When did 135mm lenses become uncool?

<p>I've noticed that a lot of people seem to be disinterested in 135mm lenses. Right now shorter "long" lenses seem to be more popular, with the 85-105mm lenses fetching high prices lately (yes I know that in terms of focal length 135mm isn't <em>that </em>long, I just mean lenses shorter than 135mm).<br>

I may be totally wrong in my assessment though. But if I am not, then what is the deal? Is it just that the 135mm lenses are so common they're less collectible, or is the 85-105mm length more useful? The difference in angle of view between 100 and 135 doesn't seem that big that one would have much preference for one over the other, unless they were shooting portraits in a small studio and need just <em>that much </em>more space that a 100 would give them.<br>

Feel free to neutralize my ignorance on the subject! Thanks. (I guess this isn't specifically a <em>vintage </em>question, but it is at least more relevant to 35mm photography than digital, and I am referring the prices of vintage lenses)</p>

<p>135 in a full frame (or 35mm) camera is useful enough, but if you're using separate lenses instead of a zoom, then for not too much heavier, you can probably go 200. And there are a lot more premium 200mm lenses (more manufacturer effort) in that focal length. I guess the real answer is that they're out of fashion, not long enough for sports, a bit too much for portraits, etc.</p>

<p>I have a 135 for my Leica M's but it's a monster and I never carry it. </p>

<p>If you're talking about for AP-S cameras, it's about the equivalent of 200mm which might have more traction maybe.</p>

<p>Seems a lot of gear in this hobby comes and goes, as far as how fashionable it is, and thus what it costs used in a given month. If you find a 135mm lens useful, I wouldn't worry what others think of it.</p>

<p>My guess is that it has something to do with people using adapters with classic lenses on their digital cameras. On a digital APS-C sensor the 85 frames about like a 135, a 100 about like a 150/160, and the 135 about like a 210. So, the 85-105 lenses work within the more traditional focal lengths for portraiture on the smaller digital sensors than a 135 would. So, less demand by digital users for the 135 equals lower prices and higher demand for the 85-105 by digital users equals higher prices. That's my take on it anyway.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>Dave, My 135mm f3.5 lens was one of the first two lenses I acquired when I bought my Minolta XG-M back in 1982. (the other was a 35mm f2.8) I'm still using it. I also like the built in, non removable lens hood it has. It's also very compact. You've accurately noted that you need more room between your subject and the camera with the 135 over the 85 or 100 and this may indeed be the main reason it is less popular a lens. It's also a bit harder to hand hold for sharp images. The 135 is cheaper and I like that part. Great value for the price. Some of my most satisfying people shots as well as landscape shots have been taken with it. When I go to shoot nature or what-have-you it's always a part of my kit. (17, 28, 35, 50, 100 macro, 135 + 2 XG-M bodies) Hope this helps provide some perspective for you. Best, LM.</p><div></div>

<p>I actually like that focal length, but I suppose the fact that zooms took over, and as you point out, they seem a little long for portraits. However, the bargain is that a 135mm f2.8 lens can be had so cheaply. A few have amazing bokeh, such as the 135mm Primotar that I once had for M-42 mount.</p>

<p>The image below is from a 135mm 2.8 Cosina lens on my X700.</p>

<p><a title="Ross Orr at the A3C3 Meeting by mfophotos, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/5861961574_e64d90ea67_z.jpg" alt="Ross Orr at the A3C3 Meeting" width="640" height="424" /></a></p>

<p>I totally love both my f/2 Nikkor with DC, and my older compact f/2.8 AIS version. Very handy lenses. While I can't life without my 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor, I like the feel of the 135mm f/2.8, a lot.</p>

<p>(Deleted post because I just repeated what everyone else had said while I was writing it . . . )</p>

<p>Hi Dave,<br>

I have recently picked up a 135mm Zeiss 2.8 lens that comes to near 200mm in my crop sensor Sony. Since I am shooting a lot more film at present, the lens has not seen much use but I liked it very much. It is a really useful lens for street shooting if you don't want to get close.</p>

<p>Dave: that rings so true. When I bought a Pentax ME kit in 1983, I bought it with the 50mm 2.0, and the 135mm 2.8 + a 2X TC. </p>

 

<p>I think a lot of it has to do with how common 135's have been. Historically, after the standard 50mm many a photographer added a 28mm and a 135mm lens to their kit. 135mm is a length where manufacturers could still make a lens at reasonable size/weight offering f/2.8 or f/3.5 without going to larger filter sizes. Look how many third party offerings there are at 28mm and 135mm vs. alternate lengths like 85, 100, or 105mm.</p>

<p>Combine with relative scarcity some of the other benefits to the shorter lengths--better usability on smaller digital sensors where 135 seems a bit long, shorter minimum focus distance and I think that explains why 85-100-105 tend to be significantly pricier than than 135mm cousins.</p>

<p>Too long for portraits, too short for nature/sports. </p>

<p>Too long for portraits, too short for nature/sports. </p>

<p>It seems to be a popular FL over in the "Pentax Forums' as a thread dedicated to the 135 has 506 responses with many nice pictures. Since most of them are using it on DSLR's, it would come to a 202mm lens if the crop was 1.5.<br>

Try this page: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/99057-135mm-lens-club-21.html</p>

