My BEST EVER Vintage Lens Buy? Plus - VSGO Air Blower!

This cheap vintage lens is a real sleeper, and there's probably one hiding away right near you!
It makes astonishing images, rivalling lenses many times the price.
Find out what it is in the video, and check out the images too.
To support this channel on Patreon please go to:
www.patreon.co...
Thanks for watching!
Buy the VSGO Air Blower here:
US: www.amazon.com...
CA: www.amazon.ca/...
UK: www.amazon.co....
DE: www.amazon.de/...
FR: www.amazon.fr/...
ES: www.amazon.es/...
IT: www.amazon.it/...
Pergear: www.pergear.co...

[@tebogdanescu1353]

One of the best sane YT channels these days. . . You have a rare thing called feet on the ground. Hat off!

[@antontaranenko8824]

I love my M42 EBC Fujinon 135mm f2.5... colours and bokeh from this Fujifilm lens is just jaw dropping...😊

[@robert18productions]

That Hanimex looks exactly like the Tokina designed Auto 135mm f2.8. I have a near exact copy under the Auto Sears name. The lens seems to be also found under the names' Soligor Tele-Auto 135mm f2.8, Auto Sears 135mm f2.8 Lens Made In Japan, Auto Lentar 135mm f2.8, Pro Automatic 135mm f2.8, Tokina Tele-Auto 135mm f2.8, Auto Rikenon 135mm f2.8 (early version), and probably others that I don't know of. I found my lens to perform great for a cheap third party lens, sharpness is great in the center at f2.8, the lens also has a surprising amount of contrast, the lens vignette can be somewhat prominent at f2.8 but not as bad as my Takumar 135mm f2.5, and it is built like a tank with full metal construction. I find bokeh to be nice but their is some degree of haloing with the bokeh balls. The weakest point of the lens are its coatings. Chromatic aberration and flaring can be prominent. This is due to the lens being single coated. Note: the image at 8:10 you can see chromatic aberration along the edges of the shirt and the edges of the hand of the man in the white shirt on his phone. Though CA can be easily fixed in post. When I got mine it had fungus on one of the inside elements but it was one of the easiest lenses I have taken apart. It only cost me $24 dollars including shipping and handling. Well worth the price and is probably one of the greatest hidden gem vintage lenses IMO.

[@weakrecession]

Hi Simon! Firstly I wanna thank you for your wonderful work, your videos have answered many questions I had time and time again. Following this presentation of yours of the Hanimex 135 lens, I was delighted to find a similar Hanimex 135 by chance for about 5 euros in a second hand shop in Switzerland. Not the same as yours, mine has lots of green engraved numbers and a green line around the top of the lens and it has even macro added to the package. It's an FD-mount version and I was eager to get these wonderful "paintly look" images like yours. I should also mention that my lens looks like it has never been used at all, it's in prishtine condition. My expectations were high and I probably left my house with a smile of satisfaction and highest expectations.. well... It didn't quite deliver what I had hoped for at all! My Hanimex 135mm f2. 8 has just beaten the world record for purple fringing of any lens of any kind ever manufactured anywhere! Optically it seems I have bought a younger lens than yours, but they sure had lost their calculations and started all over again from scratch. Therefore before someone invests in any Hanimex opportunity, don't buy a 135mm f2. 8 with green enraved numbers and a green line, written "Automatic MC 1:2.8 f=135mm" with 55 diameter.

[@zenography7923]

There were lots of the type of lens you describe in the late '70s/early '80s, sometimes they were rather more cheaply made than earlier lenses, and one or two were really bad. It sounds like Hanimex cheaped out in later years and unfortunately you've been unlucky. It's possible your lens is faulty though.

[@markfernandes4165]

Sir, your passion for the art of photography is infectious!

[@peterkwakman7440]

My best photo was taken last year with an 80-200mm/macro F4 Hanimex from a K110D, the lens was bought 40 years ago for me K1000, and still has the Passed sticker, the sharpness, and the contrast yes !

[@jarihuikari8921]

So far my favourite vintage lens that I have bought is Meyer-Optik 180mm f5.5 Telemegor. It's light weight, fun to use and image quality is good.

[@antontaranenko8824]

It has also very nice bubble bokeh, and 3d alike pop ... I suppose this Telemegor Is a triplet lens, judging by character and too much forward shifted elements... I love to do macro shots with it, with extension tube ...

