Does anyone have a Praktica 135mm 2.8 made in Korea? pics up

[heartcat]

I received this M42 lens for Christmas and can find very little information on it.

I haven't had an opportunity to really try it out yet. I've only taken a few photos that I haven't downloaded yet, and of course how they look on the screen on my Xsi might be very different than how they'll look on my computer monitor.

I'd also love to see some sample photos if anyone has any! Thanks in advance.

[Spotmatic]

Please post a picture of the lens. This is essential information.

[koji]

And be more precise to the lens name, such as

(Pentacon) Praktica M42 135mm F2.8 or
Prakticar 135mm F2.8 or
Praktica B(ayonet) 135mm F2.8 or
Korea Praktica 135mm F2.8 (see > http://m42.artlimited.net/lens_detail.php?lid=252).

[Helios]

Hmmm , I have the Pentacon auto 2,8/135 MC "made in japan" , but not the Korean "clone" , which seems very different

[heartcat]

Spotmatic, yes that is the lens, thank you! And that page is the only thing I've been able to find about it, although my google skills probably leave something to be desired, lol.

Koji, that 'is' the precise name. That's all it says on the lens, that it's a Praktica 135mm 2.8 made in Korea and as I stated it's an M42 mount.

Helios, I have found information on other 135mm 2.8 lenses, but not this one.

I'm guessing that it was more of what would be a 'consumer level' lens and probably less expensive and less desirable than other 135mm 2.8 lenses.

But I am curious to know more about it, and/or to see how it actually functions for those who've used one.

Thanks for the help, all!

[Sevo]

How old does it seem to be? By the nineties, you could cheaply licence the trade marks and patents from the old GDR companies for just about every purpose.

[visualopsins]

Mine has "PENTACON Auto 2.8/135 MC, German Democratic Republic", many aperture blades. edit: with 6 aperture blades; I was mistaken!

I haven't been able to find much info. I like this lens very much; very sharp with wonderful bokeh. More like Zeiss than Takumar, if that means anything.

Flikr has a group: http://www.flickr.com/groups/1018898@N20/

Here at MFLenses: http://www.mflenses.com/content/view/19/29/

and: http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/mlenses/morp2.8_135.html

[orly_andico]

contrary to the claim "there's no such thing as a bad 135mm lens" I have actually come across two not-so-great 135mm lenses:

1) an f/2.8 model from Hong Kong, Hanimex brand, mostly plastic -- this was was actually BAD, with extreme softness and lots of flare wide-open

2) an f/2.8 Chinon (in K-mount), made in Japan and mostly metal, but still not a match for the GDR Pentacon or Super-Takumar or CZJ Sonnar -- highly competent at f/8, but at f/4 (closed one stop down) it still couldn't match the other 135mm lenses I had.


I think that with 135mm f/2.8 lenses, it IS possible to make a bad (or at least, not-so-good) lens, while at f/3.5 the design parameters are more relaxed so it's hard to get a bad f/3.5 lens.....

[ManualFocus-G]

[visualopsins]

[ManualFocus-G]

[visualopsins]

[heartcat]

Siriusdogstar, thanks so much for taking the time to post those links, I really appreciate it.

Mine is not a Pentacon (too bad, because there were some lovely photos on that flickr link) though it does have a similar look to it.

And it is a 6 bladed lens as well.

Sevo, it doesn't appear to be that old, it has more of a modern look to it, and though I'm very inexperienced I wouldn't imagine it would be from any earlier than the 90s.

It does seem to have a decent enough build quality. I dropped it on the floor, and it doesn't seem to have been damaged at all.

I've never heard anyone even mention Korean made lenses in the bit of reading I've done about MF M42 lenses so far, so I'm guessing it's a cheaper version of something else.

The real test will be to see how the photos turn out, I suppose!

Thanks, all.

[heartcat]

ETA: Taken with a Canon 450D and at f/2.8

I took some photos with it today and will see if I can get them to post.

Straight out of the camera, nothing done to them to allow for an accurate representation.

Our Shepherd pup playing in the yard.







Any under/over exposure issues are me, not the lens. I've only recently starting shooting in manual mode and am still learning. And she was moving around a lot so the focus wasn't always bang on.

Overall doesn't seem to be a bad lens, but nothing to get excited about either. The colour seems to run cooler than I prefer and doesn't have the richness of my CZJ or Takumars.