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

Anyone knows anything about this lens ?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Amamba, Dec 13, 2013.

  1. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    MC Auto CPC PHASE 2 CCT, 135/2.8 Macro, 52mm filter dia. In Minolta MC mount.

    I can get it for $20, but don't want to waste time / money if it's a turd.

    I could use a decent fast portrait prime, though.
     
  2. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    Well, I decided to go ahead.. the guy said he had 3 more lenses, so I figured what the heck, I don't lose anything.

    So, I brought the catch home. That's what was in the bag:

    1) The "Phase 2 CPC whatever-the-hell-it-is" 135/2.8. I did a quick search and it seems that it was manufactured by Pentax. This is the lens that I was mainly interested in.

    2) Yet another MD 50/1.7, the exact copy of the other 2 that I have but with a slightly later serial number. They are like rabbits, just seem to procreate ;) I think I can get $25 for it on eBay, so the other stuff will be free ;)

    3) Sears 70-210/4 Macro. Built like a tank, weights about as much as Minolta 70-210, don't know what I will do with it. Attached to it was a 55mm Vivitar CPL - a nice find, since it matches a bunch of my Minolta lenses.

    All for $25 ;)

    4) Sakar 2x TC. Again, not really something I need but hey...
     
  3. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    As you say, the worst that happens is you can resale them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. xXx1

    xXx1 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 15, 2013
    CPC lenses were Pentax budget line at one time. They are not SMC coated and mechanically poorer.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    Yes, that's what I am finding out on the net.

    Optically it seems fine, but I need to test it outside. Inside, in dim light with or without flash, it seems to be close to MD 70-210 when stopped down to f4, easier to hold but harder to focus (the focus ring has shorter travel). At f2.8 it's softer but still seems sharp enough. Very small & light, though. Made me interested in this focal length. Perhaps I should start hunting for Minolta 135/2.8.

    The Sears lens goes on the Fleabay or may be I'll trade it for something... it seems nice enough, certainly exceptionally well built, but I already have two teles in this range, not interested in yet another one... little chance that it will outclass Minolta or Kiron.
     
  6. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    When looking for light Minolta 135mm lenses, you'd better take care that you avoid the earlier MC/MD 135/2.8 models, they're quite heavy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    I have a minolta Celtic 135 3.5 with the built in hood. It was very cheap, about 18.00 usd, it's very sharp.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    Well, I think I am all set with this one for a while, then. It's very light. And sharp. These were taken one click past wide open - it's unmarked, I assume it's f4 as the next one is f5.6. A couple was wide open and I don't know which, they look very close. I used flash to freeze shake and motion, as it was pretty poorly lit.

    11371063076_cbb1dbd9d7_z.
    DSC09280_v1 by BugsDaddy, on Flickr

    11371161313_f9971c242a_z.
    DSC09272_v1 by BugsDaddy, on Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    Well, after playing with it for a day, I am split...

    The lens is small, light, and surely capable of great photos with beautiful bokeh.

    However it's very hard to get decent peaking with. Much harder than with Minolta 70-210. And it's harder to focus because of focus ring travel.

    (It also seems that it's generally harder to get peaking with 6 than with F3, anyone else sees that ?)

    Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk
     
  10. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    The minolta 70/210 is one of the best peakers. It's also the sharpest legacy zooms that I've encountered.

    Unless you get a faster, lens... Under 2.8 your most likely going to need better lighting, boost your ISO or use flash. Anything over 100mm it's hard to prevent camera shake without one of these. Need to keep the speed up!

    I personally don't like flash. It washes every color of personality out of a picture.

    If I do use I try to bounce.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Amamba

    Amamba TalkEmount All-Pro

    Apr 13, 2013
    SE MI
    Even the direct flash has its use - as long as you can avoid harsh shadows, there's no better way to eliminate any movement, either from camera shake or subject movement. So it's the best way to evaluate sharpness of a lens, by eliminating all other variables.

    The two portraits above were taken with direct flash, I think I dialed FEC down to -1 to prevent faces from washing out.

    I used only the bounced flash when shooting Canon, however with Nex I am finding that dialing down FEC often leads to still naturally looking portraits (after WB adjustments). Probably the wider DR comes into play.

    70-210 is excellent, however it is significantly heavier, larger, and I think the bokeh at 135mm is smoother - or at least different - with this prime. I will just keep playing with it.

    On the minus side, this 135mm is rather flare prone. It has a built in hood but I would not use it to shoot in direct light.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk