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

Pentax-M 150mm f/3.5 very light.....
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:31 am    Post subject: Pentax-M 150mm f/3.5 very light..... Reply with quote

150mm, it weighs only 290 grams.

bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5117/5831281554_79399a3fe6_b.jpg
100



bigger
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/5830738139_b2e1f3ff76_b.jpg
100



bigger
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3472/5827427877_25805dc9a3_b.jpg

all handheld Smile

ok ok one last cat shot:


100 below
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3060/5830793471_0dd4fefc80_o.jpg

for comparison: the tokina at-x 90 also shooting cat:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/5831373104_dc0b93e2a1_b.jpg


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is it my eyes or is there a hell of a lot of CA on the crop of the cat? Also with the crop of the guy on the bike, something doesn't look quite right.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Is it my eyes or is there a hell of a lot of CA on the crop of the cat? Also with the crop of the guy on the bike, something doesn't look quite right.


haha, that's why its good to put things up.

you may well be right. Sad

the lens is in very good condition, but I wonder about it myself.

It's funny, most lenses go right past infinity on the nex adapters, but this one seems to stop right at it when wide open.

as to the blue cat, there is some of that even with the tokina, as you can see.

The sun was very strong overhead.

I guess the jury is out on this one, which is a shame because it is so portable.

the light was more obscure on the landscapes

bigger
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5080/5831655884_397fe609c4_b.jpg


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I also have this lens. Very nicely done lens with built in hood and really very small for a telephoto lens. I need it for street portraits because of his size. Optically the lens is sharp already wide open, but it has quite a lot of viola/green CA. Otherwise very nice colors and a nice bokeh. If you compare it with Takumar 150/4 is slightly less sharp but colors and bokeh are better. And not to forget Takumar 150 f4 is larger and heavier lens.
Two pictures with this lens on Pentax K20d





PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dfujevec wrote:
I also have this lens. Very nicely done lens with built in hood and really very small for a telephoto lens. I need it for street portraits because of his size. Optically the lens is sharp already wide open, but it has quite a lot of viola/green CA. Otherwise very nice colors and a nice bokeh. If you compare it with Takumar 150/4 is slightly less sharp but colors and bokeh are better. And not to forget Takumar 150 f4 is larger and heavier lens.


TY very much for this reply---and nice shots. You have a bunch of real sweet ones on your site too.

Next test I'll stop to at least 5.6 and check CA.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Is it my eyes or is there a hell of a lot of CA on the crop of the cat? Also with the crop of the guy on the bike, something doesn't look quite right.


This is an unfortunate aspect of many of the older MF film lenses on DSLR's.
I've always found the older Pentax glass to have amazing colors/contrast and resolution. However, on the downside, along with this, many also have high CA/PF and/or fringing(damned-you focus plane!).

But, since alot of this can be remediated in post, I guess we could say that in some cases, they are worth the effort.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I hope the op didn't think I was being critical of his shots, I should have also mentioned I like the pictures, the mountain landscape is very nice and the resolution power of the lens is clearly very good, which I would expect with all Pentax lenses.

Shame about the CA, I have quite a few lenses of longer lengths that also have CA issues, I would love to see a simple tutorial on how to remedy CA in PP as I have no clue how to do it.

I can suggest one very small and light lens that is good - the Cosina k-mount 3.5/135 labelled as a Petri that I have, it's tiny, not much bigger than many 50mm lenses, I paid very little for it on ebay as I collect Petri lenses.

http://forum.mflenses.com/petri-3-5-135mm-k-mount-t40053.html

Pancolart has two copies of this lens and it was he who identified it as a Cosina.

In this pic it is focused at the min distance, at infinity it is over an inch shorter:






I didn't take any shots that really test CA but to my eyes, it's quite good in that regard, and for lightness and size, can't think of another 135 as small and light as this one and you should be able to find one dirt cheap.



100% crop:



Sharpness test, wide open:



100% crop, I think this is very good sharpness for wide open:



PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 the samples you posted look pretty awful to me: very low contrast and washed out colours.

And (but this might be just me) I don't think hijacking a thread like this one, which is focused on a single lens, by showing pictures of and from a totally unrelated lens, is a good thing. It messes up search engine optimization, and makes it harder for future readers to find and check info on a specific lens.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oh, so suggesting an alternative small and light lens is hijacking?

If you think the samples look awful, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

I really don't see what your problem is to be honest.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Oh, so suggesting an alternative small and light lens is hijacking?

If you think the samples look awful, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

I really don't see what your problem is to be honest.


I'm not offended AT ALL by your original observations--I'm gratefull. I think you are right.

I did not think you were bashing the comp at all, hehe.

And I VERY much apreciate your bringing up the little 135. Right now I'm using the 260 gram MD 135, which is pretty tiny



any idea the weight of the little petri?

Frankly it looks VERY similar to the late MD, and not at all like the "normal" older petri 135/3.5s

If it has a bayonet mount it is probably a petri mount, not K, from what I've been reading. Not interchangable without special M42 adapter.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fantastic compact teles for the NEX!!


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Petri, with a solid brass PK-EOS adapter attached (can't get it off!) is 335g so without the adapter would be around 290 I think so not that light.

It does look similar to the MD, as you already have that one I doubt the Petri will interest you that much, I only mentioned it as it's the smallest telephoto I've got and you are looking for small lenses.

