When I was looking for that FL, my only concern was the weight, so I went with old Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5. Is not the best of the bunch, but at 395 g. is good enough for me. Here is one, wide open, on a7R
uhoh7 wrote:
I believe the FD 135/2 is quite good, but the 100/2 would so much smaller.
The 135/2 is better color corrected than the 100/2, though modern software renders the differences there inconsequential, but it also has more neutral bokeh wide open at equal shooting distances. And it's got a built-in hood that works well.
It is big, but I don't find it awkward-big. It's nicely sharp wide-open, and gets to its best at f/4.
IMO, there is almost no wrong choice for 135mm and 100mm, they seem to fall into an optical sweet spot where they seem all good performing.
The Pentax Super Takumar 135/3.5 is a nice small lens which is well made.
Cheap and common too.
Mainly, its smaller than faster counterparts.
There is a Takumar SMC that is bayonet K-mount, that is the one generally considered the worst of the Pentax 135mm (thought I have seen nice pictures taken with it) DSC0230820140809ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr
Its the most portable 135mm I have, but the one I use the least because it was rather long on apsc and I like fast lenses.
But using it on FF recently, I seem to have changed my mind, it seems to be able to get enough isolation for portraits that I want.
The Canon FDn135/2 is good, not really that big with nice built in hood.
Rather heavy, but not overly so compared to some f2.5 ones I have. DSC0342320140920ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr
Bigger lens often gets left at home more though, which I am trying to work on it....
The Canon FDn100/2 is nice too. Smaller than the 135mm options (more like the Takumar 135/3.5 in size) . Very sharp from wide open. DSC0108720140712ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr
Nothing bad to say about it really.
The one thing about Canon FD in general though is the color rendition. Somehow, cooler and tends to generate a bit odd AWB correction on the Sony A7 that I always needs to work on in post.
Seems less so on the Fd135/2 than my other 3 fd lenses though...
The Takumar 135/2.5 ver2 (M42 mount) and Pentax K135/2.5 are the same lens in optical layout.
Not too expensive, nice performing with that Pentax style of rich contrast and drawing style.
Good SMC coatings.
Nice MF damping/feel too. 20130707-IMG_0262-50 mm-Pentax_K1 by jenkwang, on Flickr
There is also a Takumar 135/2.5 version which most consider a bit lower than version 2, but I like this one better actually. 20130501-IMG_0144Canon EOS 5D by jenkwang, on Flickr
Edit (Add)
There is also a very nice Nikkor 105/2.5 ltm lens.
I think its really under mentioned nowadays with fast 85mm being seen as more 'sexy'
Sonnar design which is less common nowadays too (just for the sake of it)
Very sharp from f2.5.
I really like this lens and no compliants about it at all.
Worth a look DSC0245220140816ILCE-7 by jenkwang, on Flickr
Only downside is that is heavy brass and no smaller than other 100/2 options out there even though its ltm,
Otherwise the plannar AiS SLR version is famous and very cheap too.
mawz wrote:
Do you have the Pentax or the Takumar?
The Pentax Takumar 135/2.5 is junk.
The SMC Takumar 135/3.5 is excellent (note the lack of Pentax branding here).
The SMC Takumar 135/2.5 is very good.
The SMC Pentax 135/3.5 is very good.
If you see Pentax & Takumar on the same lens, it's Pentax's K mount budget lens. Generally best avoided. SMC or Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses however range from decent to excellent and the SMC 135's are at the upper end of the range.
I think most 135/2.8s are quite good, much more similar than different. If size is important you can't go wrong with the Zuiko mentioned here: small, light, sharp, very nice. I also like the Zuiko look and handling, but you might not.
That said, in 135mm I seem to be using most the unglamorous Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focus. Plenty sharp WO for portraiture, sharpens up further on stopping down. Minimal color fringing, OOF areas are well behaved -- very smooth, no onion rings or hard edges. Vivitar quality is a crapshoot, but the 135CF is one of the good ones, optically and mechanically comparable to, say, Nikon AiS or Canon FD. Its ace up the sleeve though is a 0.6m MFD, which takes you to 1:2 magnification. I got one for $69. It's a very good lens with macro capability available for cheap. Very handy that.
