1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Looking for another 135mm adapted lens

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by ahson, Jul 8, 2015.

  1. ahson

    ahson Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Nov 24, 2011
    Hello, I currently have a Vivitar 135/2.8 telephoto adapted lens to pair with my E-M5. However I find it a bit too soft and lack of contrast. Wondering what other alternatives (prime) out there that have similar focal length and better quality.

    The picture was shot in infinity, F8, 1/400. The only thing that I did in PP was to brighten up the image a bit and that was it.

    Thanks
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jul 8, 2015
  2. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Do you have any price or size constraints? Does it need to be f2.8?
     
  3. ahson

    ahson Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Nov 24, 2011
    Not sure how much will be reasonable for an adapted lens like this but I am hoping to be less than $100. Size, a compact would be great. It can be a f4 to remain the compact size.

    Just posted a test image for reference.
     
  4. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    There should be a lot of options, but I just noticed your sample image. 90% of the softness from that image is from the foggy day and flat lighting. You would get a flat image with the best lens on the planet in those conditions. The light is flat and soft, not the lens.

    I would try it again on a clear and sunny day and see if you aren't happier with it.
     
  5. metalmania

    metalmania Mu-43 Veteran

    244
    Jul 19, 2012
    NYC
    Olympus OM 135/2.8
     
  6. ahson

    ahson Mu-43 Rookie

    16
    Nov 24, 2011
    Thanks for the suggestion, will definitely try again on a better day. Though is the Vivitar 135/2.8 considered to be a decent telephoto lens? Or as the other poster mentioned, OM 135/2.8 could be a better lens?
     
  7. Bif

    Bif Mu-43 Veteran

    380
    May 28, 2012
    San Angelo TX
    Bruce Foreman
    ahson,

    I downloaded your image (and deleted it after the following) and found a few seconds with PhotoShop Elements and the LEVELS command worked wonders. If you look at the histogram you have "space" both to the left and right of the of the display where you have no "spikes".

    What I did was drag the leftmost (darktones) slider just to the edge of the leftmost spikes, this strengthened the dark tones and gave it more depth.

    Then I dragged the rightmost (highlight tones) slider left to the first brightness spike, this action gave it more "brilliance".

    And I adjusted the midtone slider "to taste". The image "came alive"

    If you don't have PhotoShop and are on a PC then the free FastStone Image Viewer has many PhotoShip functions, just doesn't have LAYERS. You can get it at www.faststone.org

    BTW, I have that same lens in Nikon mount and played around with it some.
     
  8. piggsy

    piggsy Mu-43 All-Pro

    There are some reviews here -

    http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-auto-telephoto.html

    people seem to mostly rate it but there are some saying that it is maybe not the sharpest lens ever made - though for an early 1970s lens that sells for ~$33 I don't know what the going assumption about sharpness is going to really be :D

    The Vivitar 135 2.8 Close Focusing (also a komine made vivitar) is really nice, to the point where I'd say it's still a pretty decently sharp lens even 2x teleconverted and wide open, but they're quite a bit more.
     
  9. Glenn S

    Glenn S Mu-43 Top Veteran

    788
    Feb 1, 2010
  10. GeBathan

    GeBathan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    714
    Dec 11, 2012
    Los Angeles CA
    Gerard
    I just acquired a Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-pf 135 2.8. Well i don't have anymore m43 body so this one is taken using a Fuji XE2.
     
  11. GeBathan

    GeBathan Mu-43 Top Veteran

    714
    Dec 11, 2012
    Los Angeles CA
    Gerard
    uploadfromtaptalk1436379775677.
     
  12. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nevertheless, I am sure it should be fine for f8 shots like the OPs sample!

    I do think the Olympus 135mm f2.8 mentioned is one of the better ones. There are some nice Zeiss Jena 135mm's in m42 mount, too.
     
  13. klee

    klee Mu-43 Veteran

    367
    Mar 20, 2013
    Houston, TX
    Kevin
    I have both the OM 135/2.8 and the 135/3.5. They're both optically comparable, but the f3.5 is much cheaper and easier to find.
     
  14. colbycheese

    colbycheese Mu-43 Veteran

    378
    May 1, 2012
    Way up there.
    wow, i am suprised no one has mentioned the 135mm takumars. They are pretty small for the focal length and i love the pictures. It gets pretty sharp around f/8. I have the f/3.5 version but i have good things about the faster f/2.5 version. Also did i mention they are very cheap? I only paid around 50 bucks for mine. the f/2.5 version goes for a bit more. Build quality is good like any other lens of the time. Just my 2 cents.
     
  15. Paul80

    Paul80 Mu-43 Veteran

    254
    Jul 6, 2014
    Hi

    The Jupiter 11 lens always gets goods reports when coupled to a m4/3 camera

    Other than that the usual suspects from the old canon FD range, Olympus OM range, Pentak K range Minolta and the Tamron AD2 Mk1 was a hidden stunner as well

    Paul
     
  16. EdH

    EdH Mu-43 Top Veteran

    631
    Jul 14, 2014
    Devon, UK
    Ed
    +1 for the Jupiter 11. I've had several. The later Jupiter 37A, which is f3.5 instead of f4 maximum aperture, is supposed to be the best of the bunch, but the earlier chrome M39 fit 'slim' Jupiter 11s are probably the best looking and the 11A is really ugly! I think the pre-51-ish M39 models actually have Zeiss glass. My very worn 'fat' M42-fit one is my favourite, but all of them have been very sharp from wide open. I've not paid more than £20 for one.

    I took this shot yesterday...

    19362781880_c0dfcafa43_b. P7090217 by Ed Herridge, on Flickr

    ...with my favourite, but rather disreputable looking 11:

    P7100268.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2015
  17. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    Tom
  18. EdH

    EdH Mu-43 Top Veteran

    631
    Jul 14, 2014
    Devon, UK
    Ed
    I forgot to mention that I had the Vivitar 135mm f2.8 and I never got a good shot with it. I bought it because it was fast, but actually it was completely unusable at f2.8.

    I recently bought a Soligor 135mm f3.5 for less than £10 and it's a much better lens, and usable wide open. I think a lot of the older f2.8 135mm legacy lenses only had the f2.8 setting as a selling point. In reality they have to be stopped down to give a decent image. In the case of the Konica Hexanon 135mm lenses (there are three: f2.5, f3.2 & f3.5), it's the f3.2 version, rather than the rarer, more expensive f2.5 version, that's the best option. The f3.5 version is pretty good too.

    I'm sure there are good 135mm lenses with usable wider apertures but they're probably expensive.
     
  19. fredlong

    fredlong Just this guy...

    Apr 18, 2011
    Massachusetts USA
    Fred
    The Nikon Series E 135/2.8 was a pretty nice lens. The Series E lenses were consumer oriented but new designs in the early 80's. They weren't taken seriously by "pros" back in the day but they performed as well or better than similar "real" Nikkors.

    Anyway, they were small for Nikon and are often found at bargain prices.

    Fred
     
  20. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    The adapter's small, but shouldn't you take into account the total size of the lens and adapter together? That LTM 135/3.5 is a 100mm long + 9mm adapter. An Olympus OM 135/3.5, by comparison, is 73mm long + 27mm adapter, so it's actually smaller. And it only weighs 290g + adapter, compared to the 425g + adapter of the LTM lens...
     
    • Like Like x 1