Battle of 10 Vintage 135mm Lenses
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 янв 2021
- A pixel-peeping examination of landscape and portrait performance by Nikkor 135 f/2.8 AIS, Pentax Super Takumar 135 f2.5, Super-Takumar 135 f/3.5, Minolta MD 135 f/3.5, Minolta Celtic 135 f/2.8, Pro Kino 135 f/2.8, Chinon 135 f/2.8, Accura, Schneider-Kreuznach, more.
A focal length from a bygone era. There was a time when 135’s were the standard telephoto option. And if you find an old kit in your travels, there’s a great chance a 135 of some type will be in there.
While you can still find 105’s, 180’s and 200’s galore as you explore vintage telephotos, nothing gives quite the punch of speed, size and reach like this magic focal length. And with a few, relatively simple designs out there, some have speculated that there are no “bad” 135’s. But is that true? We’re going to take a look at a few to see. Some, $5 pickups from flea markets and thrift stores. Some, coveted lenses, llke the Nikkor 135 f/2.8 AIS and the Pentax Super Takumar f2.5. Does it make a difference?
So why do I like this focal range? There are a few reasons I like 135mm telephoto lenses:
1) These lenses are small, have a good reach and are usually sharp - you get gret bokh
2) It fits right between the short and long range of a popular 70-200
3) They are great lenses for background blur and to separate the subject
4) The 135mm focal length equates to 200mm, another nice telephoto length, on APS-C sensors
5) Provide a classic, head and shoulders or “headshot” focal length
6) They are plentiful, lots of choices to play with
7) Some nice versions with many bladed apertures
I’ve used a lot of these, including a few exotic and hard to find versions. If you come across a close focus Vivitar or anything faster than f/2.8, give it a shot, you won’t be disappointed. But by and large,
My biggest issue is they typically don’t focus close. You usually need 4 or 5 feet between your lens and subject, which can make using these day to day more of an issue
When you find one that focuses closely, they are invaluable.
As older lenses, not all are usually not coated well, so there can be some flare and a lack of contrast.
As with any cheap vintage lenses, look for condition issues like tough focusing, frozen aperture, fungus or haze.
Otherwise, I think the toughest thing about vintage 135’s really comes down to figuring out which one to throw in your bag. Here’s what I care about in a 135:
1) How’s the micro contrast? Will there be a “sparkle” in the subjects eyes under the right conditions
2) How close can they focus. Can you get a close-up or not?
3) How’s the bokeh?
4) Finally, if using for a telephoto landscape, how does it hold up?
Current-generation 135’s like the Canon 135 f/2 L or the Nikkor soft focus equivalent, are older designs, but still cost $500 to $1,000. You’ll still spend hundreds on manual focus versions of current lenses as well. And anything inexpensive you find is probably based on similar designs to vintage anyway.
Clearly, whether you can afford one of the best in the class, or just pick up a cheap option, there is no reason not to keep a 135 in your kit. Throw one on your camera with an inexpensive adapter, and go out there and take some awe-inspiring, cheap shots.
close focus Vivitar, Canon 135 f/2 L, Nikkor soft focus 135 f/1.8, Sony FE 135 f/1.8, Sigma 135 f/1.8, Zeiss Milvus, Samyang 135 f/2.0.
![mgk - I Think I’m OKAY (with YUNGBLUD) (Sad Version) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7AC1uqQLIg4/mqdefault.jpg)
Would it be possible to lower the volume of the background music, or increase the volume of your voice in future... Awesome vid though, thank you :)
Unfortunately RUclips doesn’t let you do that, you have to start from scratch and you end up losing your views, etc. I’ve gotten audio figured out on subsequent videos though, so please shark then out and thanks for watching!
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 Could you not repost it as a separate video altogether? that should solve your dilemma ...
I agree. That would help much. I had to stop watching at 1:30 because of the music. I really wanted to watch the video. With good info there is no need for the jarring music.
@@WolfQuantum just skip the intro :)
@@misraimages I've done that now if you'd like to check it out again . . . ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
i really love your format of showing everything side-by-side.
Thank you so much for the best video for old lenses!
Nice detailed review of the Battle of 10 Vintage 135mm lenses. Thanks for sharing, you sure have made my work easier, since I have some of these lenses.
Really nice review, I ran across a Accura lens and had never heard of them before and just ran found your video. Nicely done.
Glad you enjoyed it! I've used Accura lenses that were pretty good, I'm sure it's a case by case basis. Never know till you try! Thanks again for the kind words.
