Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Sylwester Pietrzyk]

Cotty wrote on 25.01.05 10:31:

> This is the closest Canon offering:
> 
> 
I'd say rather this:
http://www.tanchung.com/canon/ef135mmf28softfocus.htm
the same focal lengh, the same aperture, soft focus is only optional, you
can use it as a "normal" 135f2.8. And it is not that much bigger or heavier
than FA 135f2.8 despite having additional soft focus functionality.

-- 
Balance is the ultimate good...

Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Cotty]

On 24/1/05, Fred, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Well, this is certainly no defense of Canon lenses, and certainly is not
>intended as any criticism of the FA 135/2.8 (which is a lens I'm not
>familiar with), but I would just say that the FA 135/2.8 is not exactly a
>"premium lens". Would any Canon 135/2.8 be all that much larger or heavier?

This is the closest Canon offering:






Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

> I am glad you seem to be enjoying your new lens
> so much -.
> 
> Well, this is certainly no defense of Canon lenses, and
> certainly is not intended as any criticism of the FA 135/2.8
(which is a lens
> I'm not familiar with), but I would just say that the FA
135/2.8 is
> not exactly a "premium lens". 

Why would you say that? From the amount I've used it so far, it
certainly performs on par with premium 135mm lenses. 

> Would any Canon 135/2.8 be all that much larger or heavier?

The Canon EF 135/2.8 Soft Focus is over an inch longer, quarter
of an inch larger in diameter, and weighs nearly 14 oz. The
other Canon 135 is an f/2L model ... It's a half in larger in
diameter, two inches longer, and weighs 1.7 lbs. 

I'll take the diminutive Pentax FA135 anyday. :-)

Godfrey



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Fred]

Hi, Godfrey.  I am glad you seem to be enjoying your new lens so much -
.

> The FA135/2.8 arrived last week. [nsip] But it works very well wide open
> and is stunning by f/4, all the while being light and compact. Very much
> appreciating that aspect of Pentax lenses. Canon's premium lenses are all
> huge and very heavy by comparison.

Well, this is certainly no defense of Canon lenses, and certainly is not
intended as any criticism of the FA 135/2.8 (which is a lens I'm not
familiar with), but I would just say that the FA 135/2.8 is not exactly a
"premium lens". Would any Canon 135/2.8 be all that much larger or heavier?

Of my favorite 135's, the K 135/2.5 is a bit heavy, the VS1 135/2.4 is
heavier still, and the A* 135/1.8 is certainly a heavyweight.  However, the
K lens is a little faster than "usual", and the other two are definitely
"premium lenses" - I would expect them all to be heavier than the FA
135/2.8.

Fred

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Reporting back, since I asked the question that started this
thread. 

The FA135/2.8 arrived last week. Very nice lens. I see why some
comments as to the "loose" focusing ring are made, it takes a
very light touch in manual focus. But it works very well wide
open and is stunning by f/4, all the while being light and
compact. 

Very much appreciating that aspect of Pentax lenses. Canon's
premium lenses are all huge and very heavy by comparison. 

Godfrey



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo 

Re: AW: :Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Peter J. Alling]

It's not where it's made that counts, it's how it's made, design, 
manufacturing standards, etc.  Part of
that story can be told by who's name is on it.  Part by other information.

Michael Heim wrote:
Is that just a feeling (an antipathie) ore is it fact, that lenses from
china a worse, even if they should be better because of technical data
(3.5 <-> 2.8)
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: m.s.gill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Januar 2005 14:30
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: :Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

So am doubtful it may not be made in china.It is similar to Pentax but
luckily if made in china written  then it is not worth. Gill


 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

AW: :Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Michael Heim]

Is that just a feeling (an antipathie) ore is it fact, that lenses from
china a worse, even if they should be better because of technical data
(3.5 <-> 2.8)

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: m.s.gill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. Januar 2005 14:30
An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Betreff: :Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

So am doubtful it may not be made in china.It is similar to Pentax but
luckily if made in china written  then it is not worth. Gill

:Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[m.s.gill]

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 15. januar 2005 03:04
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re:135mm lenses - quality ?

--- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still new to Pentax gear... Yes, someone else on the
> DPReview forum pointed out that I had the designation wrong. It
> seems to be the original, bayonet mount with "Asahi Optical Co.
> Takumar (Bayonet) 1:2.5 135mm" on the bezel. Single coated,
> built in hood, 52mm filter mount.
 i have 135/3.5 whose perfomance is excellent. Once in a hurry i
exchanged  with a local camera shop here in Lahore-Pakistan to135/2.5 which
is much better and also reported in earlier posts on this site but when read
it was "Made in China" i reversed my decision and immediately got back
135/3.5. So
am doubtful it may not be made in china.It is similar to Pentax but luckily
if made in china written  then it is not worth.
Gill

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Fred"
Subject: Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?


