minolta 135/2…worth it?

[back alley]

there is one available locally…
it looks pretty big…
not much info available but what there is indicates the lens is pretty good.

anyone here have one?
what do you think of it?

 

[p.giannakis]

Have you seen this?
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/135mm.htm

 

[back alley]

i have…


.

 

[rover]

I found it big on the SRT and I had trouble handholding any of the Minolta 135mm lenses with the strong mirror slap. I prefer the MD 105/2.5 which I found to perform rather well.

 

[Jack Conrad]

Interesting lens. I'd like to read some real user opinions on it also. Generally,
I love the look that Rokkor glass gives.

 

[mfogiel]

I find the usefulness of fast glass beyond 90-100mm very problematic. I think these lenses are best left tor to the enthusiastic young lens fanatics, or the ornithologists/sports professionals...

 

[Nokton48]

I used to have a 135mm F1.8 Spiratone lens in MC mount. I also much prefer the 100mm f2.5 MC Rokkor. Handholding that big lens can be problematic, I did find it difficult to use. I sold mine after using it for a while.

 

[back alley]

the fast 135 is part of a kit that is for sale locally…for sale at an attractive price.
what is the 135/2 lens worth?

 

[Nokton48]

the fast 135 is part of a kit that is for sale locally…for sale at an attractive price.
what is the 135/2 lens worth?

http://www.kevincameras.com/

Kevins Cameras says: $1050 to $1600.

Nokton48 says: $650 to $1000.

Jimmy Koh had this one recently on Ebay, which went for $1000

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-MD-...14971480?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4ac9e77e58

 

[back alley]

i think i waited too long and have missed the sale.
slight chance if the scheduled buyer does not buy it.

 

[Coopersounds]

I have the 135 3.5 and love it, however I use it for portraits etc, the f2 is good for sports, if you use a tripod and don't mind a heavy lens.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't know if it is worth it but I love mine and seriously doubt I'll be getting rid of it real soon. It is one of the best 35mm portrait lenses I own regardless of brand, and if I am trying to get shots of my grandkids from the back of a darkened school auditorium that extra stop comes in real handy.

As usual, worth is in the eyes of the user and how they intend to use it.

 

[Nokton48]

If I could grab one for a really low price, I wouldn't hesitate.

 

[back alley]

I was too slow...missed the sale.

 

[sevo]

http://www.kevincameras.com/

Kevins Cameras says: $1050 to $1600.

Nokton48 says: $650 to $1000.

Jimmy Koh had this one recently on Ebay, which went for $1000

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-MD-...14971480?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4ac9e77e58

Cough. The Chinese collector's edition, more than just overpriced. The (optically better) MD 135/2.8 or Canon FD 135/2.5 go for 5-10% of that, and even the quite dramatically superior Canon EF 135/2 would be cheaper.

 

[Pioneer]

Hmm. Interesting.

I own the MD 135/2.8 and have owned the Canon EF 135/2, both very nice lenses. I don't find my MD 135/2 to be inferior to either lens, let alone "dramatically" inferior. Maybe you had a bad copy?

 

[Nokton48]

Hmm. Interesting.

I own the MD 135/2.8 and have owned the Canon EF 135/2, both very nice lenses. I don't find my MD 135/2 to be inferior to either lens, let alone "dramatically" inferior. Maybe you had a bad copy?

I also have the 135mm F2.8 MC Rokkor, and the 135mm F3.5 MC Rokkor. These are extremely underrated and incredibly useful lenses. Tack sharp with lovely out-of-focus. Can be had at garage sale prices. Every Minolta user should have at least one of these. I've had people offer to give them to me, at camera shows. I also had them offered to me at $5😀 How can you possibly go wrong?

The Spiratone 135mm F1.8 MC was just a pig of a lens. But very useful for what it could do, unlike any other at the time it was introduced. Sharpness was pretty decent, depth of field is so thin that it's tough to get much in focus. Much tougher lens to use in my opinion, not saying it is not useful, just more difficult to use effectively with paper thin DOF.

 

[back alley]

i have the 135/2.8 but have not used it much…i'm waiting for better weather to take out the full metal cameras!

 

[aoresteen]

Didn't W. Eugene Smith use the Minolta 135mm f/2 making "Minamata"?

 

[Pioneer]

I also have the 135mm F2.8 MC Rokkor, and the 135mm F3.5 MC Rokkor. These are extremely underrated and incredibly useful lenses. Tack sharp with lovely out-of-focus. Can be had at garage sale prices. Every Minolta user should have at least one of these. I've had people offer to give them to me, at camera shows. I also had them offered to me at $5😀 How can you possibly go wrong?

The Spiratone 135mm F1.8 MC was just a pig of a lens. But very useful for what it could do, unlike any other at the time it was introduced. Sharpness was pretty decent, depth of field is so thin that it's tough to get much in focus. Much tougher lens to use in my opinion, not saying it is not useful, just more difficult to use effectively with paper thin DOF.

I haven't had the opportunity to use the Spiratone 135/1.8 but I would love to. I have always suspected that it would be quite similar to my Porst 135/1.8 on the Pentax.

I have to be truthful, I really haven't run across too many lenses that were total dogs. As a rule Minolta made great glass, and even 3rd party glass could be very nice. I kind of hate to admit it but the limiting factor has usually been me, never the lens as I remember. 🙄