135mm f/2.8 for 8x10 printing

[fixcinater]

<p>Hello all-<br>

I've happened upon a fellow selling an AE-1 kit with a 199A flash and 135mm f/2.8. I've already got an AE-1 and don't wish to add another, but I'm curious whether or not I'd see any improvement in IQ if I held out for a 135mm 2.0 or 100 2.0 if I am mostly scanning and posting online, and don't see myself printing over 16x20 max, and have not printed anything over 5x7. Most likely hold myself to 8x12 or similar.</p>

<p>Suggestions? I'll use this for compressed landscapes, some "street" shooting, and portraiture/candids. Weight/size is not a concern as I'm a one-lens per shoot kind of guy, and if there is a decent jump in IQ and/or longevity, I can wait a bit to get an L or top-notch quality lens.</p>

[awahlster]

<p>The 135mm f2.8 nFD is a fine lens I have one and it's IQ is very close to the 100mm 2.8 of the same generation. For street photography I would prefer it over a 135mm f2.0 it's MUCH lighter and uses 52mm filters. The same hood you use with a 50mm f1.8/1.4/1.2 would also work.</p>

[SCL]

<p>I've used all the above and they are all very good lenses. The only differences I noticed, other than size and weight, was that the larger aperture lenses appeared to have better resolution (or definition) wide open...but for the web or smaller prints, I'd say go with the smaller lenses...they're less expensive, easier to pack, and they do a fine job. I kept the haeavier ones and sold the others, I honestly think I should have done the opposite.</p>

[andy_game]

<p>I use the FDn 135mm f2.8 lens a lot for street photography and have got some good shots with it that I´ve enlarged to 20x30 cm and been happy with. It´s very easy to carry around and less conspicuous too. I normally try and stop it down by a couple of stops to improve sharpness, wide open my lens is not so sharp. I´d like to post a street shot or two, but am always nervous about privacy laws when posting a photo of a stranger on the net. so instead I´ll make do with a non-street shot.</p><div></div>

[fixcinater]

<p>Thank you all for the quick replies. Looks like I'll give it a go. I haven't used anything other than the BL and FDn versions of the 50mm f/1.8, so it will be a good starting point on expanding my collection.</p>

<p>I'll check ebay before I make my offer, but is $75-100 in the right range (condition dependent) for this lens at this point in time?</p>

[andy_game]

<p>Anthony, I´m in Europe, where prices are normally a bit higher than the U.S., but I would suggest that if you only really wanted the lens and not another AE-1 and flash too, you could probably get the lens alone for quite a bit less than $75. They are not uncommon lenses here on ebay.</p>

[fixcinater]

<p>He's got the whole kit priced very high, $345 for all listed above, and an old shoulder bag. I shot off an email and I doubt he's going to take my offer. We'll see!</p>

<p>I should just invest in better/more film!</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Anthony, the FDn 135/2 and 100/2 are two of the very best FD lenses, and neither is terribly heavy. I would hold out for one of them. The kit you're looking at is overpriced.</p>

[dirk_dom1]

<p>Hi.</p>

<p>I have the FD 135mm F2, the 135 F2.5 and the 100 F2</p>

<p>The 135 F2 is VERY big, but extremely sharp. People compare it to the 85mm F 1.2, and I cannnot really tell them wrong. </p>

<p>The 135 F 2.5 SC breechlock is also seriously sharp, much smaller, and extremely well built. I got a mint copy for $30.</p>

<p>The 100 F2 is so incredibly sharp it's a problem using it for portrait use. It's sharper than my 100mm macro. It's my lens with the greatest amount of glass to metal in all my collection and it's only got a 52mm filter. The build quality is awesome. The diaphragm 'click' sound sounds expensive. What a lens!!<br>

Dirk.</p>