Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?

[Rocky]

Thanks.
It seems 135/f2.5 runs between $100-$300. I could not find any info about the number of blades but as you said it seems the best Konika offered at this range. Konika 135/f3.5 is much cheaper for half of weight.

How is Pentacon 135 f2.8? I know nothing about the brand and this product but they say it has 15 aperture blades.
That can be found cheaper than Konika 135 f2.5.

You can do a Google search on just about anything.

 

[bf]

You can do a Google search on just about anything.

Everybody knows it! We are here to share our personal experiences and discuss our personal insights.

 

[LovePhotography]

Thanks.
It seems 135/f2.5 runs between $100-$300. I could not find any info about the number of blades but as you said it seems the best Konika offered at this range. Konika 135/f3.5 is much cheaper for half of weight.

How is Pentacon 135 f2.8? I know nothing about the brand and this product but they say it has 15 aperture blades.
That can be found cheaper than Konika 135 f2.5.

The Hexanon 135/2.5 has 6 blades. The thing I like about it compared to the 135/3.5 (I have both) is the brighter image in the viewfinder for focusing, and the better IQ. It is also a really pretty lens, if you're into such things! )

 

[bf]

The Hexanon 135/2.5 has 6 blades. The thing I like about it compared to the 135/3.5 (I have both) is the brighter image in the viewfinder for focusing, and the better IQ. It is also a really pretty lens, if you're into such things! )

Thanks I noticed the demand for it according to its price tag. I've also read old Konika lenses are more clear compared to legacy Nikons and Canons of the similar range/type. I also learned their Hexanon 85mm F1.8 is a rear and pricey find.

 

[yorgasor]

You might look into a Zeiss 45mm f/2.8 Tessar pancake lens. I have to use it with the mirror lockup on my 5D3 as the mirror hits it when focused to infinity, but I'm very impressed with the results when I do use it. The SMC Takumar 35mm f/3.5 is another fabulous lens that can be had for a song and produces wonderful images, and it's very small. At the longer end, an SMC Takumar 135mm f/2.5 is another great lens, and yet still small enough to not look silly with the EOS-M.

keh.com is an excellent place to buy these lenses from. They have a well respected rating system and a wide selection to choose from. I'd trust them much more than something similar on ebay, and it's usually cheaper too.

 

[kphoto99]

Which lens is better: KONICA 135MM F/3.2 HEXANON AR or PENTAX 135MM F/2.5 SMC TAKUMAR M42.
Better, as in sharper for micro shots attached to the EOS-M with some extension tube and an adapter?

 

[sdsr]

Which lens is better: KONICA 135MM F/3.2 HEXANON AR or PENTAX 135MM F/2.5 SMC TAKUMAR M42.
Better, as in sharper for micro shots attached to the EOS-M with some extension tube and an adapter?

I can't answer that question directly (I have the Konica Hexanon 135 3.2 and 135 2.8s from Olympus and Vivitar ($28!), along with the Canon 135mm L) but allow me to suggest another for you to consider as well, the highly regarded Vivitar 135mm 2.8 close-focusing - it's bigger than the standard Vivitar 135mm 2.8 (though not as big as the Konica-Hexanon) but allows you to focus much closer than any of the others and, depending on what you want to do with it, this may make extension tubes etc. unnecessary (on the other hand, if mine's typical, it's probably not as good at capturing detail on distant subjects as the others I have). To find out more, this may be a good place to start (it's where I first learned about it, I think):

http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-1-2-close-focusing.html

I should perhaps warn you, if you're interested, that this lens seldom shows up on ebay (I've never seen it at KEH/Adorama/B&H) and when it does, as often as not it's not this lens at all but the regular Vivitar 135mm 2.8 misidentified (whether the sellers are clueless or devious I can't say) - but it's easy enough to figure out. All you have to do is look at the photo the seller provides of the front of the lens - it will have "close focusing" (among other things) written on it. (Despite the evident scarcity of the real thing, it's still not expensive - I don't think I paid more than $120 for mine, which seems to be in good condition and even came with its original case.)

All that said, you might find the ergonomics of the bigger 135mm MF lenses a tad awkward (to say the least) on an EOS M - they're all metal and even the smaller ones are heavy for their size compared to most modern lenses (I use mine on mirrorless Sonys).

 

[kphoto99]

I found a Konica Hexanon AR 135mm F2.5 on Kijiji, it cost me $65, so not bad. I have it on my M with an adapter and extension tubes. I didn't have a chance to test it yet.

I have not been able to find an adapter without optics that would mount it to my DSLR, I know that without optics I would not have infinity focus, but that is not something that I care for micro.

 

[TAF]

The first lens I tried was a Canon 50/1.2 FD, since I had it (so $20 for an adapter was all it cost me). Very nice, and since I also had an FD bellows, it has been a useful macro. I won't be buying a 'modern' macro lens, as this setup is quite adequate for my needs.

Then I started experimenting with really old view camera lenses (various Ektars and even older stuff). Quite a lot of fun, and the images tend to be unique. The 'period' look had/has as much to do with the lens as it does the film. In monochromatic mode, the pictures look like they could have been shot in the 50's.

I'm not sure I would recommend spending significant money for such things, but if you like experimenting (and yard sale-ing/antiquing), you can acquire a wide selection of interesting lenses cheaply (next weekend, the one after Thanksgiving here in the US, is a perfect antique store weekend). The various adapters are inexpensive as well.

 

[Rocky]

If you have the lens laying around, it is fun to do it. If you have to buy the lens, think twice. EOS-M is not made for manual focusing under the sun.

 

[timzog]

I have the fd 50 1.4 from my dad's old Canon A-1. The 1.4 is a brilliant lens. It is great for portraits, but it does require more time to set up your shots but with it wide open, you can go without a flash in almost any condition. The place where the fd prime lenses shine is for video. I took video of my daughter's choir concert with a small tripod and the 50 1.4 in very low light conditions and beautiful quality. I'd like to learn more about the magic lantern focusing aid.