100mm vs. 135mm

OK, I'm thinking of adding one more lens to my line up.

 

As of yesterday, my collection includes

FDn 24mm f/2.0

FDn 35mm f/2.0

FDn 50mm f/1.2

FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC

FDn 85mm f/1.2L

FDn 85mm f/1.8 (on its way)

 

 

Bodies are new F-1, A-1, AE-1P, and intended use it mostly street work,

architecture, landscape all in B&W and IR when it gets hot again. I'm usually

more of a wide angle guy, but I'd like to shoot some friends too - as in

photograph them :) - so the extra FL could come in handy.

 

I'm thinking about going for either a 100mm or 135mm. In some ways, it seems

like going to the 135mm is the way to go because there really isn't that much

difference between the 85 FL and 100FL. I know there are many flavors of each

lens, but actual comparisons between the variations are hard to find.

 

Can anyone comment or make a suggestion of which might be preferable from an

image quality standpoint? I've never owned a prime lens longer than 85mm in any

camera system, but have covered that range in EF zooms many times.

 

Thanks, Jim

If you stop down to f5.6 you won't notice a difference. Wide open is a different story. The 135 f2 and 100 f2 have much better wide open resolution than their smaller aperture brethren - and cost a lot more, take up more real estate and weigh quite a bit more. FWIW, I just stop down my 100 f2.8 and get terrific results, I've thought of the big 135, but for now just mount an old Nikon 135 f2 on my T90 and it does the job just fine.

The 135mm f2 is a great lens, on par with the "L" series, one of my favorites and I tend to

grab it more than the 85mm f1.2. It's also as heavy as the 85mm, so if weight isn't a

concern then this is a great lens to have in the quiver.

I have too many lenses in this range, but I'm a short telephoto kind of guy. I think the answer depends on personal style and how much you want to spend.

 

If you shoot heads at fairly wide apertures, the 135/2.5 SC is by far the best bang for the buck-- outstanding lens with a thick Sonnar-like second group and beautiful out-of-focus rendition. They're fairly common and they're practically being given away now. I also have a beater 135/2.0 FDn-- I prefer this lens, but clean specimens cost several times more than the 2.5.

 

Since you already have the 85s, a good general purpose combination for very little outlay could be the 100/4 FDn macro and the 135/2.5 SC. You could shoot a dozen rolls, get your head around these focal lengths, and see what your further needs are.

Although I use my FDn 85mm f/1.8 much more than the 135mm focal length, I'm also a fan of the FD 135mm f/2.5 - it's fast, sharp, and has wonderfully smooth out of focus highlights - and as the previous poster mentioned, it's very inexpensive right now. It's a very well built lens too - solid metal construction and a very hefty, indestructible feel. I've tried a few 100mm lenses, but they were too close in focal length to the 85mm, and not nearly as fast.

thanks for all the answers guys. I'm also sorry about my post because it looks like extra paragraph separations didn't work. In case anyone had trouble following the previous mess, the collection includes (hoping it works)

 

a) FDn 24mm f/2.0,

 

b) FDn 35mm f/2.0,

 

c) FDn 50mm f/1.2,

 

d) FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC,

 

e) FDn 85mm f/1.2L,

 

f) FDn 85mm f/1.8 (on its way)

 

The problem with lenses is that I want them all. I don't care if I only use it once every two years, I want it. :)

 

I think the 135mm is the way to go (there's still a strong 100mm pull though Stephen). I'll start a search and see what comes up, but I'd like to avoid spending a ridiculous amount (not sure how much that is) of money if I can. :)

Skip both and really expand your abilities and get a 200mm f2.8 IF nFD the version with the diamond pattern rubber band on the hood. Then with a Tokina 7 element 2X you have a workable 400mm f5.6 hand holdable telephoto.

 

I shoot head shots and wedding stuff with a 200mm all the time.

I can't speak much to the actual quality of specific lenses, but I can tell you from my taste in architecture/street photography that I love using longer focal length lenses as it really helps pick out the little details, patterns, and textures of the subjects.

 

So for that reason I'd recommend the 135 over the 100.

I'd go with the 135/2. DOF depth more than the 85L wide open.

Use a 2X converter & you have a fast handheld 270mm without

having the 300/4L & finding 34mm DI filters for it.

 

If you want a unique lens, the 85 Soft Focus worth considering.

If you want to experiment with the 135 focal length without spending too much look for a 135/2.5 Canon FL lens. You will need to use stop dpwn metering with the F-1 but you will have a fast sharp 135 with beautiful out of focus rendition. I have several of these. The last one was only about $25.

More interesting things to ponder. I'm definitely looking a 135mm lenses now but I don't really want to go as long as a 200mm though. I'd like to keep the whole kit on the inconspicuous side, and even the 85L and the 135mm (which ever version may be pushing it).

 

Now I just need to find a clean lens.

My take on your predicament is this: 135 is a more useful length FOR YOU. You already have an 85 (or two) and doubling up on that would be the logical next step - the 135 is closer to that than a 100. By all accounts the f2 is stellar and the f2.5 is very very good, so no bad choices here.

But, you mention "inconspicous"... well, the 135 f2 is certainly NOT inconspicous. The 100mm f2.8 is probably the best in this regard, as I often mistake mine for my nFD 50 f1.4, there is barely any size difference. I would say if you want a long lens without a big barrell, this is your winner hands down.

If I were you, I would buy the 135, though - I think you will get more use out of it given what you will use it for - conspicous or not.

Some sizes to compare:

 

200mm f2.8 IF nFD 81mm Diameter x 134.2mm Length

 

135mm f2.0 nFD 78mm Diameter x 90.4mm Length

 

135mm f2.5 S.C. 69mm Diameter x 91mm Length

 

100mm f2.8 S.S.C. 67mm Diameter x 57mm Length

 

100mm f2.8 nFD 63mm Diameter x 53.4mm Length

 

100mm f2.0 nFD 63mm Diameter x 70mm Length

 

85mm f1.2L nFD 80.8mm Diameter x 71mm Length