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!
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.
@@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.
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.
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!
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!
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
This version without music much better. Thanks
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!
Just bought Nikon 135 f2DC vintage lens I love it it is really sharp at f2.8 to f5.6 etc
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.
Great video, thanks.
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!
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!
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!
Konica 135 f3.2 is a real gem sharper than my Pentax 135s
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 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.
Push the boat out a bit more and opt for the Carl Zeiss Contax Sonnar T* 2.8/135.
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.
What about the Konica ar 135 f2.5
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.
135 mm 2.8 nikkor, can it be use to Z7ii Nikon
Absolutely… adapters are pretty cheap and readily available. Nikon F to Z.
I bought a very cheap vivitar md 135mm f3.5 for $30 and is sharper than the nikkor lol
Loads better :)
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.
What the hell is microcontrast? Is it even real?
pro (kino)?where find it?