135mm SLR lens; Why are they so cheap?

[firecracker]

I prefer to use 135mm more than 85-90mm or 100-105mm because my main lens is 50mm on the 35mm system, and 200mm seems a bit awfully too long, and the 200mm lenses are usually a bit bigger and bulkier I like...

 

[2F/2F]

They are so cheap because they were a popular length, and were often made in various different "quality" levels by the same manufacturer. For instance, for Canon FD there is the 3.5, the 2.5, the 2.8, and the 2.0. For Nikon there is the 3.5, the 2.8, and the 2.0. (These are just off the top of my head. There may be even more.) They are kind of like a 50mm. High demand made for a lot of quantity over the years, and various models for various budgets made for many very affordable versions (which also are much smaller and lighter, so are quite useful IMO). One common standard three lens setup - and my personal favorite - is 28-50-135. That is what I shot with almost entirely on my recent 65-roll cross-country trip. (I also used a 200 for a good number of rolls, and a 17 for a few special shots, but the vast majority was shot on 50 and 28, and quite a bit on the 135.) When I got my Nikon F, I purchased the exact kit the original owner had bought. It came with 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.4, and 135mm f/3.5 (the cheapie of the lot).

 

[Q.G.]

But why aren't 85mm lenses as easy and cheap to make?

Because they are not as popular. No 'scale' advantage.

 

[naaldvoerder]

But why aren't 85mm lenses as easy and cheap to make? I would love to have the Minolta MD 85mm/2, but the speed of the lens seems to keep the price up on eBay. Why wouldn't Minolta have made an 85/2.8 at a more economical price point? As regards Minolta MC and MD lenses, the original poster is definitely right: 135s are plentiful and cheap.

I own the Minolta MD 85/2.0. It's a lovely lens and handsomely compact. I also own the CZ 85mm/1.4 and the CZ85mm/2,8. There must be something wrong with me...

Jaap Jan Helder

 

[Aklens200]

I to agree with most of what is said above, the focal length is just not useable for much.
Rich

 

[mudman]

I love the 135 focal length for shooting concerts. Small, easy to handle and I have enough working distance to get good head and 3/4 body shots.

 

[MattKing]

I started out with a 28mm, 50mm, 135mm trio and was happy with it for quite a while. The 135mm f/3.5 Olympus Zuiko was tiny, and sharp but it really was "in between" as far as field of view.

Eventually I ended up with 24mm, 35mm and 85mm (mainly), and I like that trio much better.

I expect that the advent of better quality zooms probably has as much to do as anything with the decline in popularity of 135mm lenses.

One thing that surprises me though - why aren't 135mm lenses more popular among those that shoot the smaller sensor d*g*tal cameras that share lens mounts with the earlier film bodies? A smallish 200 - 270mm lens is quite nice.

Matt

 

[2F/2F]

I to agree with most of what is said above, the focal length is just not useable for much.
Rich

Perhaps this is true for you. We all shoot different things, however. Here are situations in which I use a 135 vs. normal:

1. To allow myself to move farther from the subject

a. This makes the subject appear to have less depth; as all things look to the human eye when they are viewed from farther away. This can "two dimensionalize" things (including people) quite beautifully. Gives them that "far away" look.
b. This narrows the width of the background if you keep magnification of the foreground subject the same. Doing this allows one to avoid unwanted background elements and utilize more specific areas of the background to create the desired field.
c. This allows one to get in tight on someone or something without being in their face.
d. This can allow a "normal" angle of view shot with a reduced possibility of being noticed by the subject.

2. To have a narrower angle of view when I am literally (or effectively) stuck in one place.

a. If I am shooting a landscape pic, for example, and I want a tight shot of something that is 25 miles away. I can't just walk closer with my 50mm. Another example would be if I want to crop in on any far away element, such as a field of trees on an opposite ridge.
b. If I cannot pass a certain point (for instance onto the stage at a show, or climb onto a hill where firefighters are shoveling right next to the flames).

These are reasons that will be applicable to the average person's photography, so I would say it is a good lens for the average photographer; someone who shoots a mixed variety of pix in a mixed variety of situations. If you fall far from the average photographer, and focus on more specific types of pictures, you are more likely to either find it useful or find it useless for your "work". That's how averages work out.

 

[darinwc]

One thing that surprises me though - why aren't 135mm lenses more popular among those that shoot the smaller sensor d*g*tal cameras that share lens mounts with the earlier film bodies? A smallish 200 - 270mm lens is quite nice.

Matt

Probably because the kit zoom lens covers that.

 

[IloveTLRs]

135mm RF lenses are pretty cheap, too. Especially Canon. It's a weighty beast, but works nicely (and I prefer chrome to plastic.)

 

[nyoung]

Granted I'm an old school prime lens kinda guy, but I don't get the "its difficult to find anything the focal length is good for" posters.

Any lens is good for whatever it frames that you like in the view finder.

