Review Auto Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm

For the opportunity Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm PK lens overview many thanks to George Abramashvili

Review Auto Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm

Review Auto Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm with adapter M42-Canon

There are several modifications of the lens, the differences relate to the enlightenment, the diameter of the front filter. The focusing of the lens is smooth, the focusing ring rotates slightly more than 180 degrees. The front lens does not rotate when focusing, the lens trunk is lengthened when focusing. The standard front filter diameter is 52mm. The lens has an M / A aperture control mode switch. The diaphragm consists of 6 blades. The lens has depth of field and focusing distance indicators, which can be seen in the title picture. Auto Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm PK gives a soft image at f / 2.8 and even at f / 4.0, strong HA, including blooming. The lens bokeh is excellent, similar to bokeh PENTACON auto 2.8 / 135 MC.

Photo at Auto Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm PK

Photo at Auto Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm PK. Bokeh

Sample photos on Auto Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm

All photos are untreated, all shot on a Canon 7D. I used the M42-Canon EOS adapter without a chip. How to use lenses with M42 thread can be found in the section old lenses at canon, and in the section Soviet optics for Nikon. Reduced size of photos to 2 MP and imprinted data from EXIF.

If you are looking for an inexpensive 135 mm fix, you can look at such models:


Auto Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm PK - fast prime telephoto lens, suffers from strong HA, weak sharpness at f / 2.8. Not bad for portraiture, where sharpness is not always important.

Help to the project. Thanks for attention. Arkady Shapoval.

Add a comment:



Comments: 24, on the topic: Review of Auto Revuenon 1: 2.8 f = 135mm PK

  • Andrei

    Just a record number of reviews this weekend. Thanks!

  • Arkady Shapoval

    Well, this review was very unpretentious, since the lens a little disappointed)

  • Andrei

    Yes, I’m watching that almost all soligors, vivitars, etc. not really

  • Denis

    Thank you Arkady for another review! A very interesting focal length of 135 mm, is it a kind of portrait alternative to the focal length 85 mm? After reading your reviews of optics of various manufacturers and, in general, having studied a lot of thematic reviews on the Web, more and more I come to the conclusion that "old" optics often have "natural taste", and "new" often tends to "synthetic" innovations.

  • Vadim

    good review

  • Dmitriy

    I had this and revunon 28 2,8. Terrible lenses ... I sold them quickly and breathed a sigh of relief. Less sharpness starts only with 5,6 ... Clueless lenses!

  • Novel

    I have the same lens, with some differences:
    - filter thread 55mm
    - the diaphragm closes in the opposite direction, i.e. the value 2.8 is on the left, and 22 is on the right and there are no letters RK.

    My copy is good. I do not complain about sharpness, it’s a bit soft at 2.8, it’s sharp at 3.5, and it already rings at 4. In the near field, at portrait distances.
    And what is in the second photo is terrible. I suspect that yours was taken apart with crooked hands and it is quite possible that some kind of lens was inserted backwards.
    After all, they are already 2-3 decades old, during this time the lubricant loses its properties, part spreads out, part shrinks, and lenses often need cleaning.
    Hence the suspicion.

  • Michael

    I am considering purchasing this type of lens. Either him or Jupiter - 37A. What do gentlemen pros advise?

  • Arthur

    Thanks for the review. I would be grateful for the instructions for fixing the diaphragm drive. Now I have it constantly open at 2.8.

    • Andrei

      to Arthur: I would be grateful for the instructions on repairing the diaphragm drive. Now I have it constantly open at 2.8.

      I bought it in the same condition (similar to 135 / 2,8, only it was called differently) - I thought that there was no diaphragm at all. It turned out that there is, just stuck from time and oil in the cage. I fixed it myself, it's not very difficult - if you have already taken apart the lenses for cleaning and lubrication. Main attention and observation. There are no instructions for cleaning the diaphragm as such, but the order is something like this (prepare enough space on the table, a tool in the form of watch screwdrivers and tweezers, and a light):
      1. We remove the back part (shank) by unscrewing the wires in the end part of the lens, making sure that the push diaphragm pusher (small pin) is not lost, because he will surely fall out of the shank. We remember how the shank was positioned relative to the main lens.
      2. Remove the ring with the applied aperture values, CAUTION! there should be a tiny ball in the groove at the end of the ring, if you remove the ring from the lens abruptly, there is a high probability that this ball will be lost and then the ring will no longer be fixed with a click when the f-number changes. We remember where the ball stood on the ring, put it in a safe place (a jar with a lid). If you lose it, you will hardly be able to find a similar ball.
      3. WE EXPLORE the insides, you can take a picture to remember for sure. This is where the most interesting thing is - the rear lens unit is screwed into the base, behind which is the diaphragm mechanism itself, which we need to get out in order to rinse it. This base is screwed to the inside of the helicoid with screws that can be removed to gain access to the diaphragm. We take out, soak the petals in a soapy solution, wipe with alcohol (vodka) and rub dry. I can’t describe this process in more detail (it was a long time ago), but I’ll say one thing - it’s NOT DIFFICULT, just don’t need to rush, and if you’re not sure what you can do, you better don’t take it. Putting it up in the reverse order.
      Something like this..

      • Arthur

        3 months after being repaired in a photo workshop, the diaphragm began to jam again. By itself, it has a rather complex device (in comparison with Helios or modern KMZ Zenitars, for example), so I advise you to pay close attention to the work of this particular part of the lens when buying this lens. Personally, my guess is that the problem is in the springs.

  • Amateur photographer_

    Small brandy earned a few pennies on optics - and disappeared in the sea of ​​capital storms)) And the mottle is still feasting in the corystuvanny)))

  • Igor

    They gave me this. But also with the "Special" prefix in the marking.
    Who really used it, tell me: what is the maximum distance that you can focus with the adapter WITHOUT a lens?

  • realmans155

    Advise please where to buy auto parts for a foreign car getz, the ekzist is not interested :(

    • Artem

      If you ask such a question in the blog about photography, I’ll assume that it’s best for you to take spare parts at a fish store.

  • Eugene

    I bought one, I liked the construct and hole 2.8, I came home, took test shots and compared it with Jupiter 37a, on the same day I returned this rivenon back, Jupiter went around it, the optical characteristics of Jupiter are a cut above.

  • george7

    It seems to me or does the lens really smear?
    Not a single less sharp and transparent photo.
    Perhaps this is my visual impairment.

  • anonym

    compared in the forehead with zeis sonnar 135 f3,5 colors. contrast are the same. sharpness to the edges is slightly worse. slightly worse with chromaticity. costs 3 times cheaper. quite good lens.

  • Michael

    The article, of course, is very old.
    But accidentally came across her, and immediately a question arose.
    Do you really think the bokeh of this lens is great? But why?!

    • Rodion

      Everything is subjective, bokeh in general, everyone likes his own.

      • Michael

        That's the way it is.
        But still there are some generally recognized indicators of bokeh quality.
        Well, there is the correct shape and structure of glare from point sources, smooth transitions in the blur zone, the absence of double vision and outright mess.

        • Basil

          We can talk simply about the degree of blur, and not about its nature and structure. Rodion is right - to each his own.

    • Konstantin

      Yes, the lens has great bokeh! Everything is fucking blurry, including the center of the frame!

  • spitzer

    I have one on m42, but it looks different and has a retractable hood

Add a comment

Copyright © Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article

Versión en español de este artículo