Jump to content

135mm lenses - why no love?


Recommended Posts

<p>Two or three years ago it was the 50mm lens that was the 'used bargain' offering sharpness and fast aperture at a low price. In 2013 it seems that most used 50mm lenses for sale have crept up in price and the bargains are the exception rather than the rule. Step in the 135mm.<br>

I have been trying a few 'cheap used' ones out over the last couple of weeks and from £0 to £5 I have not had a dud. Most are preset ones from the 60's but unlike other cheap and older lenses they have been universally good to excellent. To sum they deliver:<br>

Fast telephoto aperture for subject seperation<br>

Superb sharpness and colour (edge to edge)<br>

Better bokeh than most zoom lenses<br>

Yet there is no demand at all and the lenses rest unloved in the bargain basement. With just a little effort a lens like this could give a budding (or even advanced) photographer something new to try that is actually worth the money. I show a photo of one of mine below and it was only £2 but look at the build and finish - as good as a named brand.</p>

<div>00bfAa-538201584.JPG.dbed7937d9cfae0b063f45c71005c2ec.JPG</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Right, onto the results - what can it deliver in my rough and ready test. Well it is better than most zooms under the 'pro' f/2.8 range that is for sure. No fringing, fudging or murkiness. Following are four photos, photo 1 is a complete frame at f/5.6 on a full frame camera.</p><div>00bfAd-538203584.JPG.89311d196d45ef9a502b7ced8dafb9aa.JPG</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>But these are just boring 'test shots' and the lens works great in the field too and the focus is easy to see in the viewfinder. Here is one I took at f/8 and again, apart from the lack of AF I don't think even the cheapest 135 is any disgrase. I tested a Nikon one and it was better still and even that was only £25. Honestly, I think that the economy 135mm is the best photo bargain out there at the moment. Anyone else think similar?</p><div>00bfAk-538207584.JPG.bcd6d006d644c72364597829cf8c4d88.JPG</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think the problem with 135mm is that is "falls through the cracks" so to speak. The traditional "portrait" length for head and shoulders shots is 85-105mm while real "telephoto" (in perception, not lens design) starts around 200mm. A 135 is longer than it needs to be for head shots but not long enough for sports or wildlife. <br /><br />I think 135mm may also have acquired an undeserved stigma as an "amateur" focal length. Myself and other newspaper photographers I worked with generally carried an 85 or 105, then our kits jumped to 200 or longer, but I don't recall anybody -- news, wedding, etc. -- I worked with who carried a 135. But 135 was always pushed by camera stores and places like Sears. I think it was something that looked "long" to a new photographer but came in at an affordable price point that made it easy to sell. My first "long" lens was a 135 but it got set aside after I acquired a 105 for headshots and a 200 for high school football.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nice work with it.<br>

135mm is a classic telephoto focal length for a 35mm format camera, but on 4/3, mirrorless, or APS-C-format bodies it is a little long for portraits, and often too short for really far away stuff.<br>