[@robmay3570]

I bought one yesterday it's identical to the one you bought garenteed to be fungus and scratch free even had shots taken with it like I paid £15 can't wait to get it. great channel

[@steveeaster493]

I had one of those lenses back in the 90s and it was really good.

[@PhillipSilverstone]

Hi Nigel. I just picked up a pristine Enna-Werk München Lithagram 28 mm f/3.5 very sexy with the zebra stripes and make's some stellar images. I realize its quite rare and I paid $15 for it with caps and in a leather case. Thanks to you I have been obsessed with legacy lenses and sometimes get lucky at flea markets. Phill S.

[@seanfaro]

Snapped one up last night for 10 quid on your recommendation. Looking forward to trying it!

[@ssadonnelly]

Nigel one vintage lens I see you have never tried ? Is any of the Tamron with the Adaptall 2 mount system. Lots of advantages as the mirrorless body adapter can replace the old adaptall 2 SLR mount so the lens is not so long and front heavy. I have done with with a 24mm and 70-210mm from the 80’s put on my Canon RP

[@xwingfighter999]

I have a copy of the non-automatic version of this, which I keep despite the hassle of having to play with the aperture ring to focus and expose because its rendering is fantastic!

[@fistfulloflenses]

very enjoyable review, lots of great 135mm lenses out there not tried a hanimex yet,so another one to look out for, youve cost me some money over the years 😊

[@Renegade1127]

You should try Hoya lenses. I have 2, Hoya HMC Tele-Auto 135mm f2.8 (OM mount) and the Hoya HMC Zoom & Macro 75-205mm f4 (M42 mount). Used with adapters on Olympus E-M1 mk1 (excellent IBIS). Both have very good IQ and sharpness, and are built like the proverbial tank.

[@jameswburke]

I remember Hanimex made 35mm and cine film projectors. Never tried their lenses but this one looks nice. Back in the film days everyone bought a 135mm 'portrait' lens. I've got a nice Pentax f3.5 one which I've used on my Sony.

[@patrickmckeag3215]

That looks like a great lens. Congrats on the lucky purchase. Hanimex has in my opinion, been unfairly disparaged by many people. I think they were made by reputable manufacturers and were sold at discount prices, and that does not mean they were inferior products. I have a Hanimex 28mm f2.8 in C/Y mount. I've used it on my A7II and it's a good little lens.

[@selkiemaine]

You are bad for my budget! You got me started with playing with vintage lenses, and now I've bought a number of the darned things (to go with my boring but good FD lenses from my film days). My favorite so far - the Kilfitt Makro Kilar 4cm f3.5. I shot a lot of macro flower shots, and the bokeh on this tiny lens is just psychedelic - and even when the blur is ordinary, I love the fairly wide angle macro perspective.

[@philhodgkinson1460]

Totally agree....my wallet is thrashed.....

[@martinda7446]

PPS. I'll be looking for one! Great review. I'd love to see you review the Hanimex 28mm, to see how an artist sees beyond the technical. It reminds me of audio testing, where it can happen that the worst technical performer is simply in a different league playing music over an OK sounding but technically perfect device. edit (too many technicals)

[@theoldunsshot1005]

Those results look great, but I disagree with your assessment of the Pentacon 135mm f2.8 - I love mine, though I hardly ever shoot wide open. Finding something like that for such a low price is almost like finding a tenner in a pair of jeans you haven't worn for a while! Super interesting stuff.

[@martinda7446]

Hi there again, I hope my comments haven't annoyed you.. I do comment a bit too much, but I ha to follow up with a test I just saw on a Canon 55mm f1.2 that beauty had a ridiculous 35,000 CPM - 25CPM is background!

[@Max-Kramer]

The "Passed" label simply means that the lens passed a general quality check at the factory after it was assembled. That's all. It does not mean any special status. Similar stickers could be seen on almost all lenses - from the cheapest to the most expensive. So the purpose of this sticker is utilitarian. But many people left these stickers to keep some of the "newness" of the lens in their feelings. And others kept these stickers so that the commodity appearance was preserved, if they wanted to sell the lens in the future.

[@skazhenyj]

Yes, at least some basic fact check before doing a review couldn't hurt.

[@unbroken1010]

We know 😂

[@unbroken1010]

​@@skazhenyj like the poison jab that some of you mandated. ?

