and many other CZJ lenses on http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/mlenses.html.

It's quite surprising news to me. I have always heard that the first batches of "made in USSR" ZK (Zonnar Krasnogorskii) 135/4 lenses where in fact relabelled Zeiss Sonnar lenses that were seized by the Red Army as war reparations. With the help of the German engineers and

This is different from your original claim that 135/3.5 is identical to Jupiter - 135/3.5 is a little bit different from 135/4, and I've always thought that 135/4 was from the same formula. Maybe it was just a slip earlier?
Abbazz wrote:

Anu wrote:
If a lens (any lens) is much better than your copy of 135/3.5 Sonnar, there is something really badly wrong with your Sonnar. Simply, there are no lenses made that are much better than the Sonnar (other than aperturewise). Maybe you should open the lens up, and put it back together - maybe an element or two are a bit loose or not properly in their place.

I don't see why a good Soviet Sonnar couldn't be as good as an East-German one. There sure are many lemons among Jupiter-11 and

Again, you said, that your copy of Jupiter is much better than your Sonnar - as the CZJ 135/3.5 is one of the best lenses ever made in it's focal lenght, if your Jupiter is much better than you CZJ, your CZJ is a lemon and can't be used as a sample of typical CZJ performance.

According to Jupiter sharpness figures it is quite far away from CZJ 135/3.5 Sonnar, especially on full frame edges.

Quote:

Jupiter-37A lenses, but the good ones perform at least as well as the East German Sonnars.


The comparison was between legendary CZJ 135/3.5 Sonnar - which has AFAIK not been copied by the Soviets, and the Jupiter. Maybe you mixed CZJ 135/3.5 and CZJ 135/4?

Anyhow, I'll probably buy one for myself too - it is a good looking lens Smile


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I read somewhere, that Jupiter-37 used licenced CZJ optical formula. In this case, difference could be caused only by sample variation, coating and iris (bokeh / oof lights).

But I have no idea if this info is corrects.

zenit.istra.ru catalogue lacks info about J37, m42.artlimited.net also.

Anyway, zenit.istra.ru says, that Jupiter-11 is based on "Carl Zeiss® Sonnar®". Any single word about recalculations done in CCCP. It is possible, that both J11 and J37 are direct copies of CZJ Sonnars.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
I read somewhere, that Jupiter-37 used licenced CZJ optical formula. In this case, difference could be caused only by sample variation, coating and iris (bokeh / oof lights).

But I have no idea if this info is corrects.

zenit.istra.ru catalogue lacks info about J37, m42.artlimited.net also.

Anyway, zenit.istra.ru says, that Jupiter-11 is based on "Carl Zeiss® Sonnar®". Any single word about recalculations done in CCCP. It is possible, that both J11 and J37 are direct copies of CZJ Sonnars.


Because of this discission I'm wasting too much time googling Smile

This page has J11 formula: http://www.photohistory.ru/index.php?pid=1207248189157431

That doesn't look at all like CZJ 135/4 (or 3.5), if http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/mlenses/czjson4_135.html is right - now that I think of it, maybe this site has incorrect image as they also seem to have wrong minimum focus distance.

On the other hand the "informal" version of Lens Vademecum gives yet another formula for J11 - this time more like CZJ 135/3.5, but with the from lens more separated from the large group.

I guess I'll withdraw all my claims about the formulas and try to hunt the proper ones. Someone must have them Smile


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu: The diagram on photohistory isn't Jupiter-11 (maybe it's Jupiter-11A?)

this is Jupiter-11 (see the shape of rear element, which is identical to Sonnar 135/4)



PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
this is Jupiter-11 (see tha shape of rear element, which is identical to Sonnar 135/4)


Yes, I found the same diagram from a russian site. But then again, I haven't disagreed with it being a clone of 135/4 Sonnar Smile

I do hoverver disagree with 135/3.5 being cloned by the russians, thoguh I might be wrong. Maybe Jupiter 37 is rather similar, but they do have different minimum focus distance (1m vs 1.2m) and different filter size (49 vs 52 to 58mm).

It is too bad it is next to impossible to get all the design information of different old lenses - I'd love to get, not just the diagrams, but also information about glasses used for different elements etc. Well, maybe someday someone scans all the secret archives of certain companies Smile


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minimum focusing distance and filter thread aren't related to optical formula, but to mechanical design and length of the focusing helicoid.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
Minimum focusing distance and filter thread aren't related to optical formula, but to mechanical design and length of the focusing helicoid.


I know, but if the optical design handles 1m well and doesn't need ultra-slow focusing helicoid, it would be silly to limit minimum focus to 1.2m.

Typically a larger filter thread size does also equal to larger front element though not necessarily.

Anyhow, J-37 seems to have (on full frame) quite a bit inferior edge performance compared to CZJ /3.5, though I must admit, I have no first hand knowledge and have to use indirect evidence.

One day when I can affor, I'm sure I'll buy this lens too. One can never cover one focal length too many times Smile


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Plokko wrote:
kuuan wrote:
I'll throw in the f2.8/105 Takumar..
but many good 105 and 135 lenses indeed, one may find a jewel in a no name cheapy


agree for the quality but takumar SMC is a big name so it's very hard to find one cheap!


I disagree. I had two samples of said lens, in Super and S-M-C designations, and it does not stand for its reputation. Not nearly so. Quite soft (full of spherical aberrations, very low contrast) wide open, it does not really sharpen until f/5.6 or so (both samples behaved exactly the same way). Some would say it's a good feature for portraits; however, bokeh is not that great wide open. It's quite busy in fact.

Asahi didn't excel with this one.


No? The one I have is a fantastic lens! Again we encounter the problem of generalisation...


aoleg wrote:

I have two other lenses sharing a similar optical scheme, Contax Sonnar 85/2.8 and Rolleinar 85/2.8, and both are miles ahead in IQ and bokeh (the Sonnar is the best by quite a margin).

Nikkor 105/2.5 (any version) is also a great lens,


Isn't this thread about M42 lenses?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
aoleg wrote:

I disagree. I had two samples of said lens, in Super and S-M-C designations, and it does not stand for its reputation. Not nearly so. Quite soft (full of spherical aberrations, very low contrast) wide open, it does not really sharpen until f/5.6 or so (both samples behaved exactly the same way). Some would say it's a good feature for portraits; however, bokeh is not that great wide open. It's quite busy in fact.


I agree 100% with you. I have owned several Asahi 105/2.8's (even the K-mount version), but these really don't stand up to the hype surrounding them. It really isn't as nice as some claim it is. I'd certainly prefer the 6-element 135mm f/2.5 SMC Takumar, which can be had for almost the same money.


....and would add my super Tak 135mm f3.5 is hyped up (i.e. not razor sharp)...guys with digital cameras seem to get better results from this lens.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
....and would add my super Tak 135mm f3.5 is hyped up (i.e. not razor sharp)...guys with digital cameras seem to get better results from this lens.


My Super and S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5 are both quite sharp. I have the earlier Super Tak with one extra lens element, and it supposedly helps with better background rendering. Other than that, the lens is decently sharp (very sharp indeed) but has a harsh rendering of backgrounds with quite a bit of green CA surrounding defocused areas. I wouldn't say this lens is 'hyped'; it's just very popular due to excessively many samples being readily available for sale at any given moment.

My Super-Takumar 135/2.5 is not nearly as sharp. The later six-element S-M-C version is supposed to be so much better.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3