The most expensive and highly regarded 135 I have is crap!

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I will do some further test shots before trying to take it apart, i expect it is 4 or 5 elements so as you say, could be fairly simple to figure out.

An optical scheme would be very handy though.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

I sold these when they were being made. They were aggressively promoted and their advertising suggested that they were the "ne plus ultra" of advanced optical design. People who bought them gave mixed comments - some raved about them, others moaned. The mechanical quality seemed variable, many of the 135/2.3 model had impossibly heavy focusing movements, and the varifocal (was it 35~80mm?) was often hard to slide to change focal lengths. I recall trying the 135/2.3 and thinking that although good, it wasn't anything like the advertising said it was supposed to be. That was based on taking photos in the real world on Kodachrome and then sitting a foot from the 4-foot square projector screen . . . just like pixel peeping today.

I think Ian's is probably one that didn't quite go together properly. See what woodrim's review has to say about the moving optical group - that's a likely culprit. If it's been apart since manufacture, you'll see the evidence if you look closely at the screw heads.

My feeling is that it's best to leave it alone and put it on eBay with a totally non-commital description. E.g. "Looks near mint [if that's correct] but I've not been able to get on with it". If anyone asks, then just tell them the truth.

A shame it's disappointed you, but if you've focused it correctly and held the camera steady, then the thing is what it is. A let-down Crying or Very sad

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Thanks for the info woodrim.

I've examined it closely and I can see zero signs of it ever having been played with, the screw heads are unblemished.

I really don't want to play with it, I doubt I'd be able to fix it as I doubt it's anything as severe as a element the wrong way round, just a case of sloppy assembly.

I think I will stick it on ebay in the end, I'm sure someone with experience in these things can sort it out.

Shutter speeds were pretty high for all my shots so I am sure there was no shake involved, and looking at the images I don't see signs of shake, just softness.

I reckon it must be a fairly slight adjustment that it needs as it does appear fine at f8, it's just at the wide apertures it really sucks ass.

Laurentiu Cristofor · Joined: 23 Oct 2010 Posts: 524 Location: WA, USA

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

I've got a AE1P Ian, but I won't be up the Lakes until the spring if you want leave it till then?

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

That would be good David, or perhaps I can put a roll through it on 5th Feb?

I followed woodrim's suggestion and tried the lens on the 'row houses' (terraced street to us Brits lol) with the camera on a tripod. No PP at all on these, just JPEGs straight from the NEX-3 resized to 1500x1000:

f2.3:

f4:

f5.6:

f8:

f11:

f16:

f22:

To me, it's not great at any aperture, it doesn't look faulty, just a bit of a lemon.

ManualFocus-G · Expire: 2014-11-24

Perhaps this is why the lens is so mint Wink

FluffPuppy · Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365

Looking at the images, the lens appears to have a lot of faults.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

Ian: email me your original, full size, f/4 image woodrims@gmail.com

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Hiya Woodrim

I'd love to, but sadly I've deleted the full-size versions.

Was there something you'd spotted you wanted to look more closely at?

On the being mint thing, the two FD lenses that I got with it were also mint and those were both fine, the AE-1 that was also in the lot was near-mint too, but sadly is jammed, lady I bought it from said it had all been sat in a wardrobe for 20-odd years as it belonged to her elderly father who had recently passed away, I suspect the AE-1 has just gummed up and a relube would cure it.

Sadly, it does look like I've got a really crap lens here...

Just my luck!

scsambrook · Expire: 2011-11-18

Ian -
Just been looking at your terraced house pictures and messing with the crops with Picasa, which isn't the world's most sophisticated software by any means. Although there certainly is plenty of colour edging at wide apertures, just tweaking the contrast and adding a wee bit of sharpness seems to make a big difference. At f8 the lens looks as if it might actually be quite good. It could still be a poor sample, but I'm not sure now.

It might be worth putting it on your tripod and shooting some raw files trying to eliminate human arrors and then carefully working on them to see what comes out. A sort of default processing formula. Don't junk it just yet!

FluffPuppy · Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365

Again, these lenses were designed for film. Digital tends to exaggerate the CA.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

AhamB · Joined: 22 Jun 2008 Posts: 733 Location: Germany

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

No light today and pouring with rain so no further tests.

I think the best way to cure CA is to use a lens that doesn't have it, personally speaking.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

Here's Ian's f/2.3 shot back with no CA. Actually took 20 seconds because there was magenta in addition to the blue. Lenses that don't exhibit CA are nice, of course, but also rare. One should know how to correct it.

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

That does look much better without the CA. Care to share how you did it?

I wouldn't say lenses without CA are rare, my Pentacon 2.8/135 hasn't got any wide open. neither have my three Konica 135s. I've been careful to avoid lenses with CA when building up my shooting set.

FluffPuppy · Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

Ian: I work in Photoshop, so am not as familiar with other tools. In PS, you simply enlarge the image enough to see the CA clearly, then go to Image - Adjustments - Hue/Saturation. Then change the menu selection where it says Master to the color you're correcting, most cases blue, but sometimes magenta. If you're wrong, it will correct the selection. Then take the pointer, which is now an eyedropper tool, and click on the CA where the color is obvious. You'll then see that color come up in your swatch selection. Now take the saturation and lightness sliders and find the best reductions to correct the CA. I typically do them about equally, but you can see the change as you're doing it and will know how much to adjust. Note: don't forget to select the color from the Master, otherwise the entire image will be effected, not just the CA color/area.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

Ian, to ensure you're testing a lens and not your focusing ability, a shot like this can be helpful. Here I might have thought the lens was soft, but the brick told me I was off on the focus.

FluffPuppy · Joined: 11 Dec 2011 Posts: 365

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21