Short and medium teles...

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by mnhoj, Nov 25, 2017.

  1. mnhoj

    mnhoj TalkEmount Veteran

    211
    Aug 19, 2013
    • Like Like x 7
    • Winner Winner x 2
  2. roundball

    roundball TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 8, 2013
    USA
    My favorite / most used medium tele is a manual Canon FD300/4.0-L from film days of the 80's...shown here on an NEX7.


    UPLOAD.JPG


     
    • Like Like x 4
  3. mnhoj

    mnhoj TalkEmount Veteran

    211
    Aug 19, 2013
    Awesome!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    I don't know if I'd call a 300mm f/4 a medium. I know we super-size everything here in the 'States, but that's a big serving of glass. :D

    I think short-medium is in the 75-150mm ballpark.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    My favorite medium focal length is 135mm, and have amassed a sizable collection.

    J.C. Penney (Makinon) 135mm f/2.8:
    23778894475_d7ad9bc551_k. cLOSE eNCOUNTERS oF tHE bIRD kIND by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Konica Hexanon AR 135mm f/3.5 EE:
    26578561174_71d84ea9ae_k. DSC08070b_Konica Hexanon AR 135mm f3.5 EE by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Konica Hexanon AR 135mm f/3.2 AE:
    23910242303_710cfd980b_k. DSC07616a_Konica Hexanon AR 135-f3.2 AE by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
    24424618905_1cf6764a1f_k. DSC07634a_Konica Hexanon AR 135-f3.2 AE by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Mamiya/Sekor SX 135mm f/2.8:
    22824265961_e067cb02ca_k. DSC03824_Mamiya-Sekor SX 135mm f2.8 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
    33179534171_070b19c2bf_k. fADED bEAUTY II by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
    33216608014_24aa78574c_h. DSC00381_Auto Mamiya-Sekor 135mm f2.8 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Minolta MD Celtic 135mm f/3.5 (MD-II)
    24723072525_64102afc55_k. a mORNING dOVE aFTERNOON II by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Minolta Rokkor-TC 135mm f/4
    24777822691_03c2660ee8_k. DSC09599_Minolta Rokkor-TC 135mm f4 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
    25206671673_859df8755d_k. tALE oF cHASING tAIL 8 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
    30378661790_4b3ec465fe_h. DSC05213a_Minolta Rokkor-TC 135mm f4 [2] by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
    25989541910_e92c6ef98e_k. DSC06420_Minolta Rokkor-TC 135mm f4 2 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 10
    • Winner Winner x 3
  6. roundball

    roundball TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 8, 2013
    USA
    So you'd call an 80-200 or 200 a long tele ??? :)
    I always thought the cut-off was 'long' teles started at 400...500, 600, 1000, etc.
     
  7. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    Cont'd....

    Canon FL 135mm f/3.5:
    32937701886_a9c7f66269_k. dREAMING iN wATER cOLOR by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Pentax Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5:
    21603180081_d672ea6cba_k. DSC02161a_Pentax Super Takumar 135mm f3.5 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Ricoh XR Rikenon 135mm f/2.8 (by Pentax):
    24851517315_7916503162_k. DSC09414 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Vivitar Series-1 135mm f/2.3
    16751050160_fbdc68a29e_k. dO iNSECTS dAYDREAM? by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
    16735900380_20234e5173_o. DSC04432A - Vivitar Series-1 135mm f/2.3 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Vivitar 135mm f/2.8
    15864695354_f5f3776a55_k. Bokeh-licious Citrus 2 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr

    Last one....I promise! ;)
    Yashica Yashinon DX 135mm f/2.8
    16956464654_cd25684497_k. Shiny Old Things 3 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
    25709809242_57613e997b_k. DSC02209a_Yashica Yashinon DX 135mm f2.8 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
    25709794472_11fca38753_h. DSC02244a_Yashica Yashinon DX 135mm f2.8 by wNG iMAGE aND dESIGN, on Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 8
  8. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    200mm these days would be considered medium with the common 70-200mm zooms from every maker.
    300-600 I deem to be long tele. 600+ is considered ludicrous tele. :D
     
