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

your best 135mm (and how you got there)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 12:55 pm    Post subject: your best 135mm (and how you got there) Reply with quote
the original 28mm thread by uhoh7 was one of the most interesting I read. really after that one can have an exhaustive idea of the 28mm focal.


so I'd like to see if it works with the 135mm!!

I don't like telephotos, and actually I think I never shot with anything over the 85mm. I tried Pentax m135 and k135 and it was quite disappointing. More for the focal than the performance. So as I have now various film bodies from different brands, I'd like to try again. I read marvelous things about the Hexanon 135 3.2, or the Rokkor MD 135 2.8 4/4. then we have the pentacon/meyer and others...


let's see if we can group together experiences like in the other thread and help all people in doubt like me!


PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That's an easy one for me: Leitz Elmar 135mm/F4 is my best and my most versatile lens.
My thread about this lens can be found here: http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-elmar-135mm-f4-m39-ltm-t71382.html

I've recently done a comparison between all of my 10 different 135mm lenses from Asahi (Pentax) to Zeiss and the winner was clear: the Leitz Elmar.

An interesting and very informative test report can also be seen here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/135mm-f4.htm

In terms of quality for the money it's IMHO rather impossible to find a better lens in 135mm focal length.


PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 135 I like most is my Topcor R 135/3.5


PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mine are Vivitar 135mm f2.8 close focus



And Meyer Bokeh Monster.


PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tried a bunch of M42 stuff, from early f/ 3.5 & f/4, to later f/2.8, and both versions of M42 S-M-C Takumar 1:2.5/135, before selecting the 6-element, the only one clearly better to my eyes. Next choice would be a Sonar, the Pentagon f/2.8...






PostPosted: Fri May 12, 2017 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hard to pick one, but then that is the beauty of legacy lenses, different character. Some time it feels like comparing apples and oranges in the same focal length!

Rolleinar (same lens as Mamiya) sharp and contrasty from wide open 2.8
Meyer-optik 135mm f2.8 for bokeh
Zeiss prakticar 135mm f3.5 very sharp
Tair 11a, if I had to choose one


I have the Pentax pk 135mm 2.5 made in Taiwan, very underrated in my opinion (as long as I leave the Sun behind)

Badr


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
One of my earliest 135mm purchases remains at the top of my list, the Vivitar 2.3/135 Series 1. There are two others in close company; the Tair-11 or 11a (have both), and Minolta MC Rokkor PF 2.8/135 (I like better than MD 4/4). My most used is the Tair-11.

I will offer some examples, all shot wide open.

Series 1


Tair-11


Rokkor


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't consider myself to be a connoisseur of 135mm lenses, but I have managed to pick up a few things. I believe it was here at this forum that I first encountered the truism that there is no such thing as a bad 135mm. I've come to appreciate the perspicacity of that remark as my experiences have expanded. I think that, to this very day, one of the best 135mm lenses I ever owned was my first: a Nikkor AI 135/3.5. Those of you who have been here a while have probably seen this shot before, but I show it again just to illustrate how good that lens was:

Nikon FM, Nikkor AI 135/3.5, Kodachrome 64


These days, however, I have a new favorite. Same as kryss's, although mine doesn't look as pretty as his. I found mine in a box of "cheap and junk lenses" at a local camera shop, in Nikon mount, for $5. Yep. To my knowledge it is the only Vivitar 135mm with a 62mm front filter ring.

NEX 7, ISO 100






Last edited by cooltouch on Sat May 13, 2017 2:15 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
...: a Nikkor AI 135/3.5. ...


+1!

(that is my 3rd choice)

The best modern 135/2 according to tests are made by Nikon, Canon, & iirc, Zeiss has one.


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 2:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
visualopsins wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
...: a Nikkor AI 135/3.5. ...


+1!

(that is my 3rd choice)

The best modern 135/2 according to tests are made by Nikon, Canon, & iirc, Zeiss has one.


But they're all bloody expensive as hell! And yes, Zeiss makes one but it's a manual focus lens. Not that that's a problem around here . . .


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 2:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here are a few K-mount 135's that I used to own back in "Ye Olde Film Days of Yore" -


L to R = Pentax A* 135/1.8; Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3; Pentax K 135/2.5; Pentax Takumar Bayonet 135/"2.5"; Pentax K 135/3.5

I still have the Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3 and the Pentax K 135/2.5 -- both of these lenses are sublime. The VS1 can show a fair amount of purple fringing under some high-contrast backlit conditions, but can also produce spectacular images under less trying conditions, while the K 135/2.5 is more immune to that.

The A* was a fine less, but it was worth a lot of money at a time I needed a lot of money, so...

The Takumar Bayonet was a "consumer" 135 with low flare resistance, and was really a 135/2.8 anyhow.

The K 135/3.5 was a sharp and contrasty lens, but was a bit slow (and, well, frankly a bit redundant).

Beyond the above lenses, I have added one additional 135 here in the "digital era" - the Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focus, which is also a ~very~ good 135, and not just as a macro lens, I might add.


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
So many 135mm lenses to choose from and so few are no good at all.
I have more than a few and I simply picked two at random for a quick shoot.
Can you tell the difference between the RE Auto Topcor 3.5/135 and the Takumar 3.5/135 pre-set, both shot wide open?
I cannot.
The point is that you will hardly go wrong with any of the suggestions that will be made in this thread.
Here are my two:

#1


#2


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 4:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My favorite is whichever one is shiniest and coolest looking that day.
3/4 of photography is inspiration. And looking cool.


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
My favorite is whichever one is shiniest and coolest looking that day.
3/4 of photography is inspiration. And looking cool.