<p>135mm as a focal length never worked for me. I never enjoyed using it (my father had a Vivitar f2.8 that he got as a telephoto for his Nikon, I used it a few times and eventually gave it away). When I bought my Nikon 105mm f2.5 lens it was like coming home. This was the focal length I was waiting for, as a moderate telephoto. I'll never give that lens away! (And I am speaking here of the full-frame angle of view for these lenses, not a digital crop view).</p>

<p>"</p>

<h1>When did 135mm lenses become uncool?"</h1>

<p>Never knew they were "cool."</p>

<p>Been using them for over 50 years.</p>

<p>Maybe I'm just not cool.</p>

<p>They seem to have gone from fashion back in the sixties, I guess theywere considereda bit "long" for portraits.<br>

Truth is, they are not too bad, a 85-100 size seems to work a bit better, ie the working distance is a bit more intimate, but the 135 is not excessive.<br>

The up side is that the 135, along with the 50's is a really welll developed focal length, and there are some really cracker lenses to be had for little money. This is the advantage of being out of favour!<br>

Even the cheap brands work well, but there are some real stand outs, like the 2.8 Rokkor, 3.5 Takumar, 2.5 Canon, 2.8 Nikkor and the very weighty but superb 2.8 Leitz Elmarit which sell for a fraction of the price of the 90mm.<br>

Of course, if you are using them on D SLR's the focal length may get a bit long, but for 35mm I would always recommend them, especially for the price.</p>

<p>Don't know the reason but I think the trend started in the 80's. Before that it was the 35mm and 135mm. And then it's the 28mm and 85mm or 105mm.</p>

<p>I often try to get a 'kit' of lenses for my historic 35mm cameras--a 28 or 35mm wide, a 50mm normal, and a 135mm telephoto. In the day when, the 135mm lens was often the longest one could go for an affordable price, unless you got something like Spiratone's 400mm, and that's not really the same thing.<br>

Even the 'bridge' cameras I've been posting on Modern Film Cameras, often topped out at around 135mm. A number of all-in-one zoom lenses today do cover this same range, however, if the 'crop' factor is considered (15-85mm say) and 28-135mm for 35mm sensors.</p>

<p>I think the relative lack of interest today in this focal length as a prime is for most of the reasons already given.<br>

Too long for most people for portrait work, too short for wildlife--and the cost of zoom lenses covering and exceeding this range makes it hard for people to justify getting a prime. Many of the early zooms back in Classic Manual terms, were 70-something to 210-something in range.</p>

<p>135mm primes aren't as common as they were in the 1960s, when they were part of the standard "wide, normal, tele" trio (35mm, 50mm or 55mm, 135mm) that many people had. Today, I think mostly due to the popularity of zooms, you don't see them as often, but they are still around, typically at f/2, as a specialty item for people who really care about portrait quality. Canon's EF 135mm f/2L and Nikon's 135mm f/2 DC are both well-respected portrait lenses; the Canon is sometimes called the best portrait lens available, and the Nikon's bokeh adjustment (Defocus Control, or DC) feature adds a distinctive flexibility.</p>

<p>135mm may seem a bit long for portraits if you are using a crop-frame camera, but it's just fine for full-frame -- which is why Canon and Nikon offer these lenses.</p>

<p>Unless I specifically anticipate a need for 200mm or greater, 135mm is the longest lens I typically carry for 35mm cameras.</p>

<p>My 30+ year old 135 is in my sling bag I carry with me.</p>

<p>For single focal length lenses, my rule of thumb is that it's hardly worth swapping lenses unless you can about double or halve the length. So something like 35/85/135 makes a reasonable kit, or 24/50/105/200 works. If you've got a 105 and a 180 or 200, the 135 fits in the middle, but the gap it fills isn't very big.</p>

<p>Since the early manual focus days, Nikon made a wonderful 105 f/2.5, and a wonderful 180 f/2.8. If you couldn't afford the 180, the 200 f/4 was inexpensive, small and used 52mm filters like most small Nikkors. For me, the availability and quality of those lenses on either side of the 135 made the 135mm focal length largely unnecessary.</p>

<p>But tastes vary.</p>

<p>I have many 135s and have never thought they were not cool. My first 135 was a Vivitar f/2.8 (28XXX...) in Konica AR mount. That was about 38 years ago. My only complaint about the lens was that it did not have close focusing. I later traded it for a 135/3.2 Hexanon which focused to three feet. This made it suitable for portraits. I did not really start collecting until about 1988 or 1989. In most cases I use 135s outdoors. For most indoor shooting I find anything longer than 105 too long. My favorite 135s include: Vivitar f/2.8 Close Focusing, Vivitar f/2.3 Series 1, Promaster f/2.8 (1:5), f/2.5 Canon FD SC, f/2.8 Nikkor QC, Canon FD f/3.5 chrome front, f/3.2 Hexanon, f/2.5 Hexanon, f/2.5 Canon FL. There are many others. If I know I will only be shootng portraits then a lens in the 85-105 range is handy but of a 135 has close enough focusing it can be just as good for portraits as a shorter lens.</p>

<p>The 135 is too heavy for a lens that does not see a lot of use, so it gets carried even less... The only use I've found is for candid portraits... or if I manage to become an exceptionally good wildlife photographer working at close quarters...</p>

<p>"The 135 is too heavy for a lens that does not see a lot of use"<br>

Really? My Oly Om 135 2.8 is light and compact. And it gets use.</p>

<div></div>