  9. roundball

    roundball TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 8, 2013
    USA
    I'm sure there's no iron-clad ruling...I evolved with this guideline:

    Short Telephoto Lenses (85mm - 135mm)

    Medium Telephoto Lenses (135mm - 300mm)


    Super Telephoto Lenses (300mm+)

    Telephoto Lenses | Photography Mad
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. mnhoj

    mnhoj TalkEmount Veteran

    211
    Aug 19, 2013
    Wonderful additions.


    For me, in use a 180mm prime is long but I wouldn't define it as so.
    A 300mm? I call it a long medium or a short long. ( :
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    Any tele that’s a b***h to carry around is a long tele in my book. But you got some great shots there, Will!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  12. bdbits

    bdbits TalkEmount Top Veteran

    997
    Sep 10, 2015
    Bob
    That's a lot of 135s! Which is your favorite? I am currently lacking something longer and considering 135mm on up, probably prime.
     
  13. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    There are quite a number more not posted! :D Canons, Minoltas, Olympus, Tokina, Fuji, etc. Some I don't have a good enough photo to represent them, others queued for me to repair them. For sample images, you can peruse through my legacy lens collection in flickr.
    The ol' saying goes: It's almost impossible to buy a bad 135mm. It's more of a list of which to avoid. Two that you should avoid are the Minolta MC Rokkor PF 135-f/2.8 (6 in 5), and Asahi Pentax Super (Multi-coated) Takumar 135-f/2.5. The latter is over-inflated in price and mediocre in image quality. Tons of chromatic aberration. It has been mistaken for a later version with an increased element count that corrected for the problems of the earlier one.

    Ask to choose a favorite is a difficult one. That's like asking me to choose between blonde brunette or redhead. The only answer to that is yes. :D
    But if you're going to maroon me on a deserted island, then it's the Mamiya/Sekor SX 135-f/2.8, carried around by a redhead.
    Of course I can only choose from the ones I've tried. Some I'd like to try but have become cost prohibitive, like the Olympus OM Zuiko MC 135-f/2.8. The days of picking one off ebay for $25 three years ago are gone. So has the excellent Nikkor 125-f/2.8 Ais, no thanks to the videos by the Angry Photographer. You can't buy a beat up copy for less than $150. Same can be said for Zeiss Contax and Yashica ML.
    Then there are the Zeiss Jena 135-f/3.5 Sonnar, Pentacon 135-f/2.8, and Russian Jupiter and Tair 135s. Pricey, rarer, and riskier to buy because of age and condition.

    There are strengths and weaknesses that are discernible after trying a good number of these. Some are subtle, some apparent, and some so unique in character, they are must-haves. It all boils down to what your requirements are.
    Sharpness a priority?
    1. Konica Hexanon AR 135-f/3.2. Sharpest 135 I've tried, a reputation for sharpness, and it's across the frame. If you are shooting at infinity, it has excellent rendering at infinity. Unlike it's cheaper f/3.5 (5 in 5) sibling, which has issues with color and contrast of distant subjects. Far field focus is much better with the f/3.2.
    2. Minolta MD Rokkor or Celtic 135-f/3.5 (MD-I). The superior first offering in a 4 in 4 design. Similar to the above Hexanon in sharpness, popping Minolta color and isolation. I prefer it over the smaller and lighter 5 in 5 design that replaced it.
    3. Canon FL 135-f/3.5. Older model that copied the 4 in 3 Zeiss Jena Sonnar. It was carried over as the FD 135-f/3.5 S.C. only for a few months before replaced by a new design of 4 in 4. I also have this one and it's not as good. This FL, like the Sonnar is sharp wide open and has that characteristic bokeh.

    So why the Mamiya/Sekor SX? It has the best combination of what I desired out of a lens. It's sharp (at least center-sharp) wide open at f/2.8 with no coma or aberration. Seems to also be clean across my APS-C frame wide open. The bokeh is buttery smooth. Above all, it renders colors with the right amount of vintage warmth to make it distinct from modern lenses, and not dated like some older coatings; excellent contrast, few flaws, and when stopped down, it's also very sharp when desired.
    The first shot for it is a SOOC JPEG wide open. The 2nd and 3rd shots are from RAWs processed in Capture One for obvious artistic reasons. But the rest of the above shots are camera JPEGs with a few tweaks from Faststone Image Viewer.