Thank you very much guys for many suggestions and outstanding sample images.
@uhoh7: Thanks for the image of Leica 135/3.4 APO, Soligor 135/2, and OM 135/2.8 placed next to each other. I think 135/2 is too big for the A7r, and Leica 135/3.4 APO is out of my budget (although I love its sample images), so I think I will narrow my search to either Zuiko 135mm/2.8 or Contax Zeiss 135/2.8 C/Y.
@wfektar: Vivitar 135/2.8 seems like a really good alternative. In addition to either the Zuiko or Contax Zeiss 135/2.8, I might also buy the Vivitar version too due to its low price. Then, I can do the test for these lenses.
@CalBoy87 and pinhole cam: Takumar version is also a good choice, but I think I will pass it since I already had other manual focus Takumar lenses and would like to try out a different lens designer. Thanks.
haha seems like every 135mm under the sun has been mentioned here. i am amazed to see canon FD 135 f2 can be had for under $400, that's quite a bargain. i am also amazed to see minolta 135 f2 commands the same price as contax zeiss 135 f2. i love minolta's fast lenses.
@rongwam: just a word of caution about the Vivitars. They sold a lot of different 135s and they're all over the map. The Close Focus is a good one, supposedly the Series 1 is also (haven't tried it myself).
Also, don't overlook the Zuiko 135/3.5. Slower, but sharp and ridiculously small. Usually under $40.
p.2 #10 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
The Pentax SMC-A 135mm/1.8 was not mentioned, although it cost probably as much as the sum of all others mentioned in this thread if we leave out the Leica :-).
rongwam>
Zuiko and Sonnar are both good choices, in fact, they have been my choices as well after a considerable amount of research.
Sonnar has the quality edge, because it does have that Zeiss 3D pop which is very appealing.
That being said, I find myself preferring the Zuiko 135mm/3.5 in my bag. At 280gr, it's exactly half the size of Zeiss and half the bulk. The Zuiko 135mm/2.8 is not much heavier at 360gr.
I rather quickly found out that I don't like mixing multiple systems and converters in one bag and that I was gravitating towards the Olympus because of their small sizes and good quality.
I would recommend you think about other lenses you might want to buy and only then make a decision. Both systems have a lot of desirable glass. In many focal lengths Zeiss is the winner in quality (at cost of bulk), while Zuiko is pretty much the leader when it comes to miniaturization (at a slight cost of quality).
Some suggestions for desirable glass:
C/Y Zeiss 21/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100/2, 100/2.8 Macro, 135/2.8
OM Zuiko 21/2, 21/3.5, 24/2, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.2, 85/2, 90/2 Macro, 100/2
Then there is of course a third choice with both qualities combined - the Leica M system. Best quality, best size, worst price.
I left out longer tele lenses on purpose as I don't find it all that comfortable to shoot manual focus 200mm+ glass on an A7.
I have a Zuiko 200/4, Zuiko 200/5 and Leica APO Telyt-R 180/3.4, but the Minolta 200mm/2.8 HS APO G with the Sony LA-EA4 adapter beats them all in usability and is close to Leica in quality. If I didn't have the Minolta, I'd be looking at the native Sony FE 70-200/4.
p.2 #11 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
I'm going to do a test between My OL 3.5, OL 2.8 and Leica 2.8 as I need to make a decision.....
I find the OL 3.5 doesn't get good at the frame edges until it's stopped down quite a bit but it is small and light. CA is pretty bad which is only fully fixable in Capture One and ACR only partially fixes it.