This is a great comparison video! Well done
Thanks so much!! It makes me get out and actually shoot, and hope it encourages others to do the same.
Nice video... I have several 135mm prime lenses of from the Carl Zeiss Jena f/4.5 Triotar to Sears, Vivitar and Meyer-Optik Gorlitz f/2.8 models...
I am pretty happy with my 1975 made soligor 135 mm f2.8 on Canon 6D and Canon RP particularly on head portraits. It was a present. I was also happy with a kenlock 135mm f3.5, until blades got stuck due to some excess grease, but it was really cheap and already had a converter on. So probably I will keep it. Both are cool metal lenses, easy to carry, take little space and quite sharp, but using them together confuses a lot as focus rings are in different positions. They are sometimes great also in urban landscapes.
Good work, appreciated. These comparisons can be misleading at occasions, for example @16:42 it is pretty obvious that the image on the right Takumar 135mm 2.5 is not focused on the eyes as the image on the left is, it is actually girl's hair further back that is in focus, which renders her face out of focus. The strand of hair in front of her eye is completely blurred and out of focus. Having said that, I understand it is tricky to be consistent every single time especially in such shallow depth of field and subjects that might not be entirely static. Just my observation, enjoyed your comparison.
Agree...
I know you did this video three years ago now, but you missed several really great 135s that are not that expensive. I own four 135s myself.
1) Mamiya/Sekor, f2.8, M42 mount. A stunning lens, the bokeh is so creamy. Will a nice built in hood.
2) Vivitar f2.8, M42 mount. A nice lens with wonderful controls and its so nice to use, but its a bit soft. It's useful for those glowy, dreamy, soft focus sorts of shots. It includes a built in hood.
3) Konica Hexanon f3.2, AR mount. This is a VERY nice lens. Very sharp with beautiful bokeh and blur. It focuses very close (1M). Its also light weight, small and has a built in hood.
4) Konica Hexanon f2.5, AR mount. As sharp as the 3.2 Konica is, this lens steps it up another notch. Even @ f2.5, its crazy sharp! The bokeh is very similar to the 3.2, but maybe not as creamy. This is a heavy lens. The first three elements in the front of the lens are massive, thick, chunks of glass. But if all that weight is what renders that sharpness and bokeh, then I'll take it! Its a smooth lens to use, the controls aren't as nice to use as the Vivitar, but its and easy lens to use right away and feels good in your hands.
The Konica Hexanon AR lenses as a group are actually some amazing lenses that don't get all the hype that other, bigger name brand lenses get. I bought both of my Konica 135s for less than $40 each. They did have a wee bit of fungus, but they both cleaned up nicely and are spectacular lenses. The entire line is very special. Even the basic 50mm f1.8 isn't bad. The 50 f1.7 is much, much better and the 40mm f1.8 is insane how cool it is and how sharp. It holds up so well to high MP sensors. The 57mm f1.4 is so much fun to use. A lot like an old Takumar lens in how it feels, but the blur in the bokeh is very special. It also looks great on you camera!
I use my entire collection of vintage lenses on my Canon R7. Its a fairly aggressive sensor and quickly shows out weak lenses.
As for your review, Great job. I do believe you did miss the focus on several of those shots of your daughter. Especially those Minolta lenses. If you look at the couch she is sitting on and compaired to the Nikkor shot, the Minolta lens has the couch more in focus. So you simply missed it. Also, kudos to your daughter for sitting there and putting up with you changing out lenses! LOL! I've got kids myself. They got tired of me using them as models. LOL!
Lastly, your audio levels are all sorts of messed up. It makes it hard to watch your videos. It's something I've noticed in many of your videos. I record audio for a living and so I'm especially sensitive to this. Your voice over needs to be louder and your background music needs to be driven down. This is a fairly common mistake a lot of people make. In all honesty, nobody is here for the music. The fact that I sat through to the end and put up with audio levels all over the place is a testament to the content.
I own a Konica 135mm f/3.2 Hexanon. I also have a Leica tele-Elmar f/4. The Leica M mount tele-Elmar produces images of typical "Leica" look (excellent sharpness & micro contrast, 3D...) The Konica is not too far behind in terms of sharpness and it beats tele-Elmar by it's ability to close focus down to 1m. The Konica is so well designed (based on Zeiss Sonner) and made, some said it performs almost like an APO glass when stopped down to f/5.6. I paid less than $25 for the Konica (in mint condition). It is among one of my favorite lenses. I also own the Konica 40mm/f1.8 pancake, which is another example of excellent lenses by Konica produced in the golden era of Japanese cameras.
