Are there any 135mm macro/micro lenses available?

[darinwc]

I am thinking that my 90mm Tamron macro is a little too short for field work. are there any 135mm macro lenses? I think that focal length would be ideal.

 

[Les Sarile]

What mount?
If you already have the focal lenght you want, have you considered adding extenders?

 

[btaylor]

Or bellows. I recently picked one up for a newly acquired Pentax SP 500 and screwed an old 135mm Takumar into it I had since the ‘70s. Went into the garden and made some very nice macro images. The 135 focal length is nice for the additional working distance you get.

 

[Oren Grad]

Well, if you use Canon EOS SLR cameras and have $2199 to spend, the TS-E 135mm f/4 Macro should be superb.

At more accessible prices, various vendors have offered 100 or 105mm macros, though that obviously won't be a huge difference compared to what you have now. Just on the far side of 135, I inherited from my dad a 150mm Spiratone Macrotel bellows-mount lens with a Spiratone T-mount bellows. I haven't used it in years so don't know how it would stack up against today's macro lenses, and of course it will be much clumsier in the field then a full-featured macro with helical and auto diaphragm. Mine's not for sale, but you should be able to find a set pretty cheap if you're in the mood to tinker.

 

[Oren Grad]

Lo and behold, there was evidently a 135mm Nikkor bellows lens too:

https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograp...esources/micronikkor/Bellow-Nikkor/index1.htm

 

[Toyo]

Yes, the SMC Pentax 67 / S-M-C Macro Takumar 6x7 135mm F4

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensre...-Takumar-6x7-135mm-F4-Lens.html#ixzz6AQfbaSUv

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

There was a Canon FD 200mm macro aimed primarily at people who photographed insects, butterflies, and other small things that are hard to get close to. I’m not sure if there’s an EF mount version.

 

[Dan Fromm]

If you can find one, a 135/2.8 Steinheil Auto Macro Tele Quinar might do for you. It was sold in Exakta and M42 mounts. Centuries ago I got one in Exakta mount for pennies, adapted it to Nikon with the help of two Novoflex adapters (NIKLEI-K and LEIEX, if I recall correctly). These added extension, reduced maximum focused distance to around 1m. Now somewhat of a cult lens and usually quite pricey. Mine was useful but not that good. As soon as Nikon introduced the 105/4 Micro-Nikkor I bought one and sold the Steinheil.

You might also look for the 200/4 MicroNikkor. The modern AF one, not the old 200/4 AIS. I've had 2 of the old ones (theft and replacement), they're not up to contemporary 55 and 105 MicroNikkors.

Finally, if you can live with bellows and manual diaphragm and can go a little longer, a 150/9 mm process lens will do nicely. Apo-Ronar, G-Claron, and Konica Hexanon GR II spring to mind. Or a 135/9 Apo-Saphir.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I am thinking that my 90mm Tamron macro is a little too short for field work. are there any 135mm macro lenses? I think that focal length would be ideal.

https://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_nkw...cro%2FClose%20Up&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

 

[Dan Fromm]

https://www.ebay.ca/sch/i.html?_nkw=135mm macro lens&_dcat=3323&Type=Macro%2FClose%20Up&rt=nc&_trksid=p2045573.m1684

You must be joking.

 

[BobD]

Vivitar Series 1 90-180mm/4.5 Flat Field Macro.
https://www.cameraquest.com/viv90180.htm

 

[ciniframe]

Rare and hard to find but,
Vivitar sold a 135mm f 2.8 ‘Close focusing’ lens in various mounts. Think it focused to one half life size. Not listed as a true macro it was not specially made to have a flat field.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Rare and hard to find but,
Vivitar sold a 135mm f 2.8 ‘Close focusing’ lens in various mounts. Think it focused to one half life size. Not listed as a true macro it was not specially made to have a flat field.

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but aren't all photographic objectives designed to have more-or-less flat fields? I can't think of one with designed-in field curvature. Can you?

