| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1721
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:40 pm Post subject: which 135/2,5 lens do you prefer? |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 8:40 pm Post subject: which 135/2,5 lens do you prefer? |
|
|
papasito wrote:
There are some 135 mm F/2,5 lenses.
Fujinon, Hexanon, Canon, Super Takumar (SMC. K mount), Tamron, etc.
Which is your prefer one? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SkedAddled
Joined: 19 Oct 2008
Posts: 1447
Location: Michigan, USA
Expire: 2021-08-12
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SkedAddled wrote:
I can't say that 135mm is where I like to use a lens much,
but I have a Tokina-made Soligor 135/2.8 in T4 mount
which gives great results after cleaning fungus out of it.
Sorry, I have no examples.
_________________
Craig
Of course I'm all right! Why? What have you heard!?
Canon Digital EOS 5D Mk IV, EOS 50D, Powershot S3 iS
Vivitar 28 f/2.8 OM - Zuiko 50 f/1.8 OM - Tamron SP 28-80 f/3.5 AD2[Favorite!] - Hanimar 135 f/3.5 M42 - Soligor 135 f/2.8 T4 - Tamron SP 60-300 f/3.8 AD2 - Soligor 75-260 f/4.5 M42 - Soligor 400 f/6.3 T4 - Soligor 500 f/8 T2 Cat + Matched 2X TC - Addiction Growing!
This is us -- We drive these -- We're named these |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11638
Location: California
Expire: 2027-07-11
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
M42 Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 2.5/135 model II product 43812 6/6 elements/groups.
There is an earlier model product 43802 with 5/4 formula, same as the earlier Super-TAKUMAR. These are not as sharp wide open. I have owned all three.
Honorable mention is the Tamron adaptall-2 2.5/135, model 03B, a much more compact lens which should be an SP lens imho. Edit: Owned it too, kinda regret selling...
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Solinon 1:5.6/18 ASPH.
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
Last edited by visualopsins on Tue Mar 10, 2020 4:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008
Posts: 2066
Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: which 135/2,5 lens do you prefer? |
|
Posted: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: which 135/2,5 lens do you prefer? |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
| papasito wrote: |
Which is your prefer one? |
My prefer one is, of course, the Hexanon. Because it is only one which I have in possession. 
_________________
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kypfer
Joined: 27 Sep 2017
Posts: 591
Location: Jersey C.I.
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
kypfer wrote:
I've had my Tamron #03B 135mm f/2.5 since the '70's, it was second-hand when I bought it and it continues to perform as well as it ever did. The only other f/2.5 135mm I've got is a Vivitar TX (Tokina manufacture), which is a relatively recent acquisition and, despite there being nothing "wrong" with the mages it produces, is even heavier than the Tamron so tends not to get chosen to be put in my bag.
None of my several other 135mm lenses have such a wide aperture, but they're all somewhat lighter  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3679
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
My only lens in this category is the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5 4/4 lens from the 1980's. It's far better than expected. I've originally acquired it for my Pentax K20D and still own it. In comparison to my other 135mm lenses it's one of the better ones.
Here are some user-reviews: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-Takumar-135mm-F2.5-Bayonet-Lens.html
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1721
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
My experience with MY COPIES was
Konica . Nice lens. Good sharpness médium contrast with moderate CA wide open to F/5,6.
I sold it because my F/3,2 was a bit sharper, mire light and with less CA.
Súper Multicoated Takumar (2 v.)
Súper sharp. With great contrast and super colors.
Very heavy
Strong Lateral and longitudinal CA.
Fuji is the best? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2717
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
I have both S-M-C Takumar V2 and Tamron 03B. Both excellent. Both have green and purple fringing in the out of focus parts. The Takumar is probably more resistant to veiling flare. I haven't had the 03B for long enough to really compare though.
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KEO
Joined: 27 Sep 2018
Posts: 811
Location: USA
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KEO wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| M42 Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 2.5/135 model II product 43812 6/6 elements/groups. |
I have this one. It also has an 8-bladed aperture, which is nice.