Amazing this is how you do comparisons
Thank you so much Art_by_Adrian2! I have so many more that I'll be getting to over the coming months, and with much better audio ;)
Very nice channel I love it. Good comparison of lenses.
Thanks so much Leon! Many good comparisons coming!!
Hey cool video. I have several 135's. Super takumar 135 3.5, takumar bayonet 135 2.5 (non smc, only 4 elements), and a FA 2.8. I use them on both my K70 and my trusty old K10D. Amazing how differently they perform on each camera. Have a couple M42 Vivitars (2.8 and 3.5 both made by Komine). Couldn't tell ya which one I like more. They all have their own characteristics. I also have an Olympus OM 3.5. What a great lil lens. Compact, sharp and beautiful saturation. I use it as a tele on my Panasonic GX7. Cheers.
Thanks Ken! I loved my K10D - it was one of my favorite cameras, and remember buying one for 1/2 price at Ritz Camera back in 2008 or 9. Love that camera!
Remarkable
Much Needed
Analysis
Thank you so much! Working hard on comparing 7 fast 50's now.
great video, I recently a purchase 3 135 mm lens; being the MC Minolta Celtic 1:2.8, Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QD 135mm f3.5 (Second Generation MC II) and lastly the VIVITAR 135MM 1:2.8 AUTO TELEPHOTO CLOSE FOCUSING LENS. My question of course is of the three which do you see being the best in order? Thanks
Canon FD 135mm f3.5 is also very good, probably comparable to the Nikkor. I also enjoy the Pentax-M 135mm f3.5 as it's so incredibly small and light weight it is my go to when I'm adapting vintage lenses onto the Techart Pro AF adapter. Usually the Techart AF adapter you'd have to hold heavier 135mm lenses with both hands, but with the Pentax-M i can get excellent Autofocus results one-handed.
I had the Canon in my hands this weekend. $25 asking price but alas, a whole lot of fungus. I bet the M is similar to the super tak (which was awesome from wide open) and I find it funny, people seem to sometimes overlook K-Mount lenses... they’re almost always better than their screw-mount counterparts, right?
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 the Pentax-M series is my favorite out of all vintage pentax lenses because most of them have the same optics as the Pentax-A series, but they have much much better build quality (Pentax-A plastic feels cheep), and they're so compact. I wanna get my hands on the Pentax-M 150mm f3.5 and 200mm f4 some day as they are also very compact telephoto lenses, and i hear the 150mm f3.5 is a gem of a lens.
I don't blame you on passing on the Canon FD lenses with fungus. They're much harder to disassemble and clean that pretty much any other lenses that were out at the time. Most older optics you can just use the japan rubber tools to unscrew and clean off the optics with some eclipse cleaner or something, but Canon FD has a lot of additional oddly sized screws.
Great video comparison and coverage. Just wondering if you were to throw in the Olympus zuiko 135mm 2.8 lens into the mix how would the results turn out?
Love my Vivitar 135mm 2.8
great video
Great video! Would love to know your thoughts on the Canon FD 135mm f/2.8 vs the Nikkor. Good work!
I had one in my hands not too long ago, but it was in terrible condition so I didn't pick it up. I'm keeping my eye out for the Canon FD though!
Very nice. Great way to sort all my 135s, and then I'll give them "job titles" .
Glad I caught this video. Peace
Nice video. Only problem is you are using Super Taks from the sixties, before multicoating. I am sure an smc tak would perform much better.
I think that the best analog manual 135mm lens made are the Contax Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm 2.8, also for Leica the Leitz Elmarit-R 135mm 2.8 are very good as the Canon FDn 135mm 2.0 are, but I think you hardly can find any bad 135mm lens maybe exept for some of the cheapest brands. I had a good Tokina 135mm 2.8 :) Some 135mm 3.5 lenses can be very good :D
For autofocus lenses I had the Canon EF 135mm 2.0 L which are very good, but now I have the much better Sony 135mm 1.8 GM.
I remember a "rule of thumbs" that when you stop a lens down 2 or 3 stops then it reach the optimum performance, that wil say fx a 2.8 lens are best at about 5.6 to 8.0.
Before the computer time, every lens had to be calculate by hand, fx a Hasselblad Biogon 38mm lens was a stack of 3 feet high A4 papers with calculations.
In around the mid 1980´s a canadian software developer made a program that could calcute even the most difficult lenses and that program was cheap, I know that Hassellad bought it and made their own 2X extender which Hasselblad claimed was just as good as that from Zeiss, so today it is much easier to make new lens design and we will se many new very good lenses...