Sometimes its a working distance you like for portraits. Sometimes its a tighter frame on a landscape you can't easily get too. Other times, its a looser frame to include a background element that tells a story.

Personally I keep two 85s, a 100, a 105, a 135, a 180 and a 200. I rarely carry them all but I pack different combinations depending on how much weight I want to carry, the shooting ranges I may encounter (sports, concerts, crowded streets etc.) and most of all, the light I am expecting.

Next time I get a $1000 lottery ticket I'll probably be looking at the 135/2 for the trade off between speed, price and reach.

 

[Ken N]

The 135mm focal length was generally considered the longest focal length you can reliably hand-hold. From a FoV perspective, 135mm is actually closer to halfway between 100mm and 200mm than 150mm.

That said, I've never quite got along with 135mm as my 100mm is so exceptional.

 

[elekm]

I use a 135 with a rangefinder and an SLR. I find it to be a very nice focal length.

I think the 135 is a bargain lens and well worth its (usual) bargain price.

 

[2F/2F]

The 135mm focal length was generally considered the longest focal length you can reliably hand-hold. From a FoV perspective, 135mm is actually closer to halfway between 100mm and 200mm than 150mm.

That said, I've never quite got along with 135mm as my 100mm is so exceptional.

200mm can be easily hand held in sufficient light. Even with a 100 film, you can shoot at '1000 at f/5.6 on a clear and sunny day. Use an 800 film and you've got the same exposure in open shade. I hand hold a 200mm lens fairly frequently (Canon FD 2.8), and a 300, though less often (Canon FD f/4). I have also used the Canon EF 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8 IS; always hand held when I had them; on 1.3x and 1.6x digital sensors and with 1.4 TC, no less. For 35mm, as long as you can get '1000 with your light, film, and apertures, you can do it very reliably. At that speed, it is not even a struggle to get a sharp shot, unless you or your subject are moving around a lot.

So, if it was generally considered so, the general consideration was wrong. It would not be the first time...

 

[unohuu]

my most used lenses are 35mm and 135mm focal length. I guess that makes me seriously unprofessional

wayne

not unprofessional Wayne....you are just hearing the beat of your own drummer.

Luke

 

[Q.G.]

That said, I've never quite got along with 135mm as my 100mm is so exceptional.

I found good use for both.
It's not an either-or thing.

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I own the Minolta MD 85/2.0. It's a lovely lens and handsomely compact. I also own the CZ 85mm/1.4 and the CZ85mm/2,8. There must be something wrong with me...

Jaap Jan Helder

I have 8 85/90mm lenses + a 105mm... How wrong is that?

I also have 2 135mms in M42; one a Schacht-Ulm, which, if as good as its 90mm little brother, should be pretty spectacular, the other a Schacht-München which should be a triplet - an excellent soft-focus lens.

But I've never used either, even though I keep promising myseöf to do so.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

What is your kit lens spread ?

Most of what has been said here is true. But a couple of things have been left out. I use my prime lenses in a studio, shooting people, so my opinion is based on this context.

1. Effective use of the 135 mm lens, seems to depend on your lens spread & this doesn't seem to be discussed much.
EX. I would use a 50 mm lens for 3/4 - full length shots. The 85 mm for Head & Shoulders & the 135 mm for tight head shots. If you are using a 100 mm lens, there isn't much of a need for a 135 mm, at least for working in a studio.

2. Generally, there is a tendency for Canon people to go for the 85 mm & Nikon people to go for the 100 mm lens. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this but, I've been keeping track of this for awhile & it's weird, how often this seems to be the case.

3. The final point, is the Canon 135 mm f 2.0 in FD mount, is not " L " quality. This was one happy change that was made when Canon went to the EF mount. By being an " L ", the EF version is an excellent match for the 85 f 1.2 L lens. They make a great combination. When I shot with the FD lenses, you could always tell, which was the " L " & which one wasn't.

I've owned all 4 of the lenses referred to. I still am very happy with the EF lenses. I'm looking to get a 50 mm Macro, to round out this kit. I need the Macro, more than the 50 mm " L ".

One last thing, I had a chance to try a 50 mm f 1.0 L lens. Everyone, says that the 85 mm f 1.2 L lens focuses slowly. They have no idea, compared to the 50 mm f 1.0 L, the 85 mm f 1.2 L is fast. I've never had any complaints with it.

 

[wayne naughton]

not unprofessional Wayne....you are just hearing the beat of your own drummer.

Luke

You're very kind Luke...grin.

 

[Samuel Hotton]

I'm not totally sure why the 135mm lens is less expensive. I think its because they have been available for so long and were very popular.
One of the interesting things about the 135mm lens is that of using the rule to shoot at a shutter speed no slower than your lens focal length. So in this case 1/125 of a second. Subjects in open shade are about EV11. EV11 at 1/125th = f stop 4 with a 100 asa film, OR f stop 2.8 with a 50 asa film.
I think one of the reasons for the popularity of the 135mm lens was that it was about the longest focal length you could hand hold with the slower speed emulsions encountered decades ago. With 25 asa chrome, one could still shoot 125th on a cloudy bright day with no shadows hand held. They were a marvel in their day and I agree that for tennis photography they are very good.
Sam H.

