Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 16, 2007, 5:29 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 145
Default

I got this lens on ebay, thinking it was the smc version. My bad i didn't check better.

All reviews i read after speak horribly of this lens, i'll get this summer when i go back to new york and i will try it.

Meanwhile, anyone has it and can post some experience about it? Is it worth keeping it for portraits? ( i paid 30$ for it ).

Thanks
Lando is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 16, 2007, 5:44 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
NonEntity1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lake Placid Florida USA
Posts: 2,689
Default

I doubt you got hurt too bad for $30, I have certainly gambled more than that on lenses that ended up being duds. A lot of the reviews I read spoke to bad lens flare which would only be an issue under certain circumstances and could even be used creatively. I would recommend giving it a try and seeing what YOU think of it before you decide to get rid of it.

Tim
NonEntity1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 9:28 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Gazander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 272
Default

Conflicting results

Quote:
135 mm f/2.5

Pavel - 135/2.5 is very sharp lens (I feel one of the sharpest lenses in that range).

William Cornett - I have a Pentax 135 f 2.5 Takumar. I've never been happy with the resoloution, but the danged thing has at least five magazine cover shots to its credit,. . .

tv - Maybe the worst prime Pentax ever put out, in terms of resolution and contrast. Built like a tank. Good as a portrait lens, if you want to soften things up a bit.

Paul Stenquist - . . .among my favorite lenses . . . enough focal length to remain unobtrusive, yet it's short enough for hand held work in bright light. . . extremely sharp to my eye . . . brighter more saturated color than my other 135 . . . bokeh is subtle and very pretty.
Not a bad buy for 30 bucks methinks.
Gazander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 11:10 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

I have that lens and have to agree that it does have problems with flare since it lacks the coatings. It does have a built-in lens hood which helps a bit though. In my experience, the flares aren't that serious of a problem unless you're shooting almost directly at the sun. You'll get flares at other angles, but usually nothing that would ruin a picture.

Despite the lack of coatings, I find the lens actually performs quite well as far as chromatic aberrations. They're there of course, but well under control.

As far as sharpness, I think the lens is exceptionally sharp. I have yet to get myself a proper telephoto zoom, so in the meantime I use this lens on a Vivitar 2x teleconverter and get pretty favorable results.



Here's an uncropped shot taken with the 135 stacked on the 2x TC.



Here's a 100% crop. Don't ask me what's going on, there's not much story to tell.


Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of examples of shots taken with the lens by itself, and the ones I do have aren't necessarily the best examples by which to judge a lens. Here's one of the few decent shots I have:





Here's a 100% crop:



This is straight out of ACR with sharpness at 25, a very mild setting.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2007, 11:36 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,052
Default

The one I have came as a kit lens along with an SMC M 50mm 1.7 anda Pentax ME camera back in 1980. I used it off and one with OK results, until I bought an F 70-210 zoom. I played a bit with it and the Kiron 80-200after I got the DA 50-200 and didn't think it was that bad. The couple of comparison shots I took had it consistently sharper than the Kiron (not surprising - at that point I hadn't noticed the oil on the aperture blades of the Kiron so I was using it wide open), and was often as sharp as the DA lens (in one case sharper, but that could have been camera shake as I was using the DS). I'll take it with me to work tomorrow and see what I can get with it.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2007, 12:57 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

Corpsy wrote:
Quote:
I have that lens and have to agree that it does have problems with flare since it lacks the coatings.
I have been trying to snag one of these off EBAY for a while now and keep timing missing and $30-50 would be my limit.

But my main interest would be for long low light or shade shots.... so flair not really of any issue.

Fortunately they pop up on EBAY quite often so sooner or later I'll get one hopefully.

And even if not SMC they are still MC not just bare glass.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2007, 9:50 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 145
Default

thanks guys.

I'll give it a try this summer then, hopefully it will be good for portraits.

Otherwise i think i'll be able to sell it for the same amount i paid.

I'm getting in the mood to stop buying this kind of lenses, and start saving for a real good one, after having tried the 50mm fa 1.4.

Next purchase i think will be the tamron 28-75 2.8, which is considered great and have a decent focal lenght as a walkaround lens.

Lando
Lando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2007, 10:46 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Gazander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 272
Default

More:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_25/index.htm
Gazander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2007, 2:16 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

I didn't realize how in-demand these lenses were. Guess I was pretty lucky to get mine for under $20 when I did.

Make sure when you search for these things on Ebay that you're looking for spelling errors, that's where the real deals are. You can use gumshoo.com to search ebay and it will look for spelling errors. I'm pretty sure mine was listed as a Takumer.

You might also try searching for old Pentax cameras. Sometimes crappy cameras come with these kinds of lenses and aren't specifically mentioned in the listing title.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2007, 5:21 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

if this is the bayonet model, then there were 2 versions. one great/the other a paper weight. i got rid of the paperweight.

roy
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 PM.