Скачать с ютуб 135 New Audio Battle of 10 Vintage 135mm Lenses в хорошем качестве

135 New Audio Battle of 10 Vintage 135mm Lenses

A pixel-peeping examination of landscape and portrait performance by Nikkor 135 f/2.8 AIS, Pentax Super Takumar 135 f2.5, Super-Takumar 135 f/3.5, Minolta MD 135 f/3.5, Minolta Celtic 135 f/2.8, Pro Kino 135 f/2.8, Chinon 135 f/2.8, Accura, Schneider-Kreuznach, more. A focal length from a bygone era. There was a time when 135’s were the standard telephoto option. And if you find an old kit in your travels, there’s a great chance a 135 of some type will be in there. While you can still find 105’s, 180’s and 200’s galore as you explore vintage telephotos, nothing gives quite the punch of speed, size and reach like this magic focal length. And with a few, relatively simple designs out there, some have speculated that there are no “bad” 135’s. But is that true? We’re going to take a look at a few to see. Some, $5 pickups from flea markets and thrift stores. Some, coveted lenses, llke the Nikkor 135 f/2.8 AIS and the Pentax Super Takumar f2.5. Does it make a difference? So why do I like this focal range? There are a few reasons I like 135mm telephoto lenses: 1) These lenses are small, have a good reach and are usually sharp – you get gret bokh 2) It fits right between the short and long range of a popular 70-200 3) They are great lenses for background blur and to separate the subject 4) The 135mm focal length equates to 200mm, another nice telephoto length, on APS-C sensors 5) Provide a classic, head and shoulders or “headshot” focal length 6) They are plentiful, lots of choices to play with 7) Some nice versions with many bladed apertures I’ve used a lot of these, including a few exotic and hard to find versions. If you come across a close focus Vivitar or anything faster than f/2.8, give it a shot, you won’t be disappointed. But by and large, My biggest issue is they typically don’t focus close. You usually need 4 or 5 feet between your lens and subject, which can make using these day to day more of an issue When you find one that focuses closely, they are invaluable. As older lenses, not all are usually not coated well, so there can be some flare and a lack of contrast. As with any cheap vintage lenses, look for condition issues like tough focusing, frozen aperture, fungus or haze. Otherwise, I think the toughest thing about vintage 135’s really comes down to figuring out which one to throw in your bag. Here’s what I care about in a 135: 1) How’s the micro contrast? Will there be a “sparkle” in the subjects eyes under the right conditions 2) How close can they focus. Can you get a close-up or not? 3) How’s the bokeh? 4) Finally, if using for a telephoto landscape, how does it hold up? Current-generation 135’s like the Canon 135 f/2 L or the Nikkor soft focus equivalent, are older designs, but still cost $500 to $1,000. You’ll still spend hundreds on manual focus versions of current lenses as well. And anything inexpensive you find is probably based on similar designs to vintage anyway. Clearly, whether you can afford one of the best in the class, or just pick up a cheap option, there is no reason not to keep a 135 in your kit. Throw one on your camera with an inexpensive adapter, and go out there and take some awe-inspiring, cheap shots. close focus Vivitar, Canon 135 f/2 L, Nikkor soft focus 135 f/1.8, Sony FE 135 f/1.8, Sigma 135 f/1.8, Zeiss Milvus, Samyang 135 f/2.0.