Battle of 10 Vintage 135mm Lenses
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.
Пікірлер: 129
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 :)
I would recommend deleting this video, Fixing it . Upload again .
Dump the music or learn about sound mixing!
🤔...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.
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...
Jesus please stop the low budget disco in the background -I can barely understand you
Konica 135mm f3.2 will surprise you
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.
The music, at least in the first couple of minutes, is drowning out your voice.
I get that you are a real Nikkor advocate, and it is a very nice lens. But would it be possible to compare Nikkor and Minolta 2.8s again and at least comment int the description on the result? I believe you have missed the focus with Minolta. Just would be nice to be fair to the very good Minolta lens, cause it is a great lens after all! Thanks for the good quality video, otherwise... Another great lens for comparing in this range is an interesting Soviet space race lens ("AL")TAIR-11 133mm f/2.8 ;)
Thank you so much for the best video for old lenses!
i really love your format of showing everything side-by-side.
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.
This is a great comparison video! Well done
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...
Very nice channel I love it. Good comparison of lenses.
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.
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.
Good work, appreciated. These comparisons can be misleading at occasions, for example @