It's a very good lens, though I'm not sure it quite deserves its cult following. It would be interesting to put it up against the others in your list, especially the Fujinon.
My observations are based solely on my single copy, and that's always a risk with old lenses.
I find myself using my Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 3.5 more often. It's much smaller, much lighter, much less expensive, and it has excellent IQ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11638
Location: California
Expire: 2027-07-11
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| KEO wrote: |
| visualopsins wrote: |
| M42 Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 2.5/135 model II product 43812 6/6 elements/groups. |
I have this one. It also has an 8-bladed aperture, which is nice.
It's a very good lens, though I'm not sure it quite deserves its cult following. It would be interesting to put it up against the others in your list, especially the Fujinon.
My observations are based solely on my single copy, and that's always a risk with old lenses.
I find myself using my Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135 3.5 more often. It's much smaller, much lighter, much less expensive, and it has excellent IQ. |
+1! about cult & comparison with others listed.
As papasito mentions it is big & heavy, like 66x85mm 58mm filter 444kg! Looks quite awesome on full size Cannon EOS camera for example. Front heavy on a7r2, no doubt.
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Solinon 1:5.6/18 ASPH.
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6014
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
I have two: Canon FD 2.5/135 and SMC Pentax K 2.5/135 (which is same optics as v2 Takumar)
The Canon is not as sharp wide open as the Pentax but has smoother bokeh, so great for some portraits. Both are heavy.
The only Hexanon I have is the 3.2/135.
It is at least as sharp as the Pentax at widest aperture, and maybe a whisker sharper, but bokeh is busier.
It is lighter and focuses closer, mfd just under 1m.
Ladies and children portraits, Canon FD
Landscapes, Hexanon
Great all rounder and used on ME Super for film, SMC Pentax K 135/2.5
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 5303
Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
I have a few 2.5/135mm lenses, among them the Canon FL and FD 2.5/135mm (not the same optics!), the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm and an early M42 Super Takumar 2.5/135mm. I don't use them, because i prefer either the Canon nFD 2/135mm or the Nikkor AiS 2/135mm. Especially the Canon is relatively lightweight. It balances well, and its focusing ring is not too large (the Nikkor has a too large diameter IMHO).
I may take a few comparing images later today to show the differences between the four 2.5/135mm lenses mentioned above, and the 2/135mm Canon nFD.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears
Joined: 13 Jan 2010
Posts: 215
Location: Leek, Staffordshire
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
noddywithoutbigears wrote:
| Oldhand wrote: |
I have two: Canon FD 2.5/135 and SMC Pentax K 2.5/135 (which is same optics as v2 Takumar)
The Canon is not as sharp wide open as the Pentax but has smoother bokeh, so great for some portraits. Both are heavy.
The only Hexanon I have is the 3.2/135.
It is at least as sharp as the Pentax at widest aperture, and maybe a whisker sharper, but bokeh is busier.
It is lighter and focuses closer, mfd just under 1m.
Ladies and children portraits, Canon FD
Landscapes, Hexanon
Great all rounder and used on ME Super for film, SMC Pentax K 135/2.5
Tom |
Yes totally agree with the Hexanon 135mm f3.2, great lens, I’ve had a lot of 135mm pass through my fingers over the years is this far and away my favourite, need to track another Jupiter 11A down as impressed by this one also.
_________________
Sony A7
Super Takumar 55mm F18, Helios 44-2 58mm f2, Super Takumar 85mm f1.9, Pentacon 50mm f1.8, Zenitar 16mm f2.8 Fisheye, Carl Zeiss Vario Prakticar 35-70mm f2.7-3.5. Carl Zeiss Prakticar 35mm f2.4 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1721
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
I have a few 2.5/135mm lenses, among them the Canon FL and FD 2.5/135mm (not the same optics!), the Hexanon AR 2.5/135mm and an early M42 Super Takumar 2.5/135mm. I don't use them, because i prefer either the Canon nFD 2/135mm or the Nikkor AiS 2/135mm. Especially the Canon is relatively lightweight. It balances well, and its focusing ring is not too large (the Nikkor has a too large diameter IMHO).
