Any Suggestions on a Legacy 135mm 2.8 to buy?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Undertow, Jun 6, 2012.

  1. Undertow

    Undertow  

    6
    May 17, 2012
    North Carolina
    Just wondering what Legacy 135mm 2.8 lenses are being used by current members? And also any suggestions for my future purchase? I mainly prefer AR mount and Minolta MD.
     
  2. ryansinibaldi

    ryansinibaldi Mu-43 Regular

    161
    Mar 9, 2012
    • Like Like x 1
  3. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    What are you planning on shooting? I've got a cheap Lentar 135/2.8 which performs adequately, but I don't really use it because is just not a very comfortable focal length on :43: for me. Its just a very in-between sort of length -- not really long enough for wildlife, but too long for most anything else.

    Sent from my Android phone using Mu-43 App
     
  4. Undertow

    Undertow  

    6
    May 17, 2012
    North Carolina
    I'm mainly interested in shooting Portraits with it? I've just heard through some other forums that it worked out well for others. I thought maybe the focal length would be fairly decent for maybe a reptile here and there too.
     
  5. veereshai

    veereshai Mu-43 Top Veteran

    777
    May 12, 2011
    Arlington, VA
    I have a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 that I got from here, but I don't use it for portraits. It's a tad too long for that purpose. If you're looking to buy a lens for portraits, then I'd suggest that you look at 50mm f1.4s, there are so many of them out there.
     
  6. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    If the intent is for portraits... as suggested, the 50/1.4 lenses (like Canon FD 50/1.4) would be very good and if you want more compression (which I love in portraits) I'd recommend legacy lenses in the 85 to 105 range, such as the Canon FD 85/1.8 and 100/2.8, Nikon 105/2.5, etc. These are not difficult to find, nor are they terribly expensive.

    I have a Canon FD 135/2.8 which is a very nice lens, but like veereshai mentioned, I feel that the focal length is a bit too long to work easily with for portraits. 85/1.8 might be the sweet spot for compression, shallow DOF, comfortable size, easy to work with, not too expensive. I have a Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 which is an awesome portrait lens on m4/3, but it's an expensive and heavy piece of glass.

    For general use... in 135mm, the Canon I have is a great lens to use and gives wonderful results... all that said about portraits, here's a portrait with my FD 135/2.8

    P1010279-Edit.
     
  7. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
    My favorite is actually the Konica Hexanon 135mm f3.2 AR because of the great optics, and the ability to focus in closer.
     
  8. ean10775

    ean10775 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 31, 2011
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Eric
    +1 - a fast legacy 50mm (either f1.4 or f1.8 as in my opinion all of them are best when stopped down to at least f2) would be a good lens to start with for portraits. A 135 f2.8 will certainly give you more compression, but will require a much greater working distance from your subject unless you're looking exclusively for tightly cropped headshots.

    I have an OM Zuiko 135 f2.8, which I like because its relatively light, compact and has a built in hood. Its fine for portraits outdoors where there is plenty of light and space, but it finds little use indoors. Again, like the fast 50s, I feel it needs to be stopped down a bit for adequate performance.
     
  9. chasm

    chasm Mu-43 Veteran

    262
    Mar 2, 2010
    I like my Minolta MD 135mm f3.5 - mainly because it's so light. Balances very nicely on my G3. Good quality although I've nothing in that focal length to compare it to.
     
  10. fin azvandi

    fin azvandi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 12, 2011
    South Bend, IN
    Like MajorMagee said, the Konica Hexanon AR 135/3.2 is an excellent lens that can be found pretty easily. Since you mentioned portraits, the Hexanon AR 85/1.8 (more difficult to find) is absolutely superb and easier to hand-hold, probably a more usable focal length for portraits.
     
  11. nickthetasmaniac

    nickthetasmaniac Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 11, 2011
    I used to use an SMC Pentax-K 135/f2.5 on my GH2 and it was exceptional, but I wouldn't recommend the length for a portrait lens.

    As others have said, I'd be looking at legacy lenses between 50mm and perhaps 85mm, depending on personal style and preference. For these I'd recommend the Pentax-M 50/f1.4 and Pentax-M 85/f2 - both of which can be found for decent prices
     
  12. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    +1 on the 85mm.

    If you're looking for more compression in your portraits than you can get from a 50mm, then that's a good focal length to go with. I'd feel like I'd need a bullhorn to direct my subjects if I tried shooting them with a 135, and I'd definitely have to use a tripod although YMMV.

    I've got a Hexanon 57/1.4 which is a very capable portrait lens.
     
  13. applemint

    applemint Mu-43 Veteran

    345
    Jan 24, 2012
    Yes, I like mine too and the reasonably low size/weight is nice. But likewise I have not tried any other legacy lenses in that focal length by way of comparison. I like all my Minolta MD lenses though. I think there is/was a Minolta 135mm 2.8 on sale in the for sale section of the forums - possibly even better than the f3.5 and I think it's more or less the same size and weight. You would have to stand quite far away from someone to take portraits with it though. Needs good light to handhold it as well, I only use mine outdoors.
     
  14. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    The Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 and the Pentacon (Meyer Orestor) 135mm f/2.8 Pre-Set are my top picks!

    zeiss_sonnar_135mm_2,8_web.
     
  15. RSilva

    RSilva Mu-43 Regular

    172
    Oct 24, 2011
    Portugal
    A great lens for m4/3 cameras is the SMC Takumar 2.8/120, it's fast and sharp but most of all, very compact, even more than the 3.5/135 takumar and takes 49mm filters. Very nice bokeh too.
     
  16. Justified_Sinner

    Justified_Sinner Mu-43 Regular

    193
    Feb 11, 2010
    Scotland, UK
    Dauvit Alexander
    The MD Tele-Rokkor 135mm f2.8 is lovely, sharp with a smooth bokeh:

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_justified_sinner/6805827034/" title="Blossoms by the justified sinner, on Flickr"> 6805827034_a64a3ce157. "500" height="375" alt="Blossoms"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_justified_sinner/6872718294/" title="50p Each by the justified sinner, on Flickr"> 6872718294_0e1a9aa47f. "375" height="500" alt="50p Each"></a>​

    But as I see people are recommending you to an 85mm, the MC Rokkor-PF f1.7 is gorgeous and, in my opinion, a much finer lens:

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_justified_sinner/7122820569/" title="Charity Mugger - 2 by the justified sinner, on Flickr"> 7122820569_4329244efc. "500" height="375" alt="Charity Mugger - 2"></a>

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/the_justified_sinner/6976699250/" title="Anemone sp. by the justified sinner, on Flickr"> 6976699250_0e4e76ea42. "500" height="375" alt="Anemone sp."></a>​

    The 135mm crops up regularly at a reasonable price (£30 or so) while the 85mm is rarer and can cost a lot more (I've seen them sell on auction sites for £250).
     
  17. Gyles

    Gyles Mu-43 Veteran

    265
    Feb 15, 2012
    Sunny Norfolk, UK
    Travelographer and self confessed Hexaholic
    I like my Hexanon glass, not seen it in 128mm focal length. I'm intrigued, tell me more about this lens please. Or are you referring to the 135mm f3.2 which I think focuses down to 1meter.
     
  18. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
    Sorry, that was a very strange typo. It's a 135mm.
     
  19. Gyles

    Gyles Mu-43 Veteran

    265
    Feb 15, 2012
    Sunny Norfolk, UK
    Travelographer and self confessed Hexaholic
    Thanks for clearing that up. I thought there might have been a rare Hexanon lens that would require hunting down.