 

[Tim Gray]

2. Generally, there is a tendency for Canon people to go for the 85 mm & Nikon people to go for the 100 mm lens. I'm sure I'll be flamed for this but, I've been keeping track of this for awhile & it's weird, how often this seems to be the case.

I think think this is because the Canon L's are the 85 and the 135. So the 100 kind of gets left out in the cold. Rightly so if you have both 85 and 135.

I've been bouncing around on getting a short telephoto for my Canon SLR. I like the idea of the 100/2 - small, fast, and cheaper than the 135/2. At the same time, the 135 is supposed to be great. And its not *that* much more expensive, though it is bigger. I have a 90 for my RF, so maybe the 135's extra reach makes a bit more sense...

 

[dynachrome]

I got my first 135 in 1973. It was the Vivitar f/2.8 Fixed Mount (28xxx...). It was and is a very sharp lens. What I didn't like about it was the minimum focusing distance. I traded it for a Konica 135/3.2 Hexanon which focused to three feet. After the standard lens which came with my camera my second lens was a 28 and the Vivitar 135 was my third. Beginners tend to want a lens which is significantly shorter or longer than their standard one. I actually like to take portraits with a 135 as long as I can focus close enough. I rarely use a lens longer than 105mm indoors so a 135 is usually an outdoor lens for me.

Of my many 135s in various mounts these are some of my favorites: 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing - goes to 1:2, Vivitar 135/2.3 Series 1 - this one focuses to three feet, 135/2.8 Nikkor QC - this lens has very nice out of focus rendition at or near wide open, 135/2.8 'K' Nikkor - nice new look, same optical design, 135/2.5 Canon FL - fast, sharp and with decent out of focus rendition, 135/2.5 Canon FD SC - different design from FL but with similar qualities, 13.5CM Nikkor - very old but still excellent if lighting isn't too tricky, 135/3.5 Canon FD Chrome Front - heavy as lead and excellent if lighting isn't too tricky. My Minolta 135s are all nice but do not get close enough. I prefer to shoot Minolta portraits with a 100/2.5 MC. I like this lens so much I have three of them but one is on a long term loan to a friend. The MC version I have goes to 4 feet. That's good for adults but for small children I switch to a 90 macro. My other Canon 135s are also nice but I prefer to use a 100/2.8 FD lens or an 85/1.8 for portraits if I don't have a Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing lens handy. The pre-AI 135/2.8 Nikkors have such smooth out of focus rendition that I sometimes prefer them to my 105/2.5 Nikkors if I don't need to get quite so close.

 

[removed-user-1]

I find 135mm to be a very good focal length for astrophotography. It captures some of the larger nebulae at a decent size while showing the star fields they are located in. Also, it seems to be a sweet spot for minimizing optical aberrations: too short for chromatic aberration to be a problem, and too long for astigmatism and coma. I've found that I can shoot astro with my Pentax 135 wide open without getting defective stars in the corners of the frame.

I have also used the M42 Pentax Super-Takumar 135/3.5 for astrophotography. It's long enough to get decent shots of things like bright comets, and short enough that you can do non-tracked exposures of several seconds on most subjects (depending on their relation to the celestial pole, of course). This works fine with 3200 speed film. Somewhere I have a print of Comet Hale-Bopp (1997) that was done this way...

Also, the 135 is actually a pretty good walking around lens for candids and some street photos... a 105 or 85 is a little short for that and a 200 or an 80-200 is a little heavy (not to mention conspicuous).

 

[Samuel Hotton]

A different answer. I just finished talking on the telephone to a 30 year veteran police / detective type. He is somewhat interested in photo. I brought up this thread about the 135mm lens. He said, "A 135mm lens can't be beat for photographing people during surveilance work, across even a four lane highway". "I've been using one since the 70s".
Hows that for a different thought on the 135mm lens. Amazing!
Sam H.

 

[Lee L]

A different answer. I just finished talking on the telephone to a 30 year veteran police / detective type. He is somewhat interested in photo. I brought up this thread about the 135mm lens. He said, "A 135mm lens can't be beat for photographing people during surveilance work, across even a four lane highway". "I've been using one since the 70s".
Hows that for a different thought on the 135mm lens. Amazing!
Sam H.

Actually, this relates closely to my earlier post about the 135 being descended from the longest common rf lens decades back. A friend of mine's father was a CIA field op in the 50's. His standard issue photographic surveilance kit included a Leica rf and 135mm lens. Handholdable, quiet, discrete.

I've used a 135 Hektor on an rf body with a 1:1 finder for soccer with excellent results. Got asked a lot if it was a new digital.

Lee