Light weight 135mm?

[astral]

<p>I have a good set of breech-lock lenses (including a 'classic' 135mm f2.5) but they are all very heavy and fairly big. In comparison, my FDn arsenal is much lighter, but is quite limited: I need <em>a lightweight 135mm </em> to carry when hiking.</p>

<p>The cheapest 135mm option currently is the f3.5 version at just £15 (GBP). Is this the one to go for, or should I wait<em> </em> for a <em>much dearer and pretty scarce</em> 135mm f2.8?</p>

<p>The 100mm f2.8 would be a good choice too, and is fairly common here in the UK, but it's <em>5 or 6 times</em> the price of the 135/3.5 - ouch!</p>

[dave_s]

<p>Go to the Canon Museum <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/index.html">here</a> and you can look up the weights of any Canon lens. The 135/2.8 FDn weighs 70g more than the 135/3.5 FDn.</p>

<p>I'm surprised the f/2.8 is selling for much more than the f/3.5. The f/2.8 FDn was introduced when the f/3.5 was discontinued, and it had a longer production run in the FDn mount, so there's a lot of them out there. The regular 135s go very cheaply on the second-hand market, and I would have guessed they would cost about the same.</p>

[awahlster]

<p>The earliest of the 135mm f3.5's the chrom nose and the SC I have a simplier formula then the later versions. The Chrome nose and is known as a nice "Glow" portrait lens. Interestingly enough the one I had was bought from Jessups And was the only lens I could find affordable on our trip to Europe in 2003. Ended up hardly ever using it and sold it a couple years later. BUT it did have a very nice look to it.</p>

[gordon_yee]

<p>Actually, both of the New FD 135mm lenses (f/2.8 and f/3.5) were introduced at the same time (June 1979) and were on sale concurrently. While the f/2.8 version is only about 2/3 of a stop faster, it's a more complex optical formula and has an 8-bladed diaphragm. Think of it as an updated version of the FD 135mm f/2.5 SC lens. Unless you really need the extra speed, the f/3.5 version is a decent performer, readily available, cheap and light.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Alan, the heaviest 135mm FD prime is the FDn 135/2, weighing in at 670g. For a mere 5g more, you could use the FDn 80-200/4 L for hiking, and have much more focal length coverage. It might even replace some of the other lenses you take hiking, and thereby reduce the net weight you have to carry.</p>

<p>My single-lens-solution for hiking is the FDn 35-105/3.5, which gives me some wide angle and telephoto coverage. That zoom weighs in at 600g, and its barrel is quite long. But I find that its IQ is so good (as is that of the 80-200/4 L), it obviates the need for me to carry a bunch of primes.</p>

<p> </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You might look at some of the Spiratone lenses in the FD mount. At the start, they were pre-set and those are very light indeed. The later ones will have automatic apertures, but are still pretty light. Most of the Spiratone lenses were made by Tamron, Sigma, or a few others and are generally very decent optically.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>The Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Close Focusing lens is very good at 475 grams plus you get continuous true macro up to 1:2 mag. Very versatile. The Vivitar 70-150 f/3.5 Close Focusing lens (two-touch) at 550 grams is <em>very</em> compact, constant aperture, on board hood and extremely sharp. Surprisingly good close focusing capabillities, too.<br>

When hiking, I rarely take a standard 135mm. I like some flexibility to work closer without tubes, and getting some multiple focal length choices is a plus. Mark's suggestion of the nFD 80-200 f/4L zoom is a good one. Eye popping quality.</p>

[ben_hutcherson]

<p>I had a 135mm 3.5 at one time.<br>

<br /> It certainly wasn't a bad lens, and was very lightweight. It's also fairly compact in size.</p>

<p>Although I'm partial to the f2 version(the only 135mm I own, and a fanastic lens), if light weight is your goal, you can't go wrong with the f3.5.</p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>As for light weight, among the Canon lenses the FDn 135/3.5 and 2.8 are certainly the lightest, far lighter and trimmer than the breechlock 2.5 or the new 2.0.</p>

<p>The FDn 135/2.8 is shorter than the 3.5 by about 12-15mm. Its hood is also somewhat shorter, though its front element is larger. (I had not noticed before that the FDn 3.5 and the early chrome nose 3.5 are very similar in size.)</p>

<p>Holding them one in each hand, I can just feel the difference in weight. I cannot imagine it being a factor for me even in an all-day situation.</p>

