View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Gardener
Joined: 22 Sep 2013 Posts: 950 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
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. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
All the Hexanon 3.5/135s are very sharp, I must have 6 or 7 of them. The 3.2/135 is sharper though. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
WNG555
Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WNG555 wrote:
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. _________________ "The eyes are useless when the mind is blind."
Sony ILCE-6000, SELP1650, SEL1855, SEL55210, SEL5018. Sigma 19/30/60mm f2.8 EX DN Art.
Rokinon 8mm f3.5 Fish-Eye, 14mm f2.8 IF ED UMC. Samyang 12mm f2.8 ED AS NCS Fish-Eye.
And a bunch of Manual-Focus Lenses
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
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. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cyrano
Joined: 15 Feb 2013 Posts: 857 Location: UK
Expire: 2016-12-30
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cyrano wrote:
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.
It is small though. _________________ A whole bunch of stuff. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2016 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
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. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
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] _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cellotone
Joined: 13 Apr 2014 Posts: 317 Location: US
Expire: 2020-09-24
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2016 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cellotone wrote:
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.
_________________ Nikon D600, Fujifilm X-E1, Sony A7R,
Leica R lenses, C/Y Zeiss lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 12:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Count RF lenses if you can I love them all, maker almost no matter, Zeiss, Russian or Canon or Leitz. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
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. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
leemik
Joined: 21 Feb 2011 Posts: 107 Location: Quincy, MA
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alex ph
Joined: 16 Mar 2013 Posts: 1662
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2016 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
alex ph wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
cooltouch wrote:
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. _________________ Michael
My Gear List: http://michaelmcbroom.com/photo/gear.html
My Gallery: http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/
My Flickr Page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/11308754@N08/albums
My Music: https://soundcloud.com/michaelmcbroom/albums
My Blog: http://michaelmcbroom.com/blogistan/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2016 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
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 _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wildlight images
Joined: 27 Aug 2013 Posts: 56
|
Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
wildlight images wrote:
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.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jethro Tull
Joined: 31 Dec 2010 Posts: 68 Location: SCOTLAND
|
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jethro Tull wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3132 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
DigiChromeEd wrote: |
Asahi Pentax Takumar SMC 3.5/135. |
Agreed, great lens. Fantastic mechanical quality also. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659
|
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
As almost of us did, I went from one to another brands and models.
Perhaps I shall continue that.
My actual 135 mm lens is a Konica hexanon 135 f/3,2.
It has a lot of cleaning marks in the internal face of the last element (??? yes, the internal face)
It has a lot of cleaning marks at the front element too.
But is so sharp, strong contrast. It's a very nice 135 mm.
If I can find another copy in better conditions, I will buy it, sure. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MMouse
Joined: 18 Apr 2018 Posts: 58
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
MMouse wrote:
I have the Konica Hexanon 135mm f/3,2 too. Beautiful lens.
Sharpness wide open is not the absolute best, but I think the lens can be tricky to focus.
However, it renders well and minimal focus distance is reasonable.
Tamron adaptall 135mm f/3,5 close focus is not small but a bright and interesting one.
Really liked the output of the CZJ 135mm f/3,5 in m42 mount. Very nice colors, excellent sharpness and great close focusing. But the lens has too much mechanical problems. Got and sent back two samples with fungus. Then I got a clean one that arrived with broken aperture. The last one was good but the aperture broke after one week of light use. I repaired it and sold it.
The Konica looks less contrasty and probably a bit less sharp but it's much more reliable. Mine is like new. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3702 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
There is very compact version of ISCO Westanar 3.5/135 and it is also among budget priced category. Is it the best? Surely for someone . _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5999 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Pancolart wrote: |
There is very compact version of ISCO Westanar 3.5/135 and it is also among budget priced category. Is it the best? Surely for someone . |
It is a very short lens and the same length as the SMC Pentax-M 3.5/135
I looks shorter because it is a little fatter.
It is a lower contrast lens than the Pentax, but this has its charms.
Here is an image taken with it.
Tom
#1
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1659
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
MMouse wrote: |
......Really liked the output of the CZJ 135mm f/3,5 in m42 mount. Very nice colors, excellent sharpness and great close focusing. But the lens has too much mechanical problems. Got and sent back two samples with fungus. Then I got a clean one that arrived with broken aperture. The last one was good but the aperture broke after one week of light use. I repaired it and sold it.... |
I had the oldest single coated and the red MC versions in M42 both.
Warmer images with the first.
Nice mechanism to modify the wide aperture when you close focus.
Very sharp. Not CA wide open (my copy)
The MC has very good colors, not so natural ones.
Not so sharp wide open (less than the konica, the Topcor and the nikkor AI)
The MC is bad mechanically. My copy at least |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sergtum
Joined: 14 Nov 2016 Posts: 735
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sergtum wrote:
Pancolart wrote: |
There is very compact version of ISCO Westanar 3.5/135 and it is also among budget priced category.
|
I agree, but Tele-Westanar 3.5/135
DSC02539 by Mr TTT, on Flickr
shot taken by Sony a7 with Tele-Westanar 3.5/135:
DSC02527 by Mr TTT, on Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pancolart
Joined: 04 Feb 2008 Posts: 3702 Location: Slovenia, EU
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pancolart wrote:
Nice samples from Westanar there. Yes, the compact version is smaller then Pentax SMC i think. I just measured M42 variant and it is only: 79mm x 52mm. _________________ ---------------------------------
The Peculiar Apparatus Of Victorian Steampunk Photography: 100+ Genuine Steampunk Camera Designs https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B92829NS |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|