[@sidekickbob7227]

No! The Passed label is the famous JCII label! Used in japan between the 1950's and the 1980's. All it declares, is that the lens has been built to at least a minimum quality requirement, and that the lens not are a copy/knockoff of a lens made by other lens producers. No need for the each lens to be checked, before it got the label.

[@mikecross9979]

Hello Nigel. Thank you for your tirelessly work. Always looking forward to your videos. In my opinion Hanimex holds a few surprises. I tested some of them (only with analog) and the results were often good to very good compared to the price you pay. I highly recommend the Hanimex SP-MC Automatic 28 mm 2.8, the one with the stylish green ring. Beautiful colours, excellent rendering, good sharpness, nice blur. A beautiful little lens, well made. Give it a try. Thumbs up for your good work.

[@myshuvids]

Very lucky find, I had the Soligor branded exact same lens, which I let go, when I found a Japanese made CZJ 135/f2.8 which is even better. A really nice feeling when you find a good vintage lens.

[@penrox0]

Another fantastic video, and a lens to watch out for. Of interest, when using the Sony, what settings/mix/recipe do you defer to? Is it the same at all times or do you change depending on circumstance.. This would be a good topic for a Video😂. 👍. Once again, great work and thank you. Andy

[@johnherzel718]

I have the Olympus 135 f3.5 as well as an old Canon FD 135 f2.4. The Canon lens is not as nice as the Olympus but the Canon will make better bokeh. I think I paid $30 for the Oly and a bit more for the Canon. I've also had a few Hanimax zooms from the film days which I found to be quite nice. And bargain priced as well. You were right with the Olympus f3.5 lenses being the sweet spot, and I think that Hanimax lenses might see a price increase 😮

[@Photovintageguy]

135mm are generally a good risk. You probably don’t want the very last of the film cameras days, but maybe early 80 till back about mid 70’s. Most have a good design. But coatings got better until the very end, when manufacturers farmed out production to 3rd party or cut costs. Don’t worry about it being super fast as likely DOF will be too shallow anyways below f4 or so. 1.4 is ok for 50mm you don’t need that on 135mm. Lets say it’s f4 you can shoot it wide open and you don’t have to worry about the blades being square. So coatings and CA are the main factors. Most i have are sharp.

[@Mouxbar]

I have the Prakticar which I'd settled on as generally thought of as a "good" 135mm. Then I picked up an older Soligor (metal hills and valleys build) in a bulk purchase and thought I'd try it for completeness. Yeah, so I don't use the Prakticar very much now! 😁

[@philhodgkinson1460]

Unusual lens with the white banding.... I have a hanimex hanimar......it seems a pleasant lens...135mm maybe similar lens formula...........

[@nyax4361]

after switching from DSLRs to mirrorless, and thanks to watching your videos, it opens my mind to play with loads of decades old lenses. Although in most cases it needs time to push some sharpening in post process, since the resolution of 24MP from Sony A7 seems to be a bar too high for vintage lens. it still shows mirrorless is the way to go. I'm a little bit sad that all the manufactors even including Nikon, choose to make mirrorless cameras as small as possbile, as I still love the handling a large body from the DSLRs days

[@terryallen9546]

I went ebay cruising and did not see your exact version. Yours has two wide silver bands. I went to the video link in the comments from a South African man who had a different version, and it didn't seem to have the same quality as yours. Is yours for sale?

[@snoogly]

Any idea where to buy a spare filter for the air blower?

[@ssadonnelly]

OMG Hanimex thats a name from the past. when I was little my parents had a Hanimex 9mm movie camera it must be still in the house somewhere. Even tried scanning a few frames from it (9mm adapter in Kodak slide and film scanner)

[@stephenangel2232]

Thanks!

[@zenography7923]

Thank you!

[@martinda7446]

I remember Hanimex, and was put off because of their cheap tape recorders and alarm clocks... The lenses were also cheap. There is a guy here on KZbin that tests lenses for technical performance and he tested a Hanimex 28mm. It was he said the worst lens he has tested! It looks massive for a 135! I'm sure my Olympus was half that size? (How if its a fixed length)? On another matter; I wanted to mention to you something I came across recently that is a bit of a weird one.. Some vintage lenses used glass formulations that improved optical performance, but at a price, they used thorium. If you ever see a yellowed lens do not take it apart. Many sixties Pentax lenses for instance are quite radioactive. Even without dismantling the elements using thorium, testers were getting high counts, at least ten times background. Something to consider. I'm going to invest in a geiger-Muller detector, and a very good one can be had for under a 100 quid. Or I'll build one. a new old stock tube is about 20 quid. It is something to look at, not only that but other areas where materials used would be banned today. Edit; PS they can't be that dodgy, otherwise they would fog the negative every time... Seems they are only mildly radioactive, after doing more research. Though there may be outliers which are worse, and I'll stick with the warning over discoloured lenses buried inside the casework. I'd avoid.

