135mm SLR lens; Why are they so cheap?

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

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...

Remember point #3.
The Canon 135 mm f 2.0 FD lens, wasn't all that good.
So, this Canon 85 vs. Nikon 105 mm, has been going on for a very long time.

One related aside, I've been an avid reader of portrait & glamour books, for a very long time.
Long before Digital complicated everything. Every time an author would say that you needed a 105 mm, or longer to shoot with, you look at their equipment recommendations & they would be using Nikon. If they said an 85 mm, they would be using Canon &
not necessarily the f 1.2 L, either.

 

[2F/2F]

The Canon 135 mm f 2.0 FD lens, wasn't all that good.

I highly disagree. The lens is darned good.

 

[Hamster]

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.

Does remind me about Austin Powers and his Nikon.

 

[elekm]

There are some 135mm lenses that only focus down to 11 feet, which really makes them unusable for portrait work.

Some lenses of the same focal length will get down to about four feet, which is a very usable distance.

I had forgotten about that until someone brought it up.

Regarding the low price, I think it's because 1) there are so many of them still available, and 2) they're perceived to be an "amateur" lens.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

Seeing this thread has got me thinking - on a couple of counts:

1) I used to have a 135mm f2.8 for my OM cameras and, subsequently, for my A1 / T90. I used them for a variety of purposes; candid portraits at weddings, compressing perspective on some landscape shots / sunsets and the like. These days, I have a Zuiko 75-150mm f4 for my OMs - which is a nice lens, if a little slow.

2) I also use digital. A 135mm f2.8 Nikkor becomes a 203mm f2.8 when on the front on my D300 (though it's still a 135mm on the front of my D700!!) and becomes a very useful piece of kit - for not a whole lotta dosh. If I could get hold a 135mm f2....!!!

Thank you to the thread starter for whetting my appetite for a couple of additional - and hopefully cheap - lenses......

PJ.

 

[Tim Gray]

Remember point #3.
The Canon 135 mm f 2.0 FD lens, wasn't all that good.
So, this Canon 85 vs. Nikon 105 mm, has been going on for a very long time.

It'd be for EOS. So either a $400 100/2 or an $800 135/2 L. Or neither. haha.

 

[benjiboy]

I have a 135mm lens but don't use it for portraiture because I feel it flattens the features too much, I much prefer the 85mm or 100mm, they were very popular twenty years ago as a do everything lens, but in fact they IMO are neither flesh nor fowl a 100mm and a 200mm is a much more usefull option for general photography .

 

[filmamigo]

Whenever I've been asked to shoot headshots or portraits, I break out the Hanimex 135 on my Spotmatic F. I use it all the way to full body -- you just have to get back a ways! You need to pick your exterior locations carefully. The flattening of features is very flattering, and I have gotten my most complementary reactions when I shoot a 135.

I have found 135mm to be the perfect length for shooting parades, because they handhold well and let you pick out faces. I also like it for indoor event photography, like a graduation. I can't afford 70-200 2.8 glass, so the 135/2.8 or 2.5 delivers a nice bright moderate telephoto image.

 

[Tom Reardon]

I use 135 a lot for theatre work

 

[Q.G.]

Regarding the low price, I think it's because 1) there are so many of them still available, and 2) they're perceived to be an "amateur" lens.

By whom?
Only "amateurs" would consider a lens an "amateur" lens based upon focal length.
"Amateurs" in "" because the vast majority of amateurs isn't that silly to do so. The other bunch, professionals, aren't either.

The reason why they are so cheap is not a (lack of) bragging-power thing.

The reason why they are so cheap is that there are so many available, because there were many made.
Economics of scale, both now (many available) and then (many made).

The reason why there were so many made is that they were so popular.

 

[Dennis S]

I brought up this thread about the 135mm lens. He said, "A 135mm lens can't be beat for photographing people during surveillance work, across even a four lane highway". "I've been using one since the 70s".

That is one of the best reasons for using a 135. I use the old heavy weight Canon FD. Land scape photography work I do enables me to photograph gardens without trampling the roses !

 

[benjiboy]

Tell that to all those folks plonking down close to a grand for the Canon 135 F2 L. I've been taking a portrait photography class at the Smithsonian, and on a number of occasions I would have loved to have the 135 F2 instead of my 24-105 that came with the camera kit. At 105, I still feel a little too close to my subject when filling the frame with their face. And the F2 gives an amazing compressed depth of field with super smooth out-of-focus areas.

I have a canon FD 135mm lens but dont use it for portraiture, because it compresses perspective and tends to flatten the features, I much prefer the 85 or 100mm.

 

[Ken N]

I quite agree about the compressed perspective and flattened features of using a 135mm lens. It's not the lens's fault--it's the working distance! But horrors among horrors, what has been the "look" in digital portraiture? Highly flattened portraits because of longer than normal focal-length lenses on crop-sensor cameras. 70-200mm lenses on crop sensors? The FF 35mm digital cameras help matters, but the 70-200, shot mostly between 135 and 200mm remains. Maybe this is one reason why Medium-Format portraits have such dimensionality to them?

 

[fschifano]

That and the enhanced tonal gradation you get because the negatives have not been enlarged to a great degree are the two big reasons I can think of.

