Pentax 67 135 macro variations?

Are all of the 135 macro variations actually the same, optically? I

don't currently have one and miss the gap in my lens selection. The

two I've owned over the years were the older looking construction and

I was very pleased with the performance but wondered if I should be

seeking out a newer "improved" version if there's a difference.

Thanks.

Craig, you might get more responses if you post this on the Pentax 67 forum

here on Photonet.

 

I've had one of the older 135mm lenses before, which was great for semi-

macro work ( it isn't a real macro lens without extension tubes really ) but a bit

soft I thought when used at infinity; which is what I used it for most often.

 

I don't think that this lens has been changed that much if at all, apart from

having maybe different lens coatings and a rubber grip on the lens barrel with

the later versions, but there is probably more information on it in the archives

of the Pentax 67 forum.

 

A closer focusing macro lens around 150mm would be a useful lens in the

P67 lineup. It would fit in nicely between the 105mm and 200mm lenses.

I have one of the current versions and like it. It has not optically changed from the earlier, "heavier" versions, and several in thsese posts prefer the older. However, given that you can get it new for about 489$, I went new (my 45 and 200 are very used).

I have the earlier version of metal focussing ring (straight strip groove). The quality is OK but a but soft when compare to all my other latest lens. Be careful in checkout the coating condition as I found samples of that batch of lenses with coating (or glass) turned to yellowish which result a lot color shift. The 135macro is a good portrait lens but barely I can say that it is a macro. It doesn't share the same respect I got on my P645-120macro.