Plese turn down the volume of the background music :)
Hey! What about CZ rollei 135 f4? Perfect sharpness at f4, very small + still got enough “magic” of vintage feel.
Not for clean shots, sure. And not for FF fullblur background) For some deep shots with proper composition.
did you tested Tair 11A or Jupiter 37A how they compare with the best of 135's ? thanks for this comparison!
If I ever come across one I will absolutely pick up to compare. I have a huge second batch I hope to get to one day.
The PRO could be a Mamiya lens. It's similar to the Revuenon Special ( except for the minimal focussing distance )..
Have you tested the Nikkor 135mm f/3.5 AI-S lens? It would be interesting to see how the smaller, slightly slower lens compares to the larger, slightly fast 135/2.8.
Definitely on my list… if I ever come across one in my travels, I’d scoop it up. Have another big group of 135’s to test soon! Been tied up a lot with the 50/50’s series, but will get to them! Thanks for viewing!!
It is difficult to find a bad 135mm Lens, most are good to very good, I had a Tokina 135mm 2.8 in 1979 it performed good to very good. The best vintage 135mm Lenses I know of are Canon FDn 135mm 2.0, Contax Sonnar 135mm 2.8 and (Leica) Leitz Elmarit-R 135mm 2.8.
I'd agree, though I've had a few stinkers - hard to say if it was sample variation though. I'm sure the lenses you list are all wonderful - though pretty pricey.
Interesting. I actually preferred the Pro (Kino), wide open, for the portrait. It has virtually the same detail as the Nikkor, but the skin tones are much nicer.
In your experience, how would you say the Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Close Focusing lens compares to the Nikkor 135/2.8? You mention the Vivitar 135/2.8 CF lens at the 2:03 mark in your video, so I'm thinking you have used the lens before. I just purchased a Vivitar 135/2.8 CF on eBay, and I'm looking forward to testing it against my trusty Nikkor 135/3.5 AI-S in the near future.
I did have the Vivitar CF but sadly never compared the two directly head to head! forget why but at the time sold off the Vivitar before I got into doing comparisons online. But it was a very good lens from my real world use perspective. Close focus makes a huge difference, and it was a nice lens for headshots!
It's a shame you missed out the Nikkor 135 f3.5. but great video anyway. (music tracks excepted) 😀
Audio levels are bit out . Music is high. Voice is low .
Thanks for making this video .
Thanks! I did upload a version with better sound: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
Wish the canon 135 was here too.
Not a focal length I've use much, as I defer to my Nikkor 105mm 2.5. The reason there are so many 135mm lenses is that this was the longest focal length which could be accurately focused by 35mm rangefinder cameras. Also, the optical designs are fairly simple, thus inexpensive for the quality achieved.
great insight and thanks for sharing! I've had a few 105's myself, and have put the time in to overhaul one because it's such a great lens in general.
Carl Zeiss Contax Sonnar T* 2.8/135.
Great comparison video. Your Nikkor 135mm f2.8 lens which produced the best results, is actually an AI not AIS lens. I always felt the AI were slightly better than AIS.
Thanks! And you’re so right… it’s definitely an AI, I checked the serial numbers after the video… I wish I could go back in time lol! Thanks for watching!
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 No need to check serial numbers. On AIS lenses the minimum aperture (F/32) would be red on both the main and ADR read outs. Also look for a scoop on the mount which communicates the focal length to some Nikon camera bodies.
P.S. ADR is an acronym for aperture direct readout. It's the small white numbers on your lens and can be seen through the view finder.
Great presentation and information. It would be better if the measurements--like focus distances--were in metric. The whole world except for the USA uses metric, and we don't want to look up conversions.
Great point Steve! I'll be more mindful!!
Very good Video! Very informative! I was wondering how the Nikon 135mm lens fair out, compare to Sony & Leica lens. But i know Sony & Leica are very pricy lenses. Thanks for sharing. Keep safe.
One day I'd love to compare some of those $1,000+ lenses to the Nikkor. My bet is that it still holds up pretty well, and is tiny in size to boot!
Konica 135mm f3.2 will surprise you
Very interesting review but You should lower the music volume in order to follow your voice. Thanks
Thanks! I do have a version with better sound! ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
Your background music makes the video sound like a vintage porn flick.
Well, I tried to watch this video, but the music overpowered your voice early in. And then loud music again totally distracted me from trying to take in the comparison shots. Sorry...
Thanks for the feedback! I got the levels figured out on my next video- comparing 28mms. Check it out, same concept, and better audio. Cheers!
