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

Showcase Canon LTM 135mm f/3.5

Discussion in 'Adapted Lens Sample Image Showcase' started by WoodWorks, Aug 31, 2016.

  1. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    I had an old L39-NEX adapter sitting on a shelf, and it needed a lens. So I picked up this Canon 135. It's small(ish), extremely sharp, focuses easily, and at US$105, was fairly inexpensive. All of these shots are hand held (made possible by the A7II's IBIS).

    Canon LTM 135mm f-3.5. Canon LTM 135mm f-3.5-2. Canon LTM 135mm f-3.5-3. Canon LTM 135mm f-3.5-4. Canon LTM 135mm f-3.5-5. Canon LTM 135mm f-3.5-6.
     
    • Like Like x 10
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    Like that wild turkey shot! Nice lens!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Nice rendering with lots of punch for such an old lens, and it's obviously an excuse for making some pleasing pictures!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Nice find indeed!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    I know I'm stretching the limits of an Image Showcase here, but I couldn't resist shooting this lens against my Sony 24-240. These clips are 100% crops near the upper right corner of the frame. Sony on top, Canon LTM on the bottom. Shot on a tripod, IBIS off, 10-sec. timer, manually focused, all that stuff.

    Wide open; Sony (when zoomed to 135mm) @ f/6.3, Canon @ f/3.5:

    WideOpen.

    Both at f/8:

    f8.

    I'm a little stunned. :)
     
    • Wow Wow x 3
  6. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary

    I get where your going with the modern vs vintage David, and you are certainly killing it with this lens, but come on...

    We are still talking superzoom vs prime. Even worse is the fact that a 135 prime is almost always sharp at any cost. I have a $24 Vivitar 2.8 that will certainly eat a any superzoom's lunch at 135mm.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    777
    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    Damn. I really need a FF to take advantage of all my dad's old glass. Great corners that I'm losing using APS-C.

    When shooting handheld, when does IBIS kick in? When focus assist (magnification) is turned on? Or does the shutter need to be half-depressed?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    I might add. I thought you liked the 24-240. Why embarrass a friend?
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  9. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    Well... sure... but did it have to embarrass itself like that? I like that lens. :laugh:

    I set the SteadyShot Settings for 135mm, and it kicks in whenever focus magnification is engaged. It also kicks in when half pressing the shutter, or when back button focus is engaged.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    Wow! Last I remember the 24-240 was providing you lovely shots of crater lake and before that beautiful shots of Argentina. Now it's sitting in a bag resting and gets pulled out. Probably thinking it's gonna be pointed at some beautiful scene and instead it is pointed at the corner of an off white building to be be the subject of humiliation :shakehead:. On top of that it gets blamed for the whole thing :confused:. Just send the 24-240 to me. I will give it a home, point it at pretty scenery, and I will never ever pit it against a prime. ;)
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2016
    • Funny Funny x 7
  11. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    Yeah... that's gonna happen. :flypig::flypig::flypig:

    No, that super-zoom has it's own custom-fit padded liner in my motorcycle's tank bag. It has nothing to complain about. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 6
  12. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    Funniest lens showcase thread! ;)

    IIRC, that is a 4 elements in 3 groups formula, a Zeiss Sonnar derivative. It end up being ported to FL/FD mounting, and was designated the FD 135mm f3.5 S.C. until it was replaced with a 4 in 4 formula in mid life.
    No surprise how sharp this prime is, even for its age.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    777
    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    Yeah, there were about 8 different versions of this lens. From the chrome Serenar and Canon, to the all black one shown here. I'm pretty sure they were all the same optically, with cosmetic changes along the way and the change over from brass to plastic for weight savings. I'll have to dig my Chrome Canon out and compare it to my SEL24240 as well. Hell, I might even throw in my SEL55210 and my wife's SEL18200 for comparison. :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    777
    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    My apologies for boring brick shots. I tried to go to one of my favorite locations, but the lack of rain this summer means the place was so dry, it really wasn't very scenic. So I went back home and shot my chimney on the side of the house.

    I set up my tripod and only changed lens without changing distance, or height. A small surprise that the top of the images weren't the same. But the bigger surprise was that the FoV was not the same between all the lenses.

    If the FL is the distance from the Iris to the sensor, shouldn't all of the following shots be the same????

    Canon LTM 135 @ f/8:
    2016-09-03 135mm Tests 004.

    FE24-240 @ f/8: 2016-09-03 135mm Tests 009. SEL 55-210 @ f/8:
    2016-09-03 135mm Tests 018.

    I thought the 24-240 was the lowest, thinking the weight caused a sag. But it's the 55-210 that's lowest.

    This set was around 5 feet - Just over the minimum focus distance for the LTM. I did notice that when I moved back to about 20 feet, the FoV seemed much closer. So I guess the distance from the from of the lens also comes into play. Distortion is also way more obvious in the E-mount lenses at the further distance, while the LTM remains perfect...

    Canon LTM @ f/8:
    2016-09-03 135mm Tests 037. FE 24-240 @ f/8:
    2016-09-03 135mm Tests 028. SEL 55-210 @ f/8:
    2016-09-03 135mm Tests 022.

    In that set, the 24-240 was lower than the 55-210, so I still don't know what is causing the big differences.

    I screwed up the focus a full house shot with the 24-240, so can't post that comparison here.

    But since this is APS-C, I don't see a corner issue with the 24-240. I may have to go to a local camera store and test it out.

    The big problem with the Canon LTM was the lack of IBIS on the A6000. Very difficult to tell if focus was accurate, especially hand-held, and I couldn't get a sharp hand-held picture even at high shutter/ISO.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
  15. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    I speculate that the Sony zoom lenses change their focal length when focussing closer, this often happens with more intricate optical designs where elements move with respect to each other instead of movement of the optical system as a whole as in many older lenses.
     
  16. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    Is that the "Focus breathing" Ad?
     
  17. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Yep, that's what I meant.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    777
    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    So, what you're saying is that even though I shot until the EXIF data was as close to 135 as I could get (134-136), the FL is only "accurate" for longer focusing distances?
     
  19. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    I never bothered to check, but I don't think the focal length in the EXIF depends on the focus distance to reflect the effective focal length. Also, the amount of focus breathing depends on the actual lens design. IMHO it'll go mostly unnoticed in actual picture taking.
     
  20. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    Tell that to the Nikon guys about their 70-200 f/2.8, lol :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 2