 

[voceumana]

Rare and hard to find but,
Vivitar sold a 135mm f 2.8 ‘Close focusing’ lens in various mounts. Think it focused to one half life size. Not listed as a true macro it was not specially made to have a flat field.

A friend gave me one of the Vivitar 135's and it's a pretty nice lens. You can find some very nice sample of images made with it on the internet. Various mounts.

As to the flat field, well, a process lens (such as enlarging lens or copy lens) has a flat subject field and flat image field, whereas a normal taking lens design is not so worried about a perfectly flat subject field, as most subjects in the world except for process work are not a flat field.

 

[msage]

It would be helpful to know the lens mount!
Nikon made a 135mm but needed to be used on a bellows because it had no focus mount. Nikon makes Micro lens in 60, 105 and 200mm focal lengths(with aperture rings).

 

[Ian Grant]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but aren't all photographic objectives designed to have more-or-less flat fields? I can't think of one with designed-in field curvature. Can you?

I think that's a question for Jason (Nodda Dunna), my understanding is most lenses aren't flat field except those specifically designed as flat field for copying and enlarging and are flat field over a certain magnification range. The degree of field curvature will vary with lens design and how well it's corrected.

It wouldn't be a case of designing in field curvature rather how well it's corrected. There's a PeterPixel on field curvature and it shows it's bad with some lenses, the example is a Minolta Zoom. It goes without saying that most Zoom lenses will be poorer than prime lenses and that even with prime lenses there will be variations between design types.

In the OP's case a 135mm Componon S might make a good macro they were sold as such in a shutter but you lose aperture and and auto control compared to a dedicated Macro lens for an SLR,

Friends have the 90mm f2.5 SP Macro lens nd the dedicated extension tube and never have issues using them in the field for all sorts of wildlife work.

Ian

 

[Dan Fromm]

Friends have the 90mm f2.5 SP Macro lens nd the dedicated extension tube and never have issues using them in the field for all sorts of wildlife work.

Ian, it really depends on the wildlife. I've been able to stalk insects -- carefully -- with my 105/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS but not all animals are tolerant of close approach. For warier subjects in situations where there's plenty of room and magnification > 1:4 isn't needed, my 700/8 Questar works very well. But these lenses are scarce, expensive, large, heavy and not at all what the OP thinks he needs.

 

[choiliefan]

OT but I once stalked a local politician with a 500mm/8 Nikkor at an outdoor press conference.
Speaking of insects...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You must be joking.

Where are at least two 135 macro lenses. Not sure why you have problem with them.

 

[MattKing]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but aren't all photographic objectives designed to have more-or-less flat fields? I can't think of one with designed-in field curvature. Can you?

Most lenses have better flat field performance at distances approaching infinity.
If a lens is truly designed for macro use - as compared to just being usable at close range - its flat field performance will be optimized at or near the macro range.

 

[MattKing]

There is a 135mm f/4.5 Zuiko Macro lens designed to be used with the Olympus OM bellows unit or Zuiko Telescoping Auto Extension tube. It is designed, however, for working distances longer than 37 cm.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, it really depends on the wildlife. I've been able to stalk insects -- carefully -- with my 105/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS but not all animals are tolerant of close approach. For warier subjects in situations where there's plenty of room and magnification > 1:4 isn't needed, my 700/8 Questar works very well. But these lenses are scarce, expensive, large, heavy and not at all what the OP thinks he needs.

I quite agree Dan, I would suggest the OP trying other FL lenses like a 135mm and 200mm and extension tubes to see what FL he thinks will work best then look for a Micro/Macro lens.

Ian

 

[wiltw]

Not to be a complete idiot or anything, but aren't all photographic objectives designed to have more-or-less flat fields? I can't think of one with designed-in field curvature. Can you?

I can think of one relatively modern design lens and it has distinct CURVATURE of the focus 'plane' (not) and yet it focuses to macro distances and carries the 'macro' badge! Another, even more modern design lens, Tamron 18-200mm, has numerous comments from owners about curvature of field.

And then there is the old Nikkor 