BTW ;
OL 3.5 336g
OL 2.8 397g
Leica 697g!
p.2 #12 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
As for the discussion of size, it's worth pointing out that not all 135/2's are as big as that Soligor 135/2. My girlfriend's car isn't as big as that Soligor 135/2.
mawz wrote:
For general use, look at the Nikon 135/2.8 AI-S...
For landscape, I'd probably look at the Zeiss 135/2.8 in Contax/Yashica mount.
So you'd prefer the C/Y 135/2.8 for landscapes but the Nikon 135/2.8 for anything else? Can you comment on why? I'e got the C/Y 135/2.8 and a Nikon 135/2 (also a great lens) but I have no experience with the Nikon 135/2.8.
p.2 #13 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
Not a compact lens by any stretch, but the Zeiss Jena 135/2.8 is a dream lens.
Im using a Mamiya 645 120 macro right now in that focal length that is pretty stunning as well.
p.2 #14 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
rongwam wrote:
@CalBoy87 and pinhole cam: Takumar version is also a good choice, but I think I will pass it since I already had other manual focus Takumar lenses and would like to try out a different lens designer. Thanks.
Sure understand this.
I myself don't know if I should thank or curse the A7 for the newly opened opportunities for LBA
One thing to also consider is the number of adapters you might need to manage.
I try to keep it to 2 types in one outing.
There was once I brought 3 brands and ended up with a backup adapter for each and then hassle of remembering which lens I needed to just change lens and which I needed to change lens+adapter.
Not too nice when in the rush to shoot.
p.2 #15 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Canon 135mm F3.5 LTM Rangefinder Lens. 425 gms, 10 blade aperature, sharp wide open. I find it great for portraits with a pleasing bokeh. Pebble Place has a review of it here.
p.2 #16 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
dbehrens wrote:
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the Canon 135mm F3.5 LTM Rangefinder Lens. 425 gms, 10 blade aperature, sharp wide open. I find it great for portraits with a pleasing bokeh. Pebble Place has a review of it here.
Dave
I like the tiny ultralight 100/3.5 even more, but I think the OP wanted faster. But you are right, that's a good lens and cheap. I think I paid 85 for a really clean black one from keh
p.2 #17 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
Beni wrote:
You can get an FD 135mm f2 for that price. Anyone know how it is? The FD 100mm f2 is apparently great (I really liked the EF version when I was shooting canon).
I will add to that the Canon FD 135/f2.5. I picked it up on Ebay for $65!
I have done some basic test shots & it sharp & has pretty good bokeh. Will try to post more serious stuff later.
p.2 #18 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
banpreso wrote:
haha seems like every 135mm under the sun has been mentioned here
I forgot the Nikon 135 f2.8 Series E... and while we're at it, let's also include the 100mm f2.8 Series E and the venerable 75-150mm f3.5 Series E as well.
p.2 #19 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
So guys, I pulled a trigger on Zuiko 135mm/2.8 MC version. I like its size, weight, and beautiful bokeh. Getting the MC version with hope that it has less CA than the first generation E. Zuiko.
On the other side note, I was looking through my collection in closet last night and found that I still have my Canon EF 100/2. What do you guys think about using that Canon EF 100/2 on A7r with an adapter? I will use it as a manual focus lens. Can it be compared to the FD 135mm/2 (i know that it won't beat the EF 135/2)?
p.2 #20 · Best 135mm manual focus lens on Sony A7r
pinholecam wrote:
One thing to also consider is the number of adapters you might need to manage.
I try to keep it to 2 types in one outing.
There was once I brought 3 brands and ended up with a backup adapter for each and then hassle of remembering which lens I needed to just change lens and which I needed to change lens+adapter.
Not too nice when in the rush to shoot.
Yeah for this reason I've adopted an entire system rather than just a few lenses here or there. I decided to go with Olympus OM lenses as they're incredibly small, feel nice and well made and are fairly well regarded optically.
I've yet to get the either the 135mm f/2.8 or 135 f/3.5 though, I'd probably go for the f/2.8 version, which is still only 360g!
