135mm 2.8 vs. 2.0

[james_ashby]

<p>Hi, i have a 135mm f.2.8 and was wondering if it was worth investing in the faster lens or just holding onto the one i have (it is in pretty good condition). I already have a fast 85mm, 100mm f.2.8 and a 200mm f.2.8 and like taking available light portrait and concert photos (and photos of my friends and i getting drunk at parties, for this i use the trusty 50mm f.1.4) as well as photographing pretty much anything as i learn the in's and outs of my lenses and camera.<br>

Your collective thoughts?</p>

[dirk_dom1]

<p>Hi. I have an 135 F 2.5 SC breechlock, and I used to have an 135 F3.5. The F 2.5 is very good and fun to use, and I didn't like the F3.5, which I gave away.</p>

<p>I bought the 135 F2 about two years ago, and the first impression is: "It's BIG." 72mm filter thread, and heavy. Optically, it looks very nice, when you look into it, you see all the greenish reflections of the multi - layer coating. It has a built - in sun shade. It looks very impressive on my camera body.</p>

<p>Shooting with it, it is very sharp and contrasty and has good bokeh. On the net, it's quality is compared with the 85mm F1.2, it's supposed to be up there.</p>

<p>I took it through a couple of rolls to get used to it, but I changed back to the 85mm F1.2, which is one of my all time favourite lenses.</p>

<p>I think the 135mm F2 is a great lens, which I really wanted. But I'm as much a collector as a shooter. I think , if you want a lens, go ahead and buy it.</p>

<p>Bye,</p>

<p>dirk.</p>

<p>Finally, I bought it in mint condition on Ebay in Germany, for 200 Euro's. </p>

[brandon_walker2]

<p>Hi James Here's an opinion that was on the net previously by Paul Young (apologies if this is plagiarism)</p>

<h4>135mm f/2.0</h4>

<p>This ought to be an L lens. Sharp. Try 125 lines per mm center, 114 at the edges, and that's at f/2.0! I'm looking now at a shot I did of Comet Hale-Bopp with this lens (a day before the UFO arrived). There are foreground fir trees in the corners; they are tack sharp. The star images are quite sharp. This was taken wide open, and the lens improves slightly with stopping down (it goes to f/32, but why?). I measured 140 lines/mm edge and a phenomenal 176 center at f/4.0 and f/5.6. Wow! I also have some wonderful shots of 'Carmen' at the Odessa (Ukraine) Opera house. Beautifully deep contrast, saturated colors, sharp and detailed. My wife's very picky about photographs, and she loved those. Absolutely no coma, but a very slight hint of astigmatism wide open. Very good flare control. No color fringing either. Above average contrast, but not way above average. The contrast is even across the image and at all apertures. This lens does wonderful outdoos scenics, plus with its speed you can use slow film or go indoors. I believe this lens came out in May '80 and it is one of the most solid feeling of the new mount FD lenses I have handled. I got it from a local camera shop that seems to get in a moderate amount of unusual FD stuff at occasionally very attractive prices. It wasn't really way up there on my lens wish list (Had I known of its optical quality it would have been). Anyhow, about 2 years ago I saw the 135/2.0 at this shop for $260 in EX+, almost mint shape and knew it was a pretty good deal. Man was I pleasantly surprised. Don't know what else to say: This is just one superb lens.</p>

[barryreid]

<p>The 135/2.0 is up there with my favourite lenses of all, and that's saying something as I'm mainly a wide angle shooter! I replaced a sigma 70-210/2.8 with it and held on to it when I downsized my FD kit a few years back as I went digital. If I'd sold it the it would have been high on my wishlist now that I'm collecting. Sharp and contrasty it's been worth every penny. You also get a handy 270/4.0</p>

[acinos]

<p>Hi Dirk,<br>

I think you bought my one, I sold it in 2006, one of my greatest mistakes ...</p>

[barryreid]

<p>My reply should have ended with the line... "You also get a handy 270/4.0 when you use it with the 2x converter B."</p>

<p>Here's one of my favourite shots shich was taken with the 135 on my F-1 with AE head.</p><div></div>

[dave_s]