When speaking of good 135's, I might suggest keeping an eye out for 
an ol'
Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3.  It's a sweet 135, although admittedly 
not too
easy to come by (but it has made both screwmount and K-mount users 
happy).
Also, keep an eye out for the M150/3.5, which is an absolute gem.
William Robb 

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Fred]

> Any Pentax 135mm you replace it with will be an improvement.

[and]

> It's much better than the A 2.8/135mm (4 elements) which I previously
> have owned and sold.

The A 135/2.8 is indeed an exception to the above generalization.

When speaking of good 135's, I might suggest keeping an eye out for an ol'
Vivitar Series 1 135/2.3.  It's a sweet 135, although admittedly not too
easy to come by (but it has made both screwmount and K-mount users happy).

Fred

RE: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Alan Chan]

--- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The one I have is not a bad performer for an el cheapo, but I'm
> looking forward to significantly better performance with the new
> one. Now if I can find one of those 135/1.8 lenses ... ;-)

Good luck. The last A135/1.8 in not-so-good condition was sold at US$1k+ which 
was
way more expensive than what it worth imho. Maybe you should check out this: 
http://www.cameraquest.com/Voigt%20SL.htm#Voigtlander%20125/2.5%20APO-Lanthar
http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigt/v-lens/sl/125sl/index.html

=
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com 

RE: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Jens Bladt]

Hello Godfrey, DagT and all
I just shot this (of my son) with the K 2.5/135mm at f.2.5 (bounced flash):
http://gallery37564.fotopic.net/p10798763.html

With any luck, some sellers and bidders won't know the difference between
the K and the Takumar version.
I paid appr. 100 USD for mine wich is perhaps a little too much. But I've
seen them sell for considerably more, though.

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 15. januar 2005 20:05
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?


Good luck, it took me about ten years looking in smaller forums and
shops for one at a decent price.  Ebay is too popular to let you be
that lucky :-)

DagT

På 15. jan. 2005 kl. 15.51 skrev Godfrey DiGiorgi:

> Thanks y'all.
>
> The one I have is not a bad performer for an el cheapo, but I'm
> looking forward to significantly better performance with the new
> one. Now if I can find one of those 135/1.8 lenses ... ;-)
>
> Godfrey
>
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> http://my.yahoo.com
>
>

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[DagT]

Good luck, it took me about ten years looking in smaller forums and 
shops for one at a decent price.  Ebay is too popular to let you be 
that lucky :-)

DagT
På 15. jan. 2005 kl. 15.51 skrev Godfrey DiGiorgi:
Thanks y'all.
The one I have is not a bad performer for an el cheapo, but I'm
looking forward to significantly better performance with the new
one. Now if I can find one of those 135/1.8 lenses ... ;-)
Godfrey

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com

RE: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Thanks y'all. 

The one I have is not a bad performer for an el cheapo, but I'm
looking forward to significantly better performance with the new
one. Now if I can find one of those 135/1.8 lenses ... ;-)

Godfrey



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com 
 

RE: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Jens Bladt]

AFAIR the 2.5/135 Takumar Bayonet has a pretty poor reputation.
I'd certainly prefere the "regualar" SMC Pentax(K) 2.5/135mm (6 elements in
6 groups), with 58 mm filter thread. It's excellent - kinda heavy but
awesome optical quality.
It's much better than the A 2.8/135mm (4 elements) which I previously have
owned and sold.
I believe there's an excellent M 3.5/135mm as well.

I don't know about the F and FA version, which is optically different (8
elements in 7 groups - rather than 4-6 elements) .

Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 15. januar 2005 03:04
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?


--- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still new to Pentax gear... Yes, someone else on the
> DPReview forum pointed out that I had the designation wrong. It
> seems to be the original, bayonet mount with "Asahi Optical Co.
> Takumar (Bayonet) 1:2.5 135mm" on the bezel. Single coated,
> built in hood, 52mm filter mount.

I don't know about the Takumar f2.5, but have used M135/3.5 and F/FA135/2.8.
The
M135/3.5 is a noticeable sharper lens near wide open, but the F/FA can focus
a lot
closer which could be useful.