I may take a few comparing images later today to show the differences between the four 2.5/135mm lenses mentioned above, and the 2/135mm Canon nFD.
S |
Thank you.
Very informative comparing to come |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1721
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2020 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
| noddywithoutbigears wrote: |
| Oldhand wrote: |
I have two: Canon FD 2.5/135 and SMC Pentax K 2.5/135 (which is same optics as v2 Takumar)
The Canon is not as sharp wide open as the Pentax but has smoother bokeh, so great for some portraits. Both are heavy.
The only Hexanon I have is the 3.2/135.
It is at least as sharp as the Pentax at widest aperture, and maybe a whisker sharper, but bokeh is busier.
It is lighter and focuses closer, mfd just under 1m.
Ladies and children portraits, Canon FD
Landscapes, Hexanon
Great all rounder and used on ME Super for film, SMC Pentax K 135/2.5
Tom |
Yes totally agree with the Hexanon 135mm f3.2, great lens, I’ve had a lot of 135mm pass through my fingers over the years is this far and away my favourite, need to track another Jupiter 11A down as impressed by this one also. |
Out of the post. I found the mamiya SX (rolleinar MC) 2,8/135 to be more sharp from wide open (f/3,5) than the great hexanon 135/3,2.
So I sold the 3 2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008
Posts: 2066
Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1721
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: Konica AR Hexanon 135/2.5 |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 9:29 pm Post subject: Re: Konica AR Hexanon 135/2.5 |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Thank you, very much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008
Posts: 2066
Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: Konica AR Hexanon 135/2.5 |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 18, 2020 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: Konica AR Hexanon 135/2.5 |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
| papasito wrote: |
Thank you, very much. |
One more, upon 8.0 However, also edited very much
https://scontent.fiev21-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/89931925_2845081605579158_5357673094158745600_o.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_sid=e007fa&_nc_oc=AQkb822jWGWJ-LtJ_oyjPkXdt5rwlZbvA3rKzGgYZYkHxBQT0fz-ta0NsN_jXIPzK48&_nc_ht=scontent.fiev21-2.fna&oh=8654a697e17fc9c76aebd6332592ab5f&oe=5E992471
_________________
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manichaean
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 73
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Manichaean wrote:
Of those I have the Fujinon, Hexanon and Canon.
I prefer the EBC Fujinon (the bayonet one) to the other two. It's a great lens, head and shoulders above the other Fuji's 135s (I also have Fujinon 135/3,5 and Fujinar 135/2.8 ).
And it is much more compact and light than the Konica or Canon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6014
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| Manichaean wrote: |
Of those I have the Fujinon, Hexanon and Canon.
I prefer the EBC Fujinon (the bayonet one) to the other two. It's a great lens, head and shoulders above the other Fuji's 135s (I also have Fujinon 135/3,5 and Fujinar 135/2.8 ).
And it is much more compact and light than the Konica or Canon. |
I am sure that this is a fine lens.
Hard to find and expensive when found.
I am not sure that I would be prepared to pay today's prices for it.
Do you have any images from it that show its beauty?
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2717
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
I often see the SMC Pentax K 135mm 1:2.5 Go for not so much. It used to be quite popular among Pentaxians. The S-M-C Takumar version was usually cheaper, but since the advance of mirrorless the tables have turned. Optically they are still the same lens though. I do like the metal hood from the takumar better.
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6014
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
| I often see the SMC Pentax K 135mm 1:2.5 Go for not so much. It used to be quite popular among Pentaxians. The S-M-C Takumar version was usually cheaper, but since the advance of mirrorless the tables have turned. Optically they are still the same lens though. I do like the metal hood from the takumar better. |
Yes, the metal hood is quite lovely as well as being useful.
It is strange that prices for the SMC Takumar are higher, but that was also the case when I purchased mine some years back. And so I have the Pentax K model.
I do think that there is some nostalgia built into the prices of Takumars that doesn't make its way into the K mount lenses.
As a film shooter with Pentax, it is easier to carry a couple of K mount lenses rather than a mix of M42 and K mount.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