Too true
Laugh 1 Laugh 1 Laugh 1


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great shots Michael, and a great find at $5.Mine was a couple bucks more Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 6:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Two more at random
Komura 2.8/135 and Canon FL 3.5/135.
PP in LR for exposure and contrast
#1


#2


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The responses have been quite interesting so far. The question is also what one is considering as "the best".
There is the technical part where you are able to compare micro contrast, aberration and so forth which is more or less a hard fact and there is also the type of rendering for out of focus objects where it depends purely on the personal taste of the individual.
As already stated, I've found my winner in both categories and will therefore post one example from my best lens to show what I mean:

Leitz Elmar 135/4 fully open at F4:


Others may like only swirly or bubbling bokeh but that's the bokeh I like most (smooth and soft). Actually I hate nervous bokeh.
However, there is no sense to argue about taste. Wink


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 7:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1 Very nice Tom.


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like others here, my two favourite 135mm's are both Vivitar; the Series 1 f2.3 and the f2.8 close focusing.






PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I went from a Takumar Bayonet 135mm 2.5 (very soft wide open on bright conditions) to a Super-Takumar 135mm 2.5 (don't really like it) to a Super-Multicoated-Takumar 135mm 2.5 V2 (which is really the one i wanted in the first place and is my best it has superior sharpness and rendering).

My first 135mm was a Meyer Optic Orestor 135mm 2.8, my last up to now a Tair 11 2.8 (133 actually but that doesn't really matter). The Tair is the best bokeh monster but the Meyer is probably sharper.

My other 135's:

Super-Takumar 135mm F3.5 (Very nice)
Jupiter 11a 135mm F4 (silver) Very nice
Panagor Auto Tele 135mm F1:2.8 (A bit mediocre a side catch)
SMC Pentax-m 135mm F/1:3.5 (Compact and very acceptable quality)


PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here's another excellent 135mm, the Konica Hexanon AR f3.2. Probably the sharpest of all the Hexanons, at least to my ageing eyes!



PostPosted: Sat May 13, 2017 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
The responses have been quite interesting so far. The question is also what one is considering as "the best".
There is the technical part where you are able to compare micro contrast, aberration and so forth which is more or less a hard fact and there is also the type of rendering for out of focus objects where it depends purely on the personal taste of the individual.

Others may like only swirly or bubbling bokeh but that's the bokeh I like most (smooth and soft). Actually I hate nervous bokeh.
However, there is no sense to argue about taste. Wink


Thomas touched on some of the factors that influence our decisions and I will try to add to them. He is quite right about both the technical hard facts and the subjective. It is like debating the best pizza or arguing whether peas taste good.

I want to cover some of the factors that strongly influence how I value a lens over another. While I have and like the Topcor and other f/3.5 lenses, I always prefer faster. I love swirly and soap bubble bokeh but only for their artistic value and would never consider those lenses the best overall. It is true that most 135mm lenses are good to very good and some few have that last 2% better sharpness or bokeh that makes them great in my mind. But there are other considerations as well.

Feel or handling is important to me. I have some very capable lenses that I'll probably never pick up again because they just didn't feel right. One such example is the Jupiter 3.5/200. With regard to 135mm lenses, I very much value how close it focuses. I had a Vivitar Close Focus but never came back from the repairman. The Series 1 has very good close focusing ability. I consider the Tair to be good too, although not quite as close at the S1. The extra speed of the S1 at f/2.3 coupled with its close focus and excellent sharpness at wide open provide me with the blown out bokeh I like to see. This is especially true when photographing flowers that often have backgrounds that will be distracting or just ugly in more defined bokeh. A crisp image against a blurred background is important to me. The Tair-11 at f/2.8 does that nicely as well. The Tair image I provided, if taken with a slower lens would provide too much definition to the out of focus areas.

To sum it up, my best 135mm lenses have the right combination of sharpness, speed, bokeh characteristics, focus distance, and feel. Some of those criteria are interdependent.


PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
That's an easy one for me: Leitz Elmar 135mm/F4 is my best and my most versatile lens.
My thread about this lens can be found here: http://forum.mflenses.com/leitz-elmar-135mm-f4-m39-ltm-t71382.html

I've recently done a comparison between all of my 10 different 135mm lenses from Asahi (Pentax) to Zeiss and the winner was clear: the Leitz Elmar.

An interesting and very informative test report can also be seen here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/135mm-f4.htm

In terms of quality for the money it's IMHO rather impossible to find a better lens in 135mm focal length.

+1
The Elmar is my best 135mm lens from a cost/image quality point of view. There might be slightly better lenses (like the Leica Apo Telyt M 135/3.4 or the Voigtländer Apo Lanthar 125/2.5) but they are also much more expensive, and more bulky too. For its going rate, the Elmar 135/4 is one of the greatest bargains on the market today. As a bonus its optical unit can be unscrewed from the focusing helicoid and mounted on a bellows, transforming it into an excellent macro lens.

Cheers!

Abbazz


PostPosted: Sun May 14, 2017 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've lost count of the 135's I've gone through, but the three I've settled on are the (M42) Jupiter-11, Pentacon (15 blade) 135/2.8 and the Samyang 135/2. I could probably let the Pentacon go, but it has such a pretty iris!

Oh, it's also in my profile pic!


PostPosted: Mon May 15, 2017 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
wow this is getting interesting.

looks like one has to invest a lot of effort to make a bad 135! Laugh 1


after reading this, I think one needs two or three 135 in their setup... one sharp, one creamy and one swirly!


any report or opinion on the Fujinon EBC? I'm monitoring a SMCTakumar 2.5, a Jair 11 and I'm struggling to find the hexanon 3.2...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2