135 mm: Hexanon 3.2, OM 2.8, FD 3.5, Tokina 2.8 @ f/3.5

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Vytautas, Oct 16, 2013.

  1. Vytautas

    Vytautas Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 9, 2013
    I would like to choose the best compact (~400 g.) 135 mm legacy lens for my Olympus PM-1. So the question is:

    Which of the following lenses is the sharpest and has least chromatic aberrations @ ~f/3.5 on MTF:

    1. Hexanon 3.2 (390 g., 95 mm length, 5 elements in 4 groups, newest version)
    2. Olympus OM 2.8 (360 g., 80 mm length, 5/5)
    3. Canon FD 3.5 (385 g., 85 mm, 4/4, 1976 version - S.C. II)
    4. Konica AR Tokina 2.8 (473 g., 95 mm, not RMC)

    I like handling of FD 3.5 most so I am interested in FD 2.5 (heavy) and nFD 2.8 (light, but more expensive) too.

    Are there any better and affordable lenses? Does FD lenses work well on MTF? Does OM really has biggest problems with CA?
  2. RnR

    RnR Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2011
    Brisbane, Australia
    I can't vouch for CA in those lenses as I have never really looked for it. I have the Konica 135 3.2 and it seems sharp enough for me, although I don't use it wide open. I have to try that one day. But picking old legacy glass, selecting wide open and then worrying about CA seems a tad out there :)

    Seriously, if you are worried about CA wide open, you have to pick glass that was designed for such criteria in mind. Which leaves;

    Leica Telyt R 180mm f3.4
    Voigtlander 90mm f3.5

    More than sharp enough wide open and both lenses are apo corrected and under a grand. Perhaps more than you are willing to pay though.
  3. orfeo

    orfeo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 27, 2013
    I have Canon RF LTM 135mm 3.5, it's little in size and but heavy and may certainly be lighter than SLR 135mm. the Takumar 135mm 3.5 SMC is very light and a gem of a lens, very compact and sharp and light. I have the best 135mm f2.5 SMC takumar with the more evoluate optical formula, it's an incredible piece of glass.
    Cheap and sharp there are loads of rangefinder lenses, like for example the jupiter 11.
    Any Rangerfinder lens will be better than SLR equivalent for size.
    Regarding CA, you need to test for yourself what is your criteria. For me Lightroom is my saviour.
    Certainly the slower is your lens, the lens CA prone it would be.
    Unless you want to buy an APO tele, which will cost you a chunk of dough and you won't have compactness nor autofocus. Best is to buy the 35-100MM from pana or wait for a fast pro zoom that will have to come out sooner or later.

    My bet is the jupiter 11 will get you best result for the money/compactness factor.
  4. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
    I use the Konica Hexanon 135 f/3.2 because of it's close focus capability.

    E-PL1 with Hexanon 135mm f3.2 at f5.6, 1/250 sec, ISO 200
    • Like Like x 1
  5. verbatimium

    verbatimium Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 17, 2013
    Toronto, Ontario
    I also have the Konica Hexanon AR 135mm F3.2 and I find it to be very sharp. I never had any issues with CA. They are also cheap. Got mine (absolutely mint condition with leather case) for 15$ free shipping on Ebay. I love the build, look and feel of these Konica lenses. The 135mm also comes with a built in lens hood.

    One thing that you may also want to consider is that the adapters for Konica lenses are much smaller and lighter than adapters for most other lens mounts.

    PL5 + Konica Hexanon AR 135mm F3.2:

    View attachment 317203
    • Like Like x 4
  6. orfeo

    orfeo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 27, 2013
    Adapters for leica screwmount are even cheaper and way smaller than SLR Konica.
  7. Vytautas

    Vytautas Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 9, 2013
    I would take Hexanon 3.2 for 15USD, but they are not cheap these days anymore ;) I think it will be 50 pounds in the end of the auction: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Konica-Hexanon-AR-135mm-f3-2-portrait-lens-/261301843130

    Do you use/used:
    Canon FD 3.5 (1976 version),
    Canon FD 2.5,
    Tokina 2.8 for Konica AR,
    Canon nFD 2.8
    on MTF?

    I have Canon FD 3.5 and Tokina 2.8 at home at the moment and can choose - return both or just one.
  8. WILLJ8765

    WILLJ8765 Mu-43 Regular

    Sep 7, 2012
    My favorite 135mm f3.5 right now is the Minolta Rokkor (on the right). Very small and light even when compared to other 3.5 lenses. And cheap. I've seen them for $25.

  9. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    I have 3 lenses that are 135mm. I bought the Hexanon 135/3.5 and 135/3.2 at the same time from the same guy. I knew I wanted the 3.2 because everyone said it was the sharpest but it was larger and $60. I figured I'd get the 3.5 too for $30 and decide which I liked better.

    I used the 3.2 at the botanical gardens and had trouble even on a sunny day hand-holding the camera at 135mm. I did manage to get some nice shots (and deleted a lot of blurry ones). I didn't notice the convenience of the 1 meter close focus until using the other ones that are 1.5 meter minimum. The lens is not too big. It feels nice. The adapter is short. The hood has a very satisfying "click" when you pull it into place. Decision: keeping this lens for now.

