Pentax A* 135mm f1.8 on Ebay

[sevad_strapotua]

There is one of these on the UK site with no reserve. I've seen them from time to time but they always seem to have big buy it now prices.

Does anyone know what a reasonable price for one would be? And are they worth it - whatever "it" might be!

[jerry thirsty]

<p>I haven't watched auctions for that lens for quite a while, but I think they were going for $1300-1400 when I was. It was never worth it to me; I got an -F 2.8 instead, and found I rarely used it.</p>

[sevad_strapotua]

<p>Jerry,<br>

The buy it now prices I've seen in the past were also around the $1500 mark and sometimes higher. I suppose its one of those lenses where if you feel you have a real need for it - or even an imaginary one ;-) - you'll be happy to pay the going rate. I'd love one for the extra-special bokeh but I suspect this one will go out of my reach.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>That's at or very near the top of the list of Pentax lenses I'd like to simply hold and use for a few hours, especially attached to a K-5IIs.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[stemked]

i have seen images from this lens, and they are indeed beautiful. Are they $1300 beautiful? Not in my book, but it is a

hard lens to match.

[stemked]

Funny. I went to see the lenw and found a different 135mm f1.8, a Sigmatel. I can't say I've ever seen this lens

before, but it looks like a beast in M42.

[renatoa]

<p>For 1/10 of this price you can buy an older M42 Super tak f2.5.<br>

I own one. Hard to quantify ten times more quality...</p>

<p>PS: I mean the really old Asahi Super Takumar, M42, with NON-rubberized focus ring ! This lens does not exist in Pentax mount, the non-super Pentax mount 135/2.5 are not so great.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Despite the fact that this is a Pentax forum, the Zeiss Jena Sonar 135 2.8 in M42 could be had for even less than the Super Takumar 2.5 and offers very reasonable quality.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>This is one of the unfortunate times where (too often) a piece of photographic equipment has a collector's value that far outweighs its tool value. If I were in your position, I'd be looking elsewhere.</p>

<p>If you're willing to live with a shorter focal length and manual focus, the Rokinon/Samyang/Bower/Vivitar 85mm f/1.4 lens sells for like $300 and is routinely lauded as one of the better portrait lenses there is. There are tons of posts on pentaxforums, flickr, etc. about it. There's even one here, from about a year ago:<br>

http://www.photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00ZOv9<br>

Otherwise, if you want to go longer, you might consider the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 or new 180mm f/2.8. One is cheaper than the 135mm, and the other more expensive, but the price reflects the cost of materials and development put into the lens, and not some abstract nostalgic value that has been placed on it. The 150mm will have slightly less depth of field at f/2.8 vs the 135mm wide open, and the 180mm will have about the same.</p>

<p>It's a shame that Zeiss doesn't make Pentax-mount lens anymore, as they just announced a 135mm f/2, which will likely sell new for about the same price as this Pentax does used!</p>

 

[sevad_strapotua]

<p>"This is one of the unfortunate times where (too often) a piece of photographic equipment has a collector's value that far outweighs its tool value."<br>

That's true but if we only looked at photographic gear from that point of view, we'd all be shooting with cheap SLRs. Leica? Not a chance! A D800? Who needs that resolution when an entry level Nikon would do just as well for almost everyone. In fact, why bother with an LX when an MV would do the job.<br>

I suppose it's the same with these sorts of lenses. Sometimes only owning one will satisfy the build up of gas! Not saying I'm going to bid on this Pentax lens though. Although I might ;-)</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>It's a super lens! I've actually bought two (one on behalf of an Aussie friend). Both were in very good condition and cost around USD $1,500 (each).</p>

[michael_elenko]

Dave, how dare you speak from actual experience! What kind of an Internet expert are you? You wouldn't have any, um,

shots taken with the lens you could share? There appears to be so few online.

 

Thanks.

 

ME

[shots worth sharing]

<p>Sure--but I'm not sure I do it justice.<img src="http://dadipentak.smugmug.com/photos/i-t4wkQnr/0/XL/i-t4wkQnr-XL.jpg" alt="" width="900" height="596" /></p>

<p><img src="http://dadipentak.smugmug.com/photos/i-4Z73GQg/1/L/i-4Z73GQg-L.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="600" /></p>

<p><img src="http://dadipentak.smugmug.com/photos/i-Bnpz8sq/1/L/i-Bnpz8sq-L.jpg" alt="" width="480" height="600" /></p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>The problem I saw with this lens from online samples is that it's a purple fringe monster wide open on digital (not on film). What's the point of spending so much cash on a lens like this if you're never going to use it wide open? There are plenty of good 135mm f/2.8 lenses out there for 1/10 the price.</p>

<p>I eventually ended up getting a Vivitar Series 1 135mm f/2.3. It's not an A mount, but a nice piece of glass nevertheless. And purple fringing isn't such a big problem. It also cost $200 or so :-)</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Double post deleted.</p>

[david_reilly]

<p>Link to PF lens review. Average price, 1194.00 USD.<br>

<a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-A-Star-135mm-F1.8-Lens.html">http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-A-Star-135mm-F1.8-Lens.html</a></p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>Thanks Dave for posting a nice variety of photographs. I like all of them as they are telling stories. I assume you carried the lens on your Asia trip?<br>

Have you used the lens with a film-based SLR? If Pentax ever sells that mystical 35mm digital body, I would think this lens would very special. I have a couple of high-value older K-mount lenses that I'm still hanging onto. . .just in case.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>If Pentax ever releases a FF body they might release a new short telephoto AF prime as well at some point (maybe not right away)... which might not be so good for currently inflated A*135/1.8 or FA135/2.8 prices (moreso the A*135 than the FA).</p>

<p>That said, as long as you don't overpay and you're patient you'll probably be able to find someone else to pass it along to without losing much.</p>

[shots worth sharing]

<p>In case I didn't make this clear I don't have any regrets about buying my copy (which was in really great condition.) It's very very sharp, renders rich color and gorgeous bokeh. I don't know a thing about lens design but it seems to me Pentax really nailed it with this lens. True, it does show fringing wide open in some conditions (not much--if any--worse than the 77 Ltd in that respect) so I don't use it in those conditions. </p>

<p>It's been a mystery to me that Pentax hasn't offered an AF version but I gather that 135mm isn't a popular FL in the digital era. Also, the FA 135/2.8 is a good lens. The other thing about the A* is that there just don't be a whole lot of them out there and those what has 'em keeps 'em and that keeps the price up and a FF body would kick the price into the stratosphere. </p>

[daniel_tong1]

<p>[[[it's been a mystery to me that Pentax hasn't offered an AF version but I gather that 135mm isn't a popular FL in the digital era. Also, the FA 135/2.8 is a good lens.]]<br>

I would love to see a DA*135mm replacement to my FA135mm.<br>

The A*135mm is out of my range and out of my league too<br>

<br>

Daniel T O currently in Santa Clara</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>Daniel Tong wrote:<br>

...I gather that 135mm isn't a popular FL in the digital era...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Was 200mm a popular FL in the film era???</p>

<p>I quite like 135mm on APS-C for portraits-in-a-crowd and would've probably bought a DA* 135mm f/2.8 if it had been offered at a reasonably cost ($800). I never did buy an FA version because they seemed to pricey in the used market, but I have always owned non-Pentax manual focus versions. And you know what? With the high ISO capabilities of the K-5, I'd even like a 135mm f/3.5 Ltd if it were compact enough (and no more than $650).</p>

<p>Of course, all this means nothing because I don't own a K-5. But if I did... :-)</p>