[@tonybaker55]

I wonder how it compares to the Chinon AUTO 135mm f2.8 that I picked up for £9.99? It comes with a built-in hood, like the Pentacon, which cost me £37.50. My CZJ Sonnar is my favourite though, as it is very good colour as well as sharp and I was lucky to get this for only £40.

[@nevillewatkins4997]

Now here is an idea Nigel. Hanimex is a bargain basement name that often gets overlooked. Another name that occurs to me is Halina. I think it might be interesting to test one of their film cameras. Because whenever I've looked at one they seem decent quality. So I wonder if their reputation is deserved?

[@unbroken1010]

Everyone I tried was horrible

[@nevillewatkins4997]

@@unbroken1010 Well, I suppose that could explain their almost total absence from vintage circles. 😄

[@protestagain]

40 - 45 years ago, many of the 3rd party lenses could be better than the brands, especially the zooms. I remember I bought a Vivitar 28mm f2.8 lens for my Olympus back then. Never that I felt the quality was worse than my Zuiko lens. Then I also had a Vivitar 70-150mm f3.5. Very good lens then, small and light.

[@TMxtt]

I bought that very same lens a couple years back for about £14, if I recall correctly, tho mine has the built-in hood. Fairly low saturation, however incredibly sharp with decent contrast. Unfortunately I discovered a spot of fungus on it a few weeks back, so I'm loath to use it anymore for fear of the fungus spreading to my camera.

[@tedcrosby9361]

I have the f3.5 version of this lens, which isn’t too shabby either.

[@Photovintageguy]

Look for Tamron Adaptall-2 (103A) 80-210mm F3.8-4 adapt-all 2 zoom. It’s cheap because they sold so many it was a bargain and their best zoom. It’s supply and demand big supply low demand for 3rd party zoom. But it’s an excellent zoom. Hence why they sold so many. There is a similar 03a but it’s has more CA and flares. And costs about the same, shipping being the bigger part of the cost typically. Adapt-all 2 lens can adapt to virtually any mount. Even l mount which didn’t exist, at the time, but 3rd part sell adapters. I have konica AR, canon Fd, EF but they fit most film or digital camera systems with the appropriate adapter either original or modern 3rd party.

[@woody5410]

Can recommend Tamron (72B) Adaptall-2 90mm f2.8 SP Macro one of the last adaptall mounted lenses made by Tamron. 1:1 macro, manual focusing of course, the focus ring is so beautifully damped. Capable of superb image making on either mirrorless or DSLR's like Nikon. Nikkor lenses adapt well to many other camera brands but the Nikon camera is a much more fussy recipient. Adaptall lenses being an exception.

[@rentedtux1883]

I wish i could use some of these lenses on my Classic 5d. But manual lenses on that camera is difficult to say the least

[@Martin_Siegel]

I think that Hanimex like many (Revue, Porst, Vivitar) was mostly a dealer who sold rebadged equipment or bespoke equipment under their own name. So it's coming most likely from one of the Japanese manufacurers like Chinon or Cosina or someone.

[@skazhenyj]

Chinon is also just a brand, not a manufacturer. You're right, Hanimex was not a manufacturer (not mostly, but at all). This lens can be found under other names too.

[@mikemcgrath5188]

i have a Sears 135/2.8 that is a fine performer for the price [cheap]. it's soft wide open. i have the legendary SMC Pentax 1:.2.5/135. it is sweet. i also have the canon FD 135 1:2.5. another outstanding example of vintage lens making. i also have the Takumar [bayonet] 1:2.5 135 which is really not f/2.5 and can suffer from flare. either go cheap for the sears or spend a bit more for the pentax or canon.

[@unbroken1010]

The sears 200 mm is pretty wild with black and white

[@arcanics1971]

It's certainly sharper than the Helios 135. I had that for a fortnight before I gave it up as useless.

[@caw25sha]

You must have been amazed to find out how good this lens is. I wonder who it was made by and where. Hanimex branded gear was made by a wide range of suppliers, maybe there are some experts in Australia who can enlighten us. It might just be a trick of the light but the lens mount looks as if it's aluminium.

