3 Flowers & 3 Lenses

[doubs43]

These three images were taken with three different 135mm lenses on my Pentax *ist-DS DSLR. It was getting late and the rain had just stopped. All were taken at f/4 and for my money I don't see much to choose between them. Whatta ya think? In order from the top they are: Sears K-Mount MC 135mm f/2.8; Pentax Takumar 135mm f/2.5 K-Mount and Rikenon 135mm f/2.8 M42 Mount.



Walker

[mickeyobe]

Walker,

Other than slight differences in colour rendition I can't see any great difference.
The bottom photo looks to me to be the bluest. The middle looks like the warmest and the top one is between the two but also rather blue.
The middle picture is a wee bit less sharp than the other two.

Mickey

[Peter S.]

Dear Walker,

this is another evidence for the believe, that expensive lenses are just required for large
prints. You used a digicam, which might be manipulated to compensate for the tonal difference
(isn't there usually a facility to tune the white balance??).

The background was even enough not to challenge the out-of-focus behavior of the lenses.
Or, second explanation: all three are great performers in that respect.

Another thing that comes to my mind is the preconception, that 135mm is a fairly easy
optical design. So there are few poor lenses out there (if any). For myself I can say, that I
select my 135mm lens to put into the bag by size vs. speed need. Needless to say, that
that 2/135 does not see much light... (it is indispensible for the collection though).

Best regards
Peter

[PeterW]

I prefer the middle picture, taken with the Takumar, To my eyes the colour rendition and balance is more natural. Can't agree with Mickey that it's less sharp than the others, but maybe that's my monitor - or my eyes.

I agree with Peter that a 135mm lens is probably the easiest to design, or maybe the most forgiving until the designer tries to go for really large apertures. There have been several excellent triplet 135s, Trioplan and Triotar for example, with maximum apertures of f/4.5 and even f/3.5 when coated.

Many of these older long-focus lenses are quite bulky, and many are either pre-set or fully manual, so they're not the fastest in the world to use. This is probably why you can often pick them up very cheaply. Some of them are real bargains and give lovely results.

One I've got which I used to use quite a lot is a fully manual, coated, Meyer Orestegor f/4 200mm. Its big, 6 3/4 inches long, and quite heavy, but it's a cracker of a lens.

PeterW

[vintageslrs]

I agree with Peter W........something about the 2nd photo looks the best to me also...


Bob

[doubs43]

Thanks to all who have offered their thoughts.

Peter, it's interesting that the Sears MC 135mm f/2.8 lens is the smallest of the three by a fair margin. The f/2.5 Takumar is in the middle but beats out the Rikenon by very little. All three are well built IMO and I wish I could say for certain who made the Sears lens. It's not cheaply made by any measure.

I've started a thread about using pre-set lenses on DSLR's that all four of you may find interesting.

Walker