<p>I picked up these lenses recently (no pun intended) and have not shot with them yet, so I can only speculate about relative performance.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have both the 135/3.5 and 135/2.8 New FD lenses. They are both good but I rarely use either of them. I second the recommendation of the 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing. It's a good general purpose 135 and the close focusing feature is very useful. I also use it for portraits. I have three of the 135/3.5 chrome front FD lenses and find them to be sharp. They have eight blades while the last 135/3.5 FD SC has only six. The chrome front f/3.5 is heavy and very sturdily built. Sigma made a 135/3.5 lens which is very compact. If you can find one of these you will love the size and weight. Soligor made a 135/2.8 C/D lens which is fairly compact. I have one in FD mount. The regular 135/2.8 Vivitar Fixed Mount (22XXX...) is not too large or heavy and is a good performer. I don't think the 135/3.5 Fixed Mount lens sold at the same time is as good. Another possibility is the 135/2.8 Vivitar TX. The earlier 135/2.5 TX was larger and heavier. The f/2.8 TX is small and light. I have mostly used mine on a Minolta X-700, with good results. Finally, if you don't mind stop down metering, the Canon 100/3.5 FL is small, light and surprisingly good. I have two of these and I use them when I don't want the extra weight of the 85/1.8 FL. </p>

[awahlster]

if I wanted a light weight hiking combo (since that was brought up) I would go with the amazing Tokina 28-70mm f2.8/3.5 SD (52mm filter size) and then the 75-200mm f4.5 nFD zoom and you would be covered from 28-200mm in two light weight lenses and since the majority of your shots would be in the mid range the excellent qualities of the little Tokina lens would suit you well. And both lenses use 52mm filters.

 

And the body would be an AE-1P

 

But that's just me.

[User_4136860]

<p>I think the new type FD 135mm f3.5 would be a good choice especially for £15 I'd risk being robbed.<br>

P.S One of the main reasons that Canon made the barrels of the new type lenses out of plastic was lightness .</p>

 

[astral]

<p>Thanks folks, All of your comments are very helpful. <br /> <br /> I'm fairly new to Canon FD (though not to photography) so there are key gaps in my lens line-up. My walking kit is normally a 2mm, a fast 35mm or 50mm, and a 100 or 135mm; even with zooms I'd end up with 3 lenses. And I use polarizing and graduated filters a lot, so primes are generally easier to use than zooms. But I have no hard-and-fast rules - it depends on the locale. </p>

<p>One important attribute of primes is the ability to use a really effective deep lens hood - crucial in the changeable, often cold, wet and windy weather on the tops of bleak British mountains - it ain't often calm like this:<br /> <a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2682/4063234945_ae07cd0c38_o.jpg"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2682/4063234945_8cc4740700.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="349" /> </a> <br /> <em>Langdale Pikes, Cumbria, England - sometimes a much longer lens would help</em></p>

<p>I guessed that the weights and dimensions of the 135mm Canons would not be grossly different, and there would be differences in the optical construction. Clearly the f2.8 <em>should </em> have a significant edge over the f3.5 at wider apertures, but the question is whether this is noticeable at f5.6 to f8.<br /> <br /> As there are no complaints about f3.5, the evolving plan seems to be to grab one for 'pennies' and hold out for a FD-fit f2.8 at a good price ... and maybe add lightweight Tokina zoom for my "grab-and-go / commuter-cam" Canon A1. <br /> <br /> Some of the suggested alternatives (Vivitar TX, etc) sound interesting, but are really uncommon in the UK, so I'll have to schlepp around some more camera fairs. However, the UK used photo market is shrinking rapidly nowadays. As for prices, 135mm f3.5 lenses outnumber the f2.8 ones by around 10:1 here, and dealer prices for a f2.8 are typically £95 compared to a <em>maximum </em> of £30 for the slower one. <br /> <br /> Many thanks everyone - I now have a (<em>long</em> ) 'wish-list' for the next camera fair.</p>