<p>I have a beater 135/2, which I got for something like $130. It had seen hard professional use and has a lot of front coating marks, but it takes beautiful portraits. If you locate one, try it out at close to full aperture, say f/2.8. I think it is the best of the 135s.</p>

<p>Having said that, I've been experimenting with the older 135s. I've had a 135/2.5 for a couple of years, and it may be the best bang for the buck in breechlock FD lenses-- very nice lens, good out of focus rendition, and you can find one quite cheap. </p>

<p>On my F-1N now, I have a 135/3.5 FL-- a recent $10 acquisition! This is an older (pre-1971) design: 4 elements in 3 groups, and it has a big thick second group similar to a Zeiss Sonnar. Quite a small lens, takes 48mm filters, and the same design as the Canon 135/3.5 rangefinder lens. I'm interested to see what it can do. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>Of these two lenses I have the f/2.8 but not the f/2. My other Canon 135s include the f/2.5 FL, the f/3.5 chrome front FD, an f/3.5 black front FD SC and an f/2.5 FD. For build quality alone I like the f/3.5 chrome front lens. The one I use most often is the f/2.5 FL. I have several of these. At some point I might get an f/2 FD but I am skeptical of the resolution numbers claimed. Are the numbers in lines per mm or line pairs per mm? What was the contrast range under which the test was performed? Maximum resolution numbers are typically shown with a contrast ratio of 1000:1. Based on this there are document films which claim to have resolution capability of 200 or 300 lines per mm. In practical use these numbers are rarely if ever seen. The fastest 135 I can fit to any of my Canon cameras is an f/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 model in Nikon AI mount. With an adapter it fits on a Canon. The drawback is that I have to use stop down metering and adjust the diaphragm manually. I don't know how the Series 1 lens compares to the Canon f/2. I have had the Series 1 in Konica mount for many years and for a few years in Nikon mount. I find it to be quite good except for some odd out of focus rendition. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>Of these two lenses I have the f/2.8 but not the f/2. My other Canon 135s include the f/2.5 FL, the f/3.5 chrome front FD, an f/3.5 black front FD SC and an f/2.5 FD. For build quality alone I like the f/3.5 chrome front lens. The one I use most often is the f/2.5 FL. I have several of these. At some point I might get an f/2 FD but I am skeptical of the resolution numbers claimed. Are the numbers in lines per mm or line pairs per mm? What was the contrast range under which the test was performed? Maximum resolution numbers are typically shown with a contrast ratio of 1000:1. Based on this there are document films which claim to have resolution capability of 200 or 300 lines per mm. In practical use these numbers are rarely if ever seen. The fastest 135 I can fit to any of my Canon cameras is an f/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 model in Nikon AI mount. With an adapter it fits on a Canon. The drawback is that I have to use stop down metering and adjust the diaphragm manually. I don't know how the Series 1 lens compares to the Canon f/2. I have had the Series 1 in Konica mount for many years and for a few years in Nikon mount. I find it to be quite good except for some odd out of focus rendition. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>The FD 135/2 is my second favourite telephoto prime, my favourite being the FD 85/1.2 L. I also have an FD 135/2.5 SC, which is a very good lens for available light portraiture, but its faster, younger cousin is even better. I wouldn't hesitate to pick one up, James. </p>

[exabetal]

<p>@Berry Reid: This is an amazing shot!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>My comments mirror Mark's the 135 f2 is the second best FD lens after the 85 F1.2. It also has the advantage of a built in lens hood (the 85 F1.2 has a rather messy hood solution which does not wear well - mind you mine is 25 years old. I cannot compare it to the Canon 135 F2.8 as i have a Vivitar 135 F2.8 which I haven't used for at least 10 years. The resolution of the 135 f2 is amazing and it even works on modern bodies - mine gets fitted with an adaptor to my Panasonic Micro 4/3 body giving a 270 f2! If you can afford it get theis lens</p>

[flatulent1]

<p>Gorgeous shot, Barry, just stunning!</p>

[james_ashby]

<p>So that was a resounding YES!! to the 135mm 2.0, as i already have the 85mm 1.2 sounds like i'm on my way to having the right lenses!<br>

Thanks for sharing Barry, that is an excellent shot, don't you loose a bit when a doubler is used though??<br>