    And why a redhead? That's from too many Red Sonya comic books as a kid. :D
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. bdbits

    bdbits TalkEmount Top Veteran

    997
    Sep 10, 2015
    Bob
    If I am stranded on a deserted island, I am not sure I would care if it was brunette, redhead, blonde, or purple hair. :rofl:

    I have found there are indeed a lot of 135s out there. Difficult for a newbie like me to sort through. I did actually like the Mamiya/Sekor SX photos best out of those you posted. I'd not heard about it, and it looks like it might be difficult to find, though very affordable. From what I see the 645 to M adapters (for TAP) are few and pricey, relative to 645 to E. Hmm... I already have a few Minolta lenses (and adapters) so maybe the MD Celtic pics. But then I am also fond of Zeiss glass, so... decisions, decisions. Worse than choosing a hair color.

    Good information all around, thanks.
     
  15. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    757
    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Brian
    For 135mm, I recommend the Konica Hexanon 135mm f/3.2 highly. I started using it on micro 4/3, then APS-C, also on full frame, it never disappoints. It has a MFD of 1m instead of the normal 1.5m or 1.3m, very handy if you like close focus. See the "show case" thread for samples.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  16. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    LOL!

    The good news (I think) is that the SX line is not 645, it's actually Mamiya's last M42 mount offering.
    Albeit, not a normal standard M42. There is a flange lip that interferes with most generic M42 adapters. People used to grind down the poor lenses to adapt them!
    But now it's no longer necessary as there are M42-to-E mount adapters with a reduced diameter to clear. (they even produce one to clear the SX and the Fujinon M42, so no more filing/grinding)

    You still have to extract a small steel pin from the aperture ring, but it's as simple as pulling it out with a needle nose pliers. And the lens can be mounted on said adapter.

    On the Minolta end, (and Ad can probably chime in) there is also a Minolta MD Rokkor 135-f/2.8 (MD-I) with a 4 in 4 design plus an APO/ELD element for improved refractivity.
    It's a beastly heavy lens and a major improvement over the previous generation PF I mentioned. It's highly desirable due to the ED glass. The Celtic version is the same optically.
    I have the MC and MD versions and the MD is better. But I still find it below the Mamiya. If you shoot Minolta you may find it suits you. There are some sites on how to tell the versions apart in order to find a 4 in 4 with the ED glass.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. mnhoj

    mnhoj TalkEmount Veteran

    211
    Aug 19, 2013
    That's an awesome display of 135s Will.
    I like the daydream shot with the Series 1 F2.3. Reminds me alot of the Bokina.

    All those 135s sitting down at a table together would make quite a gearhead shot. ( :
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  18. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    I have and love two zooms in the applied range. My 28-70mm FE and 70-150mm Vivitar have always done me well.

    70-150mm Vivitar
    _DSC4129.

    _DSC5017.

    28-70mm FE

    _DSC8411.

    _DSC1391.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  19. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    hmmm...

    Not all of these were shot on my Sony bodies but I wouldn't expect the results to much different.

    Minolta MD Rokkor 135/2.8 (4/4 version)
    15494018137_1346da4db3_b.
    It's a Snail
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    Minolta MC 100/2.5
    15591122838_94a893a7c0_b.
    Yeeeeees?
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    Nikkor P 105/2.5 (gauss type)
    33505431481_9477c72b25_b.
    feeding time
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    Olympus OM 100/2.8
    16335214038_d44b67fb18_b.
    Premature
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    Minolta MD 70-210/4
    8571038712_8746643619_b.
    Headpiece to the Staff of Ra
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 macro
    33077553934_c844e8e48b_b. iron bloom by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    14278956204_cc7d5b8e0c_b.
    Prisoner
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    Minolta MD 35-105/3.5-4.5 macro
    19196810811_6e9c524e12_b.
    still
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    I use the MD 35-70/3.5 the most.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2017
    • Like Like x 4
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Mus Aziz

    Mus Aziz TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 3, 2015
    Mus
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1