I have two 1960s Petri lenses that are in Petri bayonet, but this later Petri from the early 80s is Petri in name only, at this time Petri cameras were made by Chinon and were rebadged versions of the Chinon K mount models, the lenses were a mix of Cosina and Chinon it seems.

One note about the earlier Petri bayonet lenses - they are very easy to convert to other fittings, the petri bayonet is a small ring that is hold on by two screws, remove those, put an adapter in it's place, hey presto, I have converted both of mine to EOS mount.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the Pentax-M 150mm shots are just fine. Sure, you won't get the best IQ with the crops but were you expecting anything else than a loss on quality when you use a portion of the image at full resolution?..


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ChromaticAberration wrote:
I think the Pentax-M 150mm shots are just fine. Sure, you won't get the best IQ with the crops but were you expecting anything else than a loss on quality when you use a portion of the image at full resolution?..


I agree, they are fine, there is CA, as we have discussed, but this doesn't mean they aren't nice shots.

Sometimes we focus too much on IQ and not enough on the actual picture.

Take this as an example, the IQ is awful, nothing in focus, nothing sharp, but for some reason, I really like this picture, I spotted my friend Jules approaching and snapped a pic with the old projector lens I had mounted on my camera, she waved and pulled a funny face and that made the shot.



To the OP, I wish you success in your search for small, light lenses. Sadly, the best primes are all metal and it is the modern plastic zooms that are truly small and light.

I hope no-one has been at all offended in any way by anything I have posted in this thread, not at all my intention!


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Oh, so suggesting an alternative small and light lens is hijacking?

If you think the samples look awful, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

I really don't see what your problem is to be honest.


I think Ludoo is right and the thread has started with different lens: ASAHI 150 f3.5 and not with Petri 135 f3.5

tf


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I apologise to both Ludoo and trifox then.

Interesting to note that the last time I encountered trifox I asked him if he could post info about how his company converted a lens and he didn't reply. Now he's critical of me.

If the OP wishes I will delete all the posts I have made in this thread.

I really can't understand the attitudes of Ludoo and trifox though, I have to say.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, I apologise to both Ludoo and trifox then.

Interesting to note that the last time I encountered trifox I asked him if he could post info about how his company converted a lens and he didn't reply. Now he's critical of me.

If the OP wishes I will delete all the posts I have made in this thread.

I really can't understand the attitudes of Ludoo and trifox though, I have to say.


Ian == you're missing the point -- I mean fully...

Ludoo has made a little statement and I just supported him - once again -- Ludoo's POINT was about keeping the thread 'clean and clear' for further online search.

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Interesting to note that the last time I encountered trifox I asked him if he could post info about how his company converted a lens and he didn't reply. Now he's critical of me..


Can you explain this further, please?!? I mean via PM

thanks

tf


PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 1:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm sorry, I shall PM you, I would like to say that I wasn't inferring anythig at all, just making an observation?


PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Turning back to the M150, I have one too and have slightly mixed feelings about it. It is very sharp, as well as being small and light, so it is quite a nice lens overall. It is a little lower in contrast (or more likely just more flare prone) than my 135mm lenses, as well as my Pentax M120/2.8, which I love dearly. The lateral CA on my sample is perfectly fine, it's the longitudinal CA which is above average and can be problematic in certain situations. It looks like the same thing with the cat image--it's face is slightly in front of the plane of focus and hence the purple color from longitudinal CA. I'm probably just hard on it because I really love my M120 so much.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
just a few shots of the lens....

next to the OM 200/5





TY Maktak for mentioning the 120-- I did not know about it Smile


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Snapped one up from Japan for under €22 (so no taxes and handling costs) counting on a overzealous description of internal dust/haze/fungus.

It has a design very similar to the 135mm F3.5


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I find the older Takumar 150/4 / Pentax K 150/4 actually pretty good when it comes to CA control. But when you’re hiking the Pentax-M is probably a better lens to take with you (much lighter).


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:18 am    Post subject: digressions welcome Reply with quote
Sirs,

SUch digressions to single -theme posts provide potentially interesting trails even if small scale snaps provide unreliable evidence for quality.

As as frequent user of photo equipment and involuntary collector of devices I have used in the past, I find references to competing products and industry history interesting , so let me contribute to Googles potential confusion by mentioning that the Fujita 135 is even smaller than most, but also not particularly sharp.

p.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
I find the older Takumar 150/4 / Pentax K 150/4 actually pretty good when it comes to CA control. But when you’re hiking the Pentax-M is probably a better lens to take with you (much lighter).


The Takumar isn't even that much heavier (up to 40 grams depending on which version) but the lens design is 2cm shorter, which is a big difference. It is about as long as the Takumar/SMC Pentax 120mm 2.8


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 9:20 am    Post subject: Re: digressions welcome Reply with quote
paulhofseth wrote:
Sirs,

SUch digressions to single -theme posts provide potentially interesting trails even if small scale snaps provide unreliable evidence for quality.

As as frequent user of photo equipment and involuntary collector of devices I have used in the past, I find references to competing products and industry history interesting , so let me contribute to Googles potential confusion by mentioning that the Fujita 135 is even smaller than most, but also not particularly sharp.

p.

Laugh 1 Laugh 1 Laugh 1
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2