Very nice and fair lens review. The optical design of the 135mm is one of the most simple in the Pentax lens lineup. It has none of the fancy optical designs, like floating elements, which tend to characterize macro lenses. I think its only claim as a macro lens is the closer focusing mechanics. The design goes back nearly to the origin of the 67 system in the 1960s. It is one of the few old designs which has never been upgraded (except multicoating) or just replaced. Yet, if I'm just putting a lens on my 67 and walking around looking for pictures, it is the lens I'm most likely to select. It's physically light, a virtue in a package which is never light. Being a very modest telephoto focal length, and with its close focus, its great for carving out small detail subjects. For true macro work, the 100mm does 1:2 imaging straight on or 1:1 with its macro adapter, and runs rings around the 135mm optically, but it also costs three times as much. At least in the US, the 135mm is one of the least expensive lenses of the 67.
I agree on all counts. It’s only a “macro” lens because of the obscene helicoid they threw in the body. I did want to get the 100 mm macro but as you mention, it’s significantly more expensive (about 4-5x here outside the USA), whereas the 135 mm macro and original (metal barrel) 200 mm f/4 are the cheapest lenses available around here.
@@Shaka1277 When shopping for bargain lenses for the P67, consider the 75mm 4.5. It works out to about a 35mm lens equivalent. It is obscenely sharp. It prices in the US about the same as the 135mm.
Hello Alex. Excellent review New here to this channel. Very new to med format. I've learned alot from your videos already. I'm about to buy a pentax 6x7 body for macro copy work. Wanting to convert 35mm Positive slides and motion picture film frames to color Neg to fill the frame on a 6x7 edge to edge. Would the 135mm F/4 be a good choice for this close of a range and if so what extension tube range am I looking at. I used to do 1:1 slide duping for a living in a photolab in San Francisco in 1979 using a copy stand and 1:1 copy lens. I want the larger negs from the slides do I can make custom color paper prints at custom sizes. I need advice on a good macro lens focal length so i can if necessary fill the 6x7 frame with a postage stamp. Extreme close up. thank you for whoever might be able to help. Also just FYI, I'm 1/2 Irish. My grandmother was born in Cork. I'm a retired 2D effects animator. I worked in Dublin for one year for Sullivan Bluth Studios in Dublin in 1988 on "all Dogs go to Heaven. Great experience! Loved the pubs and the very sweet irish girls. I was 22 years in the industry out of LA and my last gig with Walt Disney pictures was on treasure Planet. I now live in San Mateo, CA (silicon valley) where I grew up. Still doing effects work for a hobby and have a few very coo effects cameras for motion control VFX work. I restore and overhaul Vintage Technicolor 3-Strip Motion Picture cameras on the side. Anyway, glad I happened upon your site.
Hey Bruce, glad you found some of what I do helpful. To fill the width of a 6x7 neg with a 35 mm image, you'd need the 36 mm wide slide to be projected 70 mm wide, or just a hair shy of 2.0x magnification. A rough calculation indicates you'd need ~220 mm of extension tubes, which is a bit insane. Your effective aperture would darken a factor of 3x to about f/12, too. To do this you'd want to use a lens with a shorter focal length like the 90 mm f/2.8 (~160 mm of extension tubes, ~f/8 effective aperture) or even the 55 mm f/4 (~100 mm of extension tubes, ~f/12 effective aperture). I have never used either of these but the three tubes #1, #2, and #3 stacked together bring you to 98 mm of extension so it may be worth looking into that.
I bought, back in 2017, this lens for 150€. Then in 2019 I get a Takumar 55 for 110€. Now I find the 135mm too wide for portraits and I don't know if trade in for a 165 f2.8 or add the 165 (it's about 350€). Tough decision 😥
If you are walking around and shooting portraits, the 165mm 2.8 is fairly light and small. Check to make sure it focuses close enough for portraits. If you are shooting portraits in a studio on a tripod, consider the 165mm 4.0 LS lens. The leaf shutter adds the ability to mix daylight and flash, otherwise fairly impractical on the P67 system. Optically, the 2.8 is a bit better than the 4.0 at the same apertures, but the 4.0 matches the 2.8 if shut down a stop. You might look at shopping in the US. Used 165mm 2.8 are abut as cheap here as a P67 lens gets. Because of the leaf shutter option and its relative rarity, the 165mm LS goes for somewhat more than the 2.8 here.
@@randallstewart175 thanks! Eventually I bought the 165 2.8 and kept the 135, cause I paid only 120€ for the 165 (it has some scratches on the barrel and the hood slide back when kept vertically, otherwise it's perfect). It's heavy (not as much as the Takumar 55) and focusing is really hard, but damn it's so sharp and wide open has a wonderful bokeh.
Stellar review. I’ve been thinking of using this as a means of converting 6x7 negatives into inter-positives. Are the extension tubes a must in that case?
Sadly they are! You'd need a full set to full the frame with a 6x7 negative. Where in the world are you based? I'm looking to sell the set I have and this sounds like a cool project to put them to use with. PM me on Instagram or drop me an email (on my About tab) if you're interested!
@@Shaka1277 I’m currently in the Netherlands, but I’m still researching scanning setup ideas especially as I don’t have an enlarger or a proper macro lens . Converting film into digitals and/or positives is one of those hidden costs that I never took into account. Live & learn! Lord… Part of me is tempted to upgrade to 4x5 🙈. It’s kinda nuts what our 67s and 105 are going for.