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 great, I will! I have a number of vintage lenses, and appreciate helpful resources to offer different perspectives.
@@JaredTremper Also, I should mention there's a new version with improved audio: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
But I love Jupiter 37a.
If I ever come across one I’ll definitely pick it up and try it out.
See the new version for improved sound . . . ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
Hey! Just came across your video after testing my own 135mm lenses. I have to admit that the Nikkor is one of the best, but … I own the SuperTakumar but the even more expensive 6 elements version and this beats even the Nikkor by a small amount in therms of sharpness. The CAs are even better by much more then only a tiny bit. And my biggest disappointment was the Tair11-2 from Russia. This is a so much hyped lens, but comes not even close to the other 2. Ok, the bokeh balls remain round when you stop it down due it’s 20 blended aperture, but what’s the point when you even have to stop it down to get an exceptional sharp image. Even the Nikon E-Series 135mm is better, and much cheaper.
Whatever …. Br Christoph
PS: Tair11-2 in a very rare silver version for sale 😂
Turn the music waaaaaaay down man. Thanks for the vid though
Of course, you can always check the fixed version: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
you should really decrease background music :)
Yes, I've gotten better at audio levels on subsequent videos, such as the 28mm lens comparison! Thanks for watching . . .ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html for the version with better audio!
Why do you expect me to listen to you while you pile my ears with muzak?
There is a newer version linked from the video with the proper audio settings. Happy new year.
I would recommend deleting this video, Fixing it . Upload again .
Thanks for checking it out Ali, unfortunately I’ve tried that and it messes with the algorithm pretty substantially... but do check out my other videos, they’ve gotten better with the sound...
Yes, that has been done: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
Man the music is over your voice, is the music even worth it.
Definitely not! But there's a version with the music fixed out there: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html Thanks for watching!
🤔...Vintage lenses should probably be compared closed down at least one stop.... IMO vintage lenses for the most part were not intended to be shot wide open. The lenses were made brighter than modern lenses to aid you in seeing through the viewfinder for manual focusing, but were not generally intended to be shot wide open. This is the reason as soon as autofocus happened lenses got darker. They didn't need lenses to be so bright because without the manual focusing screen viewfinders got brighter and you weren't using them to focus anyhow....Of course lenses got darker still recently with the transition to mirrorless because the optical viewfinder has been eliminated completely and we now see what the lens sees.
unfortunately, I cannot hear what you have to say.
Updated version is available: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html Thanks for watching!
couldn't hear anything
Please see the new version for improved sound! ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
The background music is too loud.
You can try this one - ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
The background music is very distracting
Agreed - it was one of my first videos, but there's a better version with improved audio: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
Audio mix is way off, I can't hear u
Try the newer one! Not sure how to get this older version off rotation!
You couldn't find better music really
In the US, there is a certain degree of humor involved with that type of music, and it’s especially ironic considering the vintage of the lenses. But if you mean the volume, there is another version with better sound uploaded. Thanks!
Audio levels are way off
Yes there is a link to the version with proper audio in the video …
Try: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html thanks!!
Very annoying with the too loud music, it is diffucult to hear what you say. Ok I skipped to 1:50, much better, but oh No the loud music returned, you really need to upload this without the music !
Updated version is available: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html Thanks for watching!
Can't hear the commentary with the noisy music
Updated version with better audio is available . . . ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
Jesus please stop the low budget disco in the background -I can barely understand you
Just saw the rest -beyond that I really love the video but maybe one should have used a multicoated takumar
Updated version is available: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html Thanks for watching!
Unwatchable due to the loud music. Shame as the content seems to be good.
Check out the version with the better sound quality! ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html
You're too lenient - some of the lenses really suck in comparison to the reference lens
Were you saying something? I CANNOT HEAR YOU....next time don't record your voice while in a disco
I appreciate the message. In subsequent videos, I've used a different application that provides better level controls. You can see a better example on this video. ruclips.net/video/j7y10XK1TnY/видео.html Thanks again for watching!
Updated version is available: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html Thanks for watching!
Spoilt by crap music and its volume.
Spoiled.
Updated version is available: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html Thanks for watching!
The music, at least in the first couple of minutes, is drowning out your voice.
Yeah, for whatever reason that older version still pops up… a revised version with better audio has been posted, but if you made it through… thanks! I’ve gotten better since this initial video lol.
Dump the music or learn about sound mixing!
Truly horrible background music.
New version was posted with updated audio: ruclips.net/video/h2Lri5_35hY/видео.html