50mm is nice for a short telephoto/portrait lens on the smaller formats, so I'm not surprised that it is more sought after these days.</p><div>00bfB4-538213584.jpg.daa08e2d411e1ea785f4eb9478ecf900.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When I was a young and foolish photographer (1950s-1960s), it seemed manufacturers were trying to peddle the 135mm lens as a sort of kinda telephoto but not too long lens.They sold a lot of them but I preferred 105mm and 200mm lenses. Then I got an assignment to shoot U. S. Open tennis (this was 1970). I found just the right spot to shoot what I liked and a 135mm lens was perfect. The news service I worked for had one, so it worked out well. I do not doubt you can get some great bargains in these lenses right now.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks for the input. I think where the 135 excells is for photography of 'things' that you want picked out in a scene. You can do this not only by framing but by selective focus too. Also by letting some sunlight glance onto the front element you are not greeted by flare shapes but by a dreamy haze which can be nice for against the light portaits. I add one more in the spirit of the 'unloved 135mm' - this time with a (free) Soligor preset.</p><div>00bfCC-538231584.JPG.e405754a91e52d8d445a009ad9135bdc.JPG</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>They were killed off mainly by the tsunami of 70-210 variable aperture zooms, most them crappy but attractive to budget-conscious amateurs 30 years ago. Seems also that 135mm was at the edge of handholdability. They also contend with the dogma that they're too long for a portrait lens, 85-105mm being somehow irrefutably ideal. Agree that they're very useful for isolating detail or pulling a face from a crowd. Was there ever a "dog" 135/2.8 from any of the major makers?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Yep - the 135 is the unwanted stepchild for many of the reasons cited above, but I too love it, on the traditional 35mm bodies, the DX bodies and mirrorless micro 4/3. I have too many of them, and since last year have been selling some of them off. IMHO if you know what you're after and 135mm falls in the range, I'd slap it on in place of almost any zoom. Even the cheap 135s deliver, and the spectacular ones, well they just do a magnificent job. So, since they are so cheap these days...snarf them up before they catch on again and the prices go nowhere but up!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I vote 135mm an excellent focal length for 35mm (or full frame), but most of us are budget- (or maybe bulk-) limited to "APS-C"-size sensors (or smaller). So if you want a tight portrait and think 135mm on 35mm is what you want, you need a lens with an actual focal length of about 85 or 90mm. When I want a lens longer than that, it's almost always for things (like sports) where a zoom is a huge advantage. With a Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD, I really have no desire to mess with a 135mm.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I bought my Nikkor 135mm with a 50mm and the Nikon F Photomic T. Of course I was stationed in Japan, it was 1965 and I knew little about cameras except the "F" was the camera to get! Was Canon 35mm around then? But I enjoyed the 135 as that was the only telephoto I had and used it more for lansdcape shots or just pulling in some distant shots when the 50 was too short.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>No love? You'll have to pry the 135 2.0 dc from my cold, dead fingers. Has been made since 1992- over 20 years. Nicknamed the "bokeh king" and if you want to know why, google the lens and photos and its obvious. I am a portrait photographer and it is hands down, my favorite lens. I shoot tighter than 3/4 so am not to far to communicate. I bought it for sub f/4 and that is where it lives. Wider only when I need dof. It is really sharp from 2.8 and plenty sharp at 2.0. Longer than it needs be for headshots? Not for my nose and many of my subjects. I think the compression is there but not too heavy handed as the racked out 70-200 can be for my taste. Of course, I hear " you made my nose look too small" about as often as "you made me look too thin." Its also much less tiring to use for 3-4 hours than a zoom. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think the standard zoom range lenses did it in, in the popular vote. I have always thought about getting one, but my 75-150mm fills the range pretty well and is rather compact. If I found a great version at a good price, I still might pick one up.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I pretty much make my living these days with the 35mm-135mm combo. 135mm is an awesome focal length. I agree that you don't see it out in the real world too much, although I see people talking about it in forums.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8336/8115192703_750c24699e_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6045/6391749907_22f5b8d5c4_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ian, that second image is stunning. Beautiful coordination of eye color/bg and dress and lip color. Ian, you see a 135 all the time when I'm around. Sure, in fast paced, restricted movement type shoots, the zoom goes on, but otherwise, it's on. I think you gave a perfect 135 example. Interesting your 2 lenses. Is it because they are subtly distinctive enough for you without being extreme? The only suggestion I would have is try the other brand camera/lens. Just kiddin. Beautiful work. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree, some (but not all) of these 135mm lenses are great deals that offer very good IQ. Unfortunately, most are considerably larger and heavier than 85mm or 90mm lenses, so that's a consideration. The close focus distance is often not so close, and using one on a 35mm film camera means your interaction w/ your subject on portraits can be too far for some people. Still, there are great deals to be had if this isn't important for your type of shooting, and the bokeh is a big plus on most of these. The Canon FD 135 2.5 and Meyer Orestor Optik 135 2.8 are great lenses at small prices.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Bob. Yes, they are so different but still very flattering focal lengths to me. The 135mm is great because I can use it for close ups and also to get way back and almost <a href="/photo/12954432">'spy' on my subject</a>. It also <a href="/photo/17195232">focuses incredibly quickly</a> and works ridiculously well with <a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=448908628504464&set=a.435133696548624.104586.171846589544004&type=3&theater">AI Servo wide open</a>. Best bang for the buck in the Canon lineup IMO.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I also really like the 135mm focal length, but Nikon's 135mm AF lens is not among the best of the lineup especially for wide open shooting; stopped down to about f/3.5-f/5.6 it is great. I tend to use 85mm and 200mm now more than 135mm but that is only due to optical quality and autofocus precision. I would prefer to use 85mm and 135mm as a pair. I'm not really into manual focus lenses for people photography as following a moving subject at f/2 with manual focus using current camera viewfinders and focusing screens is beyond difficult.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>When Leitz brought out the first Leica, they already had a 135 mm lens available (and were selling it as a standard lens for 9x12 cm/quarter-plate cameras, which is what a 135 Hektor will cover when out of its mount - it is not a telephoto design). Other factors were the limits of rangefinder accuracy and handholding steadiness. Once established as a normal focal length, 135 lenses were made by almost everyone until, as others have said, the advent of 70 - 210 zooms. which made people think "Why do I actually need a lens 2.7 times the standard focal length?" and "Wouldn't it be more logical to have prime lenses in multiples of 2 - 540, 85/90. 200?" Many available 135s are good lenses and are well worth buying to play with at today's prices.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've used a 135 from many, many years. Got my first back in the early 70's and have owned several brands over the years. Sold my last when I got my Nikon 80-200 ASF-D in the mid 90's. I loved it for many of of the same reasons mentioned above, but it really stood out in helping isolate landscape elements.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>On a Leica, 135 without goggles is tricky for focusing, and with goggles (I have one) it's a very big heavy lens for the body -- kind of the antithesis for Leica use. </p>

<p>On other cameras, especially 35mm (or the equivalent) 135 is a bit too high for portraits and too much for environmental portraits, yet it's much bigger and heavier than a 50mm lens. And as a telephoto, most people want a bit more, like 200mm.</p>

<p>I kind of think it's a jack of all trades, master of none. And modest zooms tend to do that jack of all trades thing MUCH better. For instance, the Zeiss 16-80 on a Sony APS camera or the Canon 24-105/4L on a full frame. There's nothing wrong with them, and some are superb lenses.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...