135 New Audio Battle of 10 Vintage 135mm Lenses
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2025
- 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.
This version without music much better. Thanks
Thanks for another great lens comparison video.
Over the decades, I have owned the following 135mm lenses:
Asahi 135mm f/3.5 Super Takumar M42 (49mm filter)
Fujinon 135mm f/3.5 EBC M42 (49mm filter)
Nikkor 135mm f/3.5 AIS (52mm filter)
Nikkor 135mm f/2 AIS (72mm filter)
Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar ZF 2 (77mm filter)
They all produced excellent images.
I primarily used the 135mm lens for photojournalism, weddings, and portraits.
When I used the 135mm, I used it in a 135/50/28 lens combo.
However, I really preferred to use a 180mm lens in a 180/85/35mm combo.
I like the F3.5 135 Super Takumar a lot for portraits.
@@johnrflinn
Thanks for the info. Takumar are great lenses. I have never tried the 135 Takumar for portraits. I have, however, tried the 105mm f/2.8 Takumar for portraits and love it.
Nikkor lenses are unbeatable - I have an ancient 105mm f/2.5 which is just as nice as this, and the 135mm f/3.5 is also excellent.
My favorite vintage 135 lens is probably the Pentax-M 135mm f3.5. It's the most compact 135 I've ever used and it works incredibly well when on a Techart Autofocus Adapter compared to the heavier lenses. A close 2nd would be the Vivitar 135mm Close Focus followed by the Sears 135mm lens that has the "macro zone" feature where you can adjust the defocus of the front element.
I've got to try that Techart adapter, thanks for mentioning to all the viewers. As my eyes begin to age, an AF option sounds pretty great for capturing portraits. I regret selling the Vivitar Close focus - I've got a Sears 135 that I'll throw in the next batch of reviews, but I don't know if it has that Macro zone. I'll have to check. Thanks for viewing and the great contribution!
Love the 135 mm focal length, thanks for the video, very enjoyable
Great roundup loved this ❤
I picked up a Hoya 135 f2.8 on eBay last year. It has a Canon FD mount and I use it on my Sony cameras with an adapter. A very good lens.
Very well done, and well explained.
I love comparative tests.
Just a little problem: the Pentax f/3.5 wide open is way overexposed, so it looks worse than it should. Forse some strange reasons it happens that a certain lens at a certain aperture tricks the meter of a modern digital camera. I have seen it many times.
Because a long (and tiring) shooting session can't be repeated for one or two errors, I would suggest to check the histogram after each shot to make sure there are no exposure problems.
much better version 👏👏👏
Thank you!
Just bought Nikon 135 f2DC vintage lens I love it it is really sharp at f2.8 to f5.6 etc
Great video, thanks.
Great video! Thank you. Would have been nice to see the Vorn lens version of the portrait post processed. Do you have that posted anywhere? I've been considering getting the Nikkor 135mm 2.8 AIS, and this video has cemented that thought. Although, I would like to compare it to the Series E Nikon version of the same lens as well. Thanks again!
Hello, just did a few snaps with zeiss sonar 135 f4 zebra and 135 f2.8 ais and zebra can be sharper, color cast is a bit different (cooler and greenish) Nikkor is more pleasant in the scene i had them tested(room). Cool job brother!
Konica 135 f3.2 is a real gem sharper than my Pentax 135s
14:00 I see a lot of chromatic aberrations on the Nikkor. Left edge of the gable where the wide siding starts has a ton of teal bleed. 14:32 the Celtic is clearly better- just look at the detail on the stones.
It's too bad you couldn't get a Zuiko 135 for the video. Besides, great stuff!
Just to note - The takumar 135mm f2.5 has a 6-element version too and is more controlled and tad sharper. Though not as Nikkor wide open. But closer.
I have a broken but kind of usable and sharp beroflex 135mm f2.8 m42 mount lens. It's broken because when you move the focus ring it also moves the aperture blades. I don't know what could cause that. It's still a good lens though.
Based on this and your first 135mm lens comparison video, I went out and bought a Vivitar Auto 135mm f/2.8 lens in M42 mount. I was looking for a longer lens for this lens mount, and the test results of the Pro (Kino) lens really sold me. I paid $20 for this lens and it's really nice, both on my Chinon CM-1 film SLR and adapted to my Fuji X-H1 mirrorless camera.
I’m so glad that $20 lens is getting the job done for you! I’ve got 8 more to test, including a bunch or retail rebrands (JC Penny, Sears, K-mart/Focal, Quantaray / Ritz) to try. I bet they take some great portraits for you!
@@cheapshotslensreviewsandph3559 If you're looking for 135mm lenses to review, I can fully recommend including the Canon FD 135mm f/2.5. I have one of these and I think it's lovely. Pricier than the store brand lenses, but quite below the cost of a Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 Ais.
@@ldstirling If I ever come across one again (I've had one for a brief period before mirrorless - and it had limited use) I'll definitely try. I believe that one is thoriated if memory serves.
I own and would recommend the russian Jupitar 37A 135mm f3.5 and Fujinon T 135mm F3.5. The Jupiter 37A is incredibly sharp without chromatic aberration and 12 blade aperture. The Fujinon is no slouch in sharpness but also seems more 3 dimensional and just a very unique rendering that Is hard to describe plus very smooth creamy bokeh. The Fujinon is a very small 49mm filter m42 mount.
I miss the Jupiter 11 and Tair 11A tbh...
135 mm 2.8 nikkor, can it be use to Z7ii Nikon
Absolutely… adapters are pretty cheap and readily available. Nikon F to Z.
What about the Konica ar 135 f2.5
I bought a very cheap vivitar md 135mm f3.5 for $30 and is sharper than the nikkor lol
Push the boat out a bit more and opt for the Carl Zeiss Contax Sonnar T* 2.8/135.
The Nikkor is an Ai lens, not AiS.
Can you elaborate F? I’ve had both, they are very similar in rendering but I’m pretty sure this is the AIS…
Checked the serial number, and you're right! Late AI - but the AIS should be very similar in rendering. thank you for pointing out and noticing!
There is an easy way to tell... on "Ai" lenses the smallest f stop is painted Blue [f/22 on yours], whereas on "Ai-S" lenses the smallest f stop is painted Orange.
Loads better :)
What the hell is microcontrast? Is it even real?
pro (kino)?where find it?