    I used the 3.5 next and simply LOVED the feel of the lens. Very compact, although it's only like .75" shorter than the 3.5. I feel I had less problems holding this lens steady. Is it as sharp as the 3.2? Hmm, I think it is, actually, but I've yet to do a side-by-side. After trying it I decided I'd sell the 3.2. But after using the 3.2 again I decided I'm keeping that too. Note: this lens does not have a stop at F4.4 or thereabouts where the 3.2 does....so I made one! Decision: keeping this lens.

    Since I had trouble taking non-blurry photos with the Hexanons, I bought a Pentax 135/3.5 for like $20 in mint condition. I'd have to say this is NOT as good as the Hexanons; either that or I simply couldn't get non-blurry shots. Even with the adapter being bigger, however, this lens is still SHORTER than the Konica 3.5. Interesting. Decision: I'd sell it but it's only worth $25. I'll keep it for now!

    If I can get a Vivitar 135/2.8 or something like that and like the lens I'll sell all three!
  10. dbuckle

    dbuckle Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    • Like Like x 1
  11. Wisertime

    Wisertime Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2013
    Is that just based on IQ? I see you post lots of photos with tons of lenses :thumbup:

    Do you also have the Olympus 100mm F2.8? Can you compare to the 135s? I'm amazed at the small size and wanted one to play with...but not sure if they are worth $140, when there are 135s and other brands for much less...but some swear by it.
  12. dbuckle

    dbuckle Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    I don't have any 100mm lenses. I did have a Minolta but sold it as I didn't use it much. I have the Olympus 135mm 3.5 which a nice small lens but still prefer the Hexanon.
  13. jarl

    jarl Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 30, 2012
    _A136678bwc by jarl_72, on Flickr

    Minolta MD 135mm f3.5 on my E-PM1
    ISO 200 - 1/500s - probably f5.6
    If I didn't mess this up it should be 100% crop.

    [Edit] As a matter of fact it doesn't come up at 100%. Maybe this one...

    [Edit2] I tested and weighted my lenses over the weekend. The Minolta MD 135mm weights 275g

    Attached Files:

  14. Vytautas

    Vytautas Mu-43 Rookie

    Oct 9, 2013
    Have you made a comparison with Canon FD 135 mm f/3.5? There are some comments in Italian forum: http://micro4tercios.com/foro/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2636 that Canon FD 135 mm f/3.5 is at least better that Hexanon 3.5 (not 3.2).

    I have made a comparison mint Canon FD 3.5 vs Tokina 2.8. Canon FD is better than Tokina: easier to focus, lighter+shorter, has nice large original hood, less CA at F3,5 and is sharper at F4 than Tokina at F5,6. But Canon costs 50USD + adapter price.

    I am starting to think about just buying Olympus 40-150 R, but how important is that it has less DOF? I am not a professional but at 135 mm 5.6 vs 3.5 seems to me a quiet big difference for portraits.

    It seems that Hexanon 3.2 is a good lens, but look at the prices now. No cheaper that 50 pounds on Ebay. If somebody would like to sell me one for 15USD I would try :)
  15. Gyles

    Gyles Mu-43 Veteran

    Feb 15, 2012
    Sunny Norfolk, UK
    Travelographer and self confessed Hexaholic
    I also have the Hex 135/3.2 it needs a steady hand or tripod and a deep hood, bit its a gem. I paid £45 GBP posted and it's mint.
  16. Jewood1234

    Jewood1234 Mu-43 Regular

    Dec 8, 2011
    I have the Yashica 135/2.8 on a contax mount. Has worked well for indoor and outdoor venues on epm1.

    No clue how it compares size wise to the others.

  17. orfeo

    orfeo Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Sep 27, 2013
    the Takumar 135mm F2.5 V2 is a gem. It's bigger than slower counterparts but I can use a 2x converter and it's great package!
  18. Neftun

    Neftun Mu-43 Veteran

    Jul 15, 2012
    Patrick Kristiansen
    Personally, I can vouch for the om 135f3,5. Light, plenty sharp, and virtually free from ca even wide open.

    Patrick K
    • Like Like x 2
  19. RoadTraveler

    RoadTraveler Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 23, 2012

    It's comment like this, as well as several other positive comments and photo examples across the web that have me seriously considering a Hexanon f/3.2 135mm lens. I'm currently having a manual focus love fest (won't stop using autofocus too), and while I likely don't have much use for a relatively long prime when I have zooms that cover this angle of view and beyond, that doesn't mean this lens won't be better or more fun to use. Or, that I won't like the results more.

    I've already experienced the limitation of m4/3 autofocus with moving subjects and the 100-300, it's possible the Hexanon could fill an occasional void, and I like that it's relatively fast. I spent hours yesterday looking for one on the web, and while I typically like to buy 'the best' I can afford, I'm thinking less expensive this time (plus my new lens fund is throughly depleted).

    Anyone have a name or link for the best adapter I should buy?

    This Fotodiox seems 'okay', it's the same as B&H sells but for much less money.


  20. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 14, 2012
    New Mexico
    Why not get the Olympus 40-150 for m4/3? It is light, relatively small, sharp enough, not especially prone to CA (which is simply fixed in Lightroom anyway).

    If not, I like my OM Zuiko 135mm f3.5, slower, but said to be a tad sharper than the 2.8. In certain situations you will have to correct for CA, though. But if you are shooting with legacy glass, shooting raw is probably a good idea anyway.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.