=
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan



__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Alan Chan]

--- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm still new to Pentax gear... Yes, someone else on the
> DPReview forum pointed out that I had the designation wrong. It
> seems to be the original, bayonet mount with "Asahi Optical Co.
> Takumar (Bayonet) 1:2.5 135mm" on the bezel. Single coated,
> built in hood, 52mm filter mount. 

I don't know about the Takumar f2.5, but have used M135/3.5 and F/FA135/2.8. The
M135/3.5 is a noticeable sharper lens near wide open, but the F/FA can focus a 
lot
closer which could be useful.

=
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Peter J. Alling]

You have arguably the worst from the standpoint of sharpness and flare 
resistance
of any Pentax 135mm lens.  Any Pentax 135mm you replace it with will be 
an improvement.
On the other hand, some have had good results using this lens as a 
portrait lens on 35mm
format due to it's very soft rendition.

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Pentax-M 135/2.5
 

No such thing. Pentax-M 135/3.5 perhaps, or Pentax 135/2.5 (or
again Pentax 135/3.5). Can you copy the relevant inscription
starting from "SMC"? Or check http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/.
   

I'm still new to Pentax gear... Yes, someone else on the
DPReview forum pointed out that I had the designation wrong. It
seems to be the original, bayonet mount with "Asahi Optical Co.
Takumar (Bayonet) 1:2.5 135mm" on the bezel. Single coated,
built in hood, 52mm filter mount. 

The only defect in my lens is that the built-in hood's felt is
worn out, so I've fitted a nice old Nikkor metal HN-7 hood. It's
a perfect fit. 

 

Have you tried http://stans-photography.info/?
   

Thanks, I've looked there. Seems to be a range of opinions, most
of them reasonably positive about this lens and about the
FA135/2.8 IF. I'm going to order the FA model, but I think I'll
wait until after tomorrow morning's swap meet. 

Godfrey
		
__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

> > Pentax-M 135/2.5
> 
> No such thing. Pentax-M 135/3.5 perhaps, or Pentax 135/2.5 (or
> again Pentax 135/3.5). Can you copy the relevant inscription
> starting from "SMC"? Or check http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/.

I'm still new to Pentax gear... Yes, someone else on the
DPReview forum pointed out that I had the designation wrong. It
seems to be the original, bayonet mount with "Asahi Optical Co.
Takumar (Bayonet) 1:2.5 135mm" on the bezel. Single coated,
built in hood, 52mm filter mount. 

The only defect in my lens is that the built-in hood's felt is
worn out, so I've fitted a nice old Nikkor metal HN-7 hood. It's
a perfect fit. 

> Have you tried http://stans-photography.info/?

Thanks, I've looked there. Seems to be a range of opinions, most
of them reasonably positive about this lens and about the
FA135/2.8 IF. I'm going to order the FA model, but I think I'll
wait until after tomorrow morning's swap meet. 

Godfrey



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Peter J. Alling]

I think you're referring to the SMC-Pentax [K] lens since there was no M 
lens in that focal
length f-stop combination.  If it is, you've got the second best 135 
Pentax ever made.  The only
135 that's better is the A*135 f1.8.  ($30.00 was a steal by the way)..

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
When I was buying lenses for the *istDS, I happened upon a
Pentax-M 135/2.5 for less than $30. Bought it on the spot ... at
that money if it works at all they're giving it away ... and it
turned out to be in remarkably nice condition. I like this focal
length on the *istDS ... It's my usual "longest commonly used"
choice for field of view on the 16x24 format.
I like it enough that I'm considering buying a new FA 135/2.8
internal focus lens now and wondering how the performance
compares to this old M series lens. Anyone have both and care to
comment?
thanks 
Godfrey 

		
__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com 


 


--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. 
During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings 
and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
	--P.J. O'Rourke

Re: 135mm lenses - quality ?

[Kostas Kavoussanakis]

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

> Pentax-M 135/2.5

No such thing. Pentax-M 135/3.5 perhaps, or Pentax 135/2.5 (or again
Pentax 135/3.5). Can you copy the relevant inscription starting from
"SMC"? Or check http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/.

It sounds an excellent price for any of them, particularly if it is
the Pentax 135/2.5.

> I like it enough that I'm considering buying a new FA 135/2.8
> internal focus lens now and wondering how the performance
> compares to this old M series lens. Anyone have both and care to
> comment?

Have you tried http://stans-photography.info/?

HTH,

Kostas