 

[2F/2F]

I personally like the highly flattened look for a lot of portraits. 135mm to 300mm are all lengths I have enjoyed using for tight shots of people. Not so much 85/100/105 for a really tight shot, but definitely for lots of other shots. On an average location portrait shoot with 35mm, I like to have a 35, a 50, an 85, and a 135. If I had to pick one, it would probably be the 85 or 135. Every lens that I have used has been useful for something. I find them all to be extremely versatile. 50 and 135 are the ones that I personally use for the widest variety of pix.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

Not all Canon 135 mm's are " L " sharp.

I highly disagree. The 135 mm f 2.0 FD lens is darned good.

You will say what you will, BUT, you can tell the difference between images shot with the Canon 85 mm f 1.2 L FD lens & the 135 mm f 2.0 FD lens.
It doesn't have the same sharpness.

However, the EOS " L " versions of both are equally sharp.

I've owned all 4. This is my opinion, so in my opinion this is so.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Just as an aside, if Carl Zeiss made a 135 mm f 2.0 lens in the new series, would you buy one ?

 

[benjiboy]

You will say what you will, BUT, you can tell the difference between images shot with the Canon 85 mm f 1.2 L FD lens & the 135 mm f 2.0 FD lens.
It doesn't have the same sharpness.

However, the EOS " L " versions of both are equally sharp.

I've owned all 4. This is my opinion, so in my opinion this is so.

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Just as an aside, if Carl Zeiss made a 135 mm f 2.0 lens in the new series, would you buy one ?

No I wouldn't, I'm not a big fan of the focal length I don't often use my 135 mm lens , I don't worry about the quality of my lenses,( they are all Canon FD) only my abililty to take good pictures with them .

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

You will say what you will, BUT, you can tell the difference between images shot with the Canon 85 mm f 1.2 L FD lens & the 135 mm f 2.0 FD lens.
It doesn't have the same sharpness.

And perspective...?
What is an f1.2 L lens in the FD mount? Most educational...

 

[Pumal]

And perspective...?
What is an f1.2 L lens in the FD mount? Most educational...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_L_lens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_L_lens
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD

Neither of these Wiki articles is particularly factual or skilled, especially relation to "discontinued" optics.

I certainly do not need reminding what a Canon L-series lens is; the query was in relation to the vagueness of the initial statement.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I quite agree about the compressed perspective and flattened features of using a 135mm lens. It's not the lens's fault--it's the working distance! But horrors among horrors, what has been the "look" in digital portraiture? Highly flattened portraits because of longer than normal focal-length lenses on crop-sensor cameras. 70-200mm lenses on crop sensors? The FF 35mm digital cameras help matters, but the 70-200, shot mostly between 135 and 200mm remains. Maybe this is one reason why Medium-Format portraits have such dimensionality to them?

What disturbs me being a viewer of portraits on d**** is the razor sharpness that seems to be a 'must-have' / gospel thing nowadays; it is truly awful, with the Av set so deep it makes a portrait a travesty. Every little wrinkle, pimple, fold and bulge must be included in absolute sharpness, but says who!? And why!? Ye Gods, when I did portraiture subjects really wanted to be pictured sympathetically, if not in soft-focus (which was very common in the 80s). BTW, 35-135mm zooms — of a quality nowhere near what we have today — were in use then amongst students; 135 primes were conspicuous on Pentax K1000 and Nikon bodies (I used the latter— an F3HP).

 

[Christopher Walrath]

I ordered two 135 MD's from sleezebay from two different sellers and both were crap. I have never tried to acquire another one again.

 

[Pumal]

I have at least 8 135mm lenses of different brands. All very good. I don't use them for portraits, but they have their use.

 

[elekm]

By whom?
Only "amateurs" would consider a lens an "amateur" lens based upon focal length.
"Amateurs" in "" because the vast majority of amateurs isn't that silly to do so. The other bunch, professionals, aren't either.

The reason that they were perceived as amateur lenses is that most off brands were aimed at amateur photographers and not pros. That's what I meant.

And that's why there are so many out there, not because Pentax made six billion of them. It's because there are so many from the big manufacturers, as well as from third parties, including those rebadged as Sears, Montgomery Wards, J.C. Penney and many other minor lens makers.

And those are the ones that were bought by amateurs and not pros.

 

[Vanishing Point Ent.]

The Canon 135 mm f 2.0 FD lens is no match for the Canon 135 mm f 2.0 EF L lens.

I highly disagree. The lens is darned good.

Bu it's not GREAT & it's not " L " sharp. I think that you miss the point.

The point is, that now that the EOS EF 135 mm f 2.0,
is an " L ", it's a match for the 85 f 1.2 L lens.

The FD 135 mm f 2.0 is not. You can see the difference if you compared the 2 side by side. I did.

That's the other reason, I changed to Canon EOS,
from Canon FD.

I have a friend that decided based on a Canon 200 mm f 2.8, FD lens a Nikkor
180 mm f 2.8 ED & a Leica 180 mm f 3.4 APO, lenses, to get an R5.
He based his decisions on the wrong lens, I thought. He always hated the Leica.
It was a test of apples & oranges.

The 135 mm f 2.0 FD lens, is like the 200 mm f 2.8
FD lens. It's just not " L ", sharp.
Hell, my 80 - 200 mm f 2.8 SP Tamron & my 100 -
300 mm f 4.0 ATX Tokina, were sharper.

I've owned all of these lenses & shot Velvia 50 through all of these lenses.

Now tell me I'm wrong.
The 135 mm f 2.0 FD may be very good,
but it's not Great, because it's not " L " sharp.