About a year ago I picked up the MC Tele Rokkor - PF F2.8. I really enjoy using this lens - but it is too heavy for me to hand-hold well. Mine has an integrated lens hood.

Another one of my (boring) tests, but a field test nonetheless comparing a Takumar 3.5, Pentacon Auto 2.8 and Nikkor 2.8. I'm not so satisfied with the Takumar I have, but the Pentacon and Nikkor are a pleasure to use and they only cost me about €30 each.

I've got a Tele Rokkor 2.8 coming and I'm curious to see how that compares.

Couldn't wait any longer...decided to do some tests while holding the lens:

@Why vintage 135mm that are soft and lacking OIS?

Get Vivitar 135mm F2.3 and you'll understand in few seconds why.

It is like fucking real woman instead of inflated dolly.

@stonebat

Just turn ring of your fingers around Vivitar, you'll understand.

Really the vintage lens worth that much?

300mm F3.0 and 135mm F2.3 worth it. IF you get them in good state and turn focus ring you'll understand that you tried before only inflated dolls.

My Sonagar was basically free...only paid for shipping since the aperture was bad. Glass was mint. Fully manual lenses are always fun to play around with, and they don't make them like they used to anymore. I can take it apart completely and not worry about screwing up any electronics.

I have the Vivitar Series-1 135mm f2.3 (in Minolta MD mount), and the Canon FD 135mm f2. Like Vitaliy says, the Vivitar is a black onyx work of art, with a liquid mechanical precision you have to feel to believe. The Canon FD is a little more compact and practical, a fast, long lens you can actually use handheld (but watch out for flare at wide apertures).

I can also recommend the Vivitar's big brother, the Series-1 200mm f3.0, though it's significantly heavier and less well-balanced than the 135mm. I adapted both of these Minolta MD lenses to legacy Four Thirds mount, in order to use them manually with the Panasonic Four Thirds adapter. The MD->FT adapter is a thin ring attached semi-permanently to the lens mount with a set screw, making a tight, immovable connection with zero wobble or play.

I actually prefer the "Close Focus" Vivitar Macro 1:2 135/2.8 to the Series I 135/2.3. I think overall, it is a slightly better lens. The Series one is a tiny bit faster, however. Neither lens is what I would call super sharp. The Series one has a more conical profile, and the Close Focus shares its design with several other Komine telescoping macros. The 135 CF 2.8 is a bit heavier than the 55, and the 55 gets more use. The 135/2.3 is a tank.

You can see some nice photos of the lens here http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2013/05/a-look-at-vivitar-135mm-close-focusing.html

However, the Close Focus is 1/3rd lighter than the Series one and focuses way closer. Lighter is good. The other thing is that the smooth Bokeh on this lens looks like film grain. It is a subtle effect, but a good one for video. Because of the macro, it is a good bug lens for photos, but as I mentioned before it isn't sharp like the Olly 75/1.8. A good candidate for the Metabones owing to the Bokeh and the color neutral multicoating.

Like all the others in this series, with the telescoping macro, it is a "long throw", but it is cylindrical, if you want gears.

I have the Meyer Optic 135/2.8 with the 15 blades aka "Bokeh Monster" (just google it). It's my only prime in that focal length. For the GF2 is on the big side but on a tripod is perfect this focal length. The Vivitar Series-1 70-210/3.5 is an other lens that I have and covers this lenght, but it's a zoom and with an amazing macro mode, which is mind boggling on a 5D MkII. For the GF2 is so f**king big and front heavy

I read that the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f2.8~4 Komine version is the best one. Has 9 blade aperture, and is the sharpest out of all of them. And wouldn't you know it, as soon as I found out, the price of them have started to go up...

meyer optik görlitz.. at f2.8 it´s not the fastest, but very sharp wide open and a beauty stopped down. Wonderful lens. Pentacon "copies" are cheaper, generally but not as good imo, optically. (accounts for all the focal lengths where you can choose either or)

Obviously, this COULD be attributed to sample variations. Some of the pentacons have better coatings, which may make a difference for your intended use.