<p>PS it'd be nice to be able to edit titles of posts - "<em>Ligth</em> weight 135mm" indeed - I should be ashmade!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Alan - I often carry FD kit here in the Canadian Rockies but try and mix my kit up. Sometimes I will take 2 or 3 primes, other times I will take a zoom and a prime. The lenses I carry the most are a wide angle (one of 15 F2.8 fisheye, 17 F4, 24 f2 or 35 F2) and a short tele - either the 85 F1.2 or the 135 f2 both of which are large and heavy. As Mark says the 80-200 F4L and 35-105 F3.5 are both great zoom options and if I take a zoom it will be one of these two. About 20 years ago I bought a Vivitar 135 F2.8 as it was smaller and lighter. I have found that I do not use it but prefer to carry the 135 F2 for it's image quality. The other advantages of the 135 F2 are it's 72mm filter diameter which matches many other FD lenses (e.g. 17 F4, 85 F1.2, 35-105 f3.5) and it's built in lens hood. Unfortunately the 135 F2 is a heavy lens. I would be tempted to stick with your 135 F2.5 and perhaps add the 80-200 F4L zoom at some point. I suspect that you will buy the cheaper lens (like I did) but not carry it as you will miss the IQ of the 135 f2.5</p>

[alan_swartz]

<p>Here is most of the FD 135mm family for size comparison purposes. Left to right, FDn 3.5, FDn 2.8, FDn 2.0, breech 2.5, breech 3.5 "chrome nose."</p><div></div>

[ben_hutcherson]

<p>Alan,<br>

<br /> Fixed the thread title for you</p>

[astral]

<p>To be (sort of) topical, it's <em>trick or treat</em> night on a fave auction site ... There are several very interesting lenses that may go for a few "quid", plus several other bargains, hopefully! There's a 135mm f2 coming up in a few days time. They're the <em>tricks</em> . The <em>treats </em> have been a Leica Series polarizer and 28mm f3.5 SMC Takumar (SP-F version) .... oh, and a pack of Agfa APX 400 dated Nov. 2010.</p>

<p>The f2 looks a big beast, but it maybe academic as it could be beyond the (remaining) budget. A search through my favorite on-line shops has turned up an f2.8 at £95 GBP, so it's a "maybe" if I can haggle a little.</p>

<p>Certainly the 135mm f2.5 is a super lens; but if I decided to carry my favorite B/L lenses - let alone an f2 beastie - I'd need to start weight-training, or hire a Sherpa. Thanks all.</p>

[astral]

<p>Thanks Ben, my chelling specker doesn't check titles .....</p>

[peter_mcm.]

<p>I inherited my AE-1 outfit; it came with several lenses, including a very capable 135mm f/2.8 "Focal" brand (manufactured, I understand, for K-Mart).  Being an off-brand, I can't imagine it would be very pricey on the after-market.<br>

Alan: if you are "ashmade", I'm sure the right lens filter would make you look better!  :)</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>On two separate occasions lately, I noticed KEH offering a used breechlock/chrome nose Canon FD 135mm/3.5 lens (not labeled in the listing or on the front lens ring as S.C., but that is the coating) in excellent condition for $17 plus shipping. Interested parties should watch for the next one. At this price, it's a steal.</p>

[astral]

<p>Peter - There are certainly some surprises with the independent makers' lenses. I've had several excellent odd-ball lenses and some 'dogs'.</p>

<p>Today I pulled a Tamron AD2 135mm f2.5 out of the 'skeleton cupboard' (there are lots of things in there) and took some digital photos. It's unacceptably soft, even at f8: naturally this could be due to several things, one possibility is that it isn't focussing accurately on the dslr. The contrast is fairly low also: I expected a <em>little </em> better from a 'straight' 4-element Tamron.</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>The old preset T-mount 135mm/3.5 lenses are cheap, light, and often very sharp if in good shape. I have a Tele-Astranar that's surprisingly sharp wide open.</p>

[astral]

<p><em>Off topic question: </em><br>

I've been offered a 35mm f2 (pre-SC, chrome front & f16) for GBP£60 - nominally US$99 - in above average condition. I could use a back-up. Does that sound reasonable?</p>

[jacques_emanuel]

<p>Hello Alan - I've got some test reports made by Modern Photography in 74/75 and these reports show that the 135mm/3.5 is the best lens, it really outperforms the 135mm/2.5.<br>

And now I think about it - that is the generel rule - the slower lens is sharper than the faster. I checked several other brands in those reports and it is the same pattern. To mention a few Nikkor, Rokkor, Takumar.<br>

Unfortunately there isn't any report on the 35mm f2, but I would buy it - come on £60 isn't that much.</p>

[bob_miller4]

<p>I don't know if this affected sharpness, etc., but Canon changed the FD 135mm/3.5 S.C. lens formula in 1976, going from from 4 elements in 3 groups (like the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm/3.5 Sonnar) to 4 elements in 4 groups. The New FD version that followed was also 4/4. The test reports cited above by Jacques came before this 1976 optical design change.</p>