[@Ikgeloofhetniet]

I came across a Canon FD lens (50mm 1:1.8) for free! I was excited because I am looking into buying a Canon AE-1. I have been using my friend's for about a year and I know they're going to want it back soon. Anyway, the lens was given to me and I was super excited but there is a piece of hair on the inside of it and it won't budge :( Is it possible to take these lenses apart, do you know? It doesn't look like that's possible.

[@robert18productions]

It is possible. There are some videos online showing you how to disassemble the lens. Do you have the Canon FD 50mm f1.8 first version (the orange texted one) or the NFD 50mm f1.8 (the green texted one)? I have experience with the NFD version. I have taken out the front elements of three of them. Where in the lens is the hair?

[@Ikgeloofhetniet]

@@robert18productions Thanks for the taking the time to respond! I appreciate it. It is the one that gives the distance in feet in green text. The hair is on the back end of the lens, the end that is closer to the inside of the camera as opposed to the outer side that sees the world. It's smack in the middle on the inside of the inside lens end :( Other than that it looks absolutely perfect.

[@robert18productions]

@@Ikgeloofhetniet Unfortunately, I do not have experience with taking apart the rear lens element. However, here is a video I used as reference to take mine apart: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2PGl5KLmqyZsLc which goes over taking apart the rear lens element. Here is video properly putting together the rear mount: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hoe4i5qQe6aCe7c. A word of caution, canon lenses are difficult to disassemble, this lens has clips for holding together its elements which can break easily. For tools, I recommend getting tweezers, a small suction cup tool, Vessel Precision JIS screwdrivers, tooth picks, and maybe a set of smartphone repair tools. You may also need to Isopropyl Alcohol to separate glued sections of elements. I don't know if you need a lens spanner wrench but you may. Good luck and go slowly

[@unbroken1010]

Did your camera door break yet? It will😂.

[@Ikgeloofhetniet]

@@unbroken1010 no, not yet

[@marcelfrehse]

I am wondering if you could suggest some vintage zoom lenses in the range between 50 and 150 mm ?

[@cefalloid]

Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f3.5 if such a big beast is ok for you. Read on which version is best... Not in 50-150 range, but good. And can be found cheap.

[@marcelfrehse]

@@cefalloid i bought a Travenar Macro Zoom 37-105mm F/3.5 M42 ;)

[@classic.cameras]

My best ever vintage lens buy was a Canon Fd 55mm f1.2 Chrome Nose in 2021 at a thrift store for basically $10 bucks. When I saw it, I put it in my cart and immediately hid it with a shirt just incase someone tried to steal it out of the cart. I love this lens. Even more so as I just asked my GF to marry me earlier that day and she found it for me.

[@bundo13]

17:11 you should try the edible variety of filter

[@unbroken1010]

He did last year.

[@parranoic]

Feel bad I got this lens for 10e and for some minor fungus I took it apart and broke it...

[@unbroken1010]

Oh snap 😂

[@Digital_Photog1995]

Question? Does this lens have the m42 mount??

[@hdevries28]

did you watch the video?

[@Digital_Photog1995]

@@hdevries28 I missed that part! M42 it is! Thanks

[@rentedtux1883]

​@Henk de Vries you have just answered the question instead of being a prick

[@barcooter8248]

Looks a lot like a Soligor

[@barcooter8248]

Just researched both the Soligor and the Hanimex were made by Tokina

[@unbroken1010]

Oi Vey!!! Another lens

[@murphy8449]

Please don't keep the secret...what lens is it?

[@danienelphoto]

I also have a Hanimx 135mm F2.8 - but quite different looking :) Hanimex had lenses manufactured in Japan and even East Germany. Mine is quite different from yours. I did a video about it: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHKnZItqlstosKM

[@illegalmindset4122]

After watching the rest of the images i would bet tomioka for sure

[@illegalmindset4122]

Sone hanimex branded lenses are made by tomioka

[@illegalmindset4122]

But you can't get the plastic versions they're something else also auto sears and rikenon

[@robert18productions]

This example seems to be made by Tokina not Tomioka.

[@philhodgkinson1460]

What you may or may not know... Street photography in China is now banned..... After an affair between opposite sexes was openly revealed!!! It could happen here though in the UK it would be thought of as fair game.... bless the lovebirds......!! ♥️