Best 135mm f/2.8 adapted lens?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by budeny, Feb 6, 2015.

  1. budeny

    budeny Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 4, 2014
    Boulder, CO

    I wonder if anyone has good experience with adapted 135mm lens on their m43 system?
    Preferably in $200+/- region?
  2. Talanis

    Talanis Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Oct 15, 2012
    Sherbrooke, Canada
    Real Name:
    Eric Cote
    I am looking forward to the new Rokinon 135mm f/2 coming out soon but it is 500$ I think.
  3. yorik

    yorik Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 23, 2013
    Scotts Valley, CA
    Real Name:
    I have a Pentax SMC-F 135 f/2.8 that I bought for my K5 a couple of years ago on ebay for about $350. I think that it adapts very nicely to my GX-7, though I haven't used it a lot. The price is a little higher than you want, but it's a relatively rare and sought after lens in Pentax world.

    I posted a couple of pictures in the adapted lens thread.
  4. ManofKent

    ManofKent Hopefully still learning

    Dec 26, 2014
    Faversham, Kent, UK
    Real Name:
    Tair 11a is the nicest 135mm I've ever used and really regret selling it - only used on Nikon bodies but should be lovely on M4/3 too. There are few nasty 135's - the Nikkors (even the cheap pre-AI version) are all good.
    • Like Like x 2
  5. walter_j

    walter_j Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 10, 2013
    Hagwilget, B.C., Canada
    Real Name:
    I have a canon 135 fd f2.5 that I like. If I used it more, I'd consider the new 135 f2 thats coming.
  6. Jay86

    Jay86 Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 26, 2012
    Me too. 270mm F/2…. talk about DOF, lol. Of course you need a lot of space between the subject and camera.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Serhan

    Serhan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    May 7, 2011
  8. Jesse_S

    Jesse_S Mu-43 Regular

    Jan 7, 2013
    Seattle, WA
    I dunno, I have a Pre-ai Nikkor 135 and I've not been impressed with it, plus it's an absolute beast on an m43 camera. But...I also have the pre-AI Nikkor 105 2.5 and that may be one of the finest lenses I've ever owned. It's small, light and fits like a charm on my EM5 and takes incredibly sharp photos even wide open. It's not quite 135, but if you find one I highly recommend it. The pre-AI version should be fairly affordable still. It looks especially snazzy on a silver OMD body.
  9. ManofKent

    ManofKent Hopefully still learning

    Dec 26, 2014
    Faversham, Kent, UK
    Real Name:
    Yes the pre - AI Nikkor 135 is quite a weight with the twist out hood. I like the images it produces, sharp but not particularly contrasty - good for portraits. I agree the 105 is stunning - I used to own the AI version, but sold it and just hung onto the f4 105 micro-Nikkor (again superb, but a very weighty lens). Both the E-series 135 and 100 are worth picking up for lighter alternatives, although they do benefit from use with a hood.

    The 15 blade Pentacon 2.8's are very nice for bokeh if not the sharpest (there's a later 6 blade model that's sharper but not as nice IMO). Meyer-Gorlitz Orestor is decent and can be picked up cheaply with a bit of hunting is again great for the bokeh fans.

    Optically 135 was relatively easy to produce without too many elements so they're very common and generally decent.
  10. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    I also have an FD 135mm f2.5 that I always liked, although it's a bigger lens. If one has a $200 budget for a 135mm, there are definitely some good lenses out there, but I'm happy with the inexpensive name brands. Another nice one I have is a Takumar 135mm f3.5, which was small enough to carry with my EPM1. Both of these are kind of fun to use with an inexpensive focal reducer.
  11. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    135mm lenses always seem to be a lot bigger than 100mm lenses. After trying a few 135mm f2.8 primes on my SLR, I settled in with the Nikon 100mm f2.8 Series E. I gave up a little length, but the lens was literally half the size of all the 135mm lenses I tried. It's an optical gem, too. Should have never sold it.

    Sorry for deviating from the actual question a bit, but that was my favorite "135mm"
  12. datagov

    datagov Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2012
    New York
    I agree. I tried a number of 135mm lenses and many were pretty good, but they were big and heavy. Then I picked up the Canon FDn 100mm f2. It weighs about 500g, is sharp at f2, super sharp at f2.8-8, and still great up to f14. Bokeh is amazing. It balances well on the E-M1. Portraits are beautiful.
  13. cheeks69

    cheeks69 Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 6, 2013
    I use the Minolta rokkor x 135 2.8 on my EM5 and it's one of my favorite lenses, very sharp sharp and terrific Bokeh and it's cheap, under a $100.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. listers_nz

    listers_nz Mu-43 Veteran

    Nov 22, 2013
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Real Name:
    My 135 2.8 is an unknown brand I picked up in a thrift store, see so it may not be the "best" 135 around (but from the few shots I've taken with it, doesn't look the worst either).

    However, I'd go along with the comment about the Nikon 100mm Series E. Here's a quick size comparison (no caps or adapters):
    [​IMG]Lens compare by SL Pics, on Flickr

    FWIW, here is quite a good comparison of the Series E lenses - including the 135 (just to keep things on topic!)
    • Like Like x 1
  15. budeny

    budeny Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 4, 2014
    Boulder, CO
    Thank you all for sharing your experience and for comparison articles.
    100m is a little too short for me as I want to limit my telefoto primes by 60mm and 135mm.
    I think I'll look for a deal on Zeiss Sonnar 135/2.8 as it fits the bill.
  16. jasjb

    jasjb Mu-43 Regular

    Mar 28, 2014
    Would a slow-sh (over f2.8?) 135mm be practically unusable without OMD stablisation? Hand held, that is.
  17. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Real Name:
    Sean Rastsmith
    The question doesn't make sense, unless you are only planning on shooting wide open without a tripod. Yes, I have shot quite a bit of 135 and over at slower than 2.8 without IBIS.
  18. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Not at all. You'd need at least 1/270 shutter speed to prevent blur, but that's pretty easy unless the light is really low.

    Not all that long ago, ISO 400 Film was about the top you'd want to use for good detail, cameras were unstablized, and not very many long lenses had fast apertures. Plenty of good pictures were taken.
  19. walter_j

    walter_j Mu-43 Veteran

    Sep 10, 2013
    Hagwilget, B.C., Canada
    Real Name:
    Well, the aperture no longer works on the Canon 135 F2.5 lens. It lasted a year (used), and repair will probably cost more than it's worth.One of the pitfalls with older lens I guess.