Thanks team</p>

[barryreid]

<p>James, thanks. Obviously, a bit of image quality will be lost with a 2x, but given how rarely I wanted that extra reach I was happy to go down that route. I addition, though I don't have any examples to hand, gut feeling says the 135+2x is not much diferent to my recently acquired 85-300 S.S.C.</p>

 

[dirk_dom1]

<p>To Barry Reid:</p>

<p>Absolutely great shot.</p>

<p>dirk.</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>Dave Sims said above,"...I have a 135/3.5 FL...This is an older (pre-1971) design: 4 elements in 3 groups, and it has a big thick second group similar to a Zeiss Sonnar."<br>

In fact, its whole optical formula is virtually the same as the well regarded 135/3.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar (M42 screw mount). The very earliest FD 135/3.5 versions used the same formula as the FL (check Canon Museum web site).<br>

Many (most? all?) of the old preset T-mount 135/3.5 lenses also used a Sonnar-like formula.</p>

 

[dave_s]

<p>Bob, this is an interesting diversion, and I want to comment without hijacking the thread too much. Given that the early 135/3.5 is very similar or identical to the rangefinder lens, it is very reasonable that it's a direct knockoff of Zeiss's Sonnar. </p>

<p>Canon had a well-known habit of copying good German glass in the postwar years, and, like you say, many Canon rangefinder lenses were close copies of their German forebears. Of course, for optical reasons (that pesky mirror box!), the only rangefinder designs that work on SLRs without modification are the long-focus ones, like the 135/3.5.</p>

<p>Some of my rangefinder lenses, like the 35/2 (a Summicron copy) and the 50/1.5 (a Sonnar copy) are good enough reason on their own to keep my Canon P. Building a Canon rangefinder system makes good sense for Canon FD owners who want to branch out a bit.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>The 135/3.5 FL has the same cosmetics as the 35/3.5 FL and 200/4.5 FL. I don't have any of these lenses. They don't even look like any of the other FL lenses. The 135/2.5 FL costs so little and is so good that the only reason to get the slower lens might be weight. The 135/2.8 and 135/3.5 New FD lenses are also small and light and work well in stop down mode on cameras made to work with the FL lenses. Canon made two versions of the 200/3.5 FL. One has a built in hood and the other doesn't. Canon did not carry this design over to the FD line. The 200/2.8 FD SSC must have been planned so only an f/4 200 was released with the F-1 in 1971. I have a 135/4 Rokkor TC which is a pre-set lens in SR mount. It looks like it was an RF lens adapted for SLR use. If you don't mind the slow speed, it's decently sharp. </p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>1. Dave Sims said, "Of course, for optical reasons (that pesky mirror box!), the only rangefinder designs that work on SLRs without modification are the long-focus ones, like the 135/3.5."<br>

Canon made the M 135mm/2.5 short-mount lens to fit onto the Mirror Box 2 of the Canon 7 rangefinder camera.<br>

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/s/data/100-1000/s_m135_25.html<br>

http://www.taunusreiter.de/Cameras/Canon_MB2.html<br>

I found that I can mount mine on a Canon FL- or FD- type SLR body using a 25mm Canon FL/FD extension tube, and focus as far out as around 30 ft. Chances are, the degree of extension needed to allow infinity focus is around 24.8mm. Canon once made a focusing extension tube (15 to 25mm) that could be used with this lens to give infinity focus on an SLR.<br>

At any rate, it's a preset aperture lens with a many-leaved diaphragm and is great for portraits. Optics are probably the same as for the FL 135mm/2.5.<br>

2. Jeff Adler, while you don't have the FL 35mm/3.5 and 135mm/3.5mm lenses, I do. They are very solidly made metal/glass lenses. Their lack of a bright shiny black finish and their use of rubber focusing grips don't bother me whatsoever. <br>

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fl/data/19-85/fl_35_35.html<br>

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/fl/data/100-1200/fl_135_35.html</p>

<p> </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Just an aside to Barry's great image and comment on using the 2x TC. If you get chance try the 1.4x TC. I find mine is much better than the 2x and works really well on the 135 F2 and 300 F2.8. it is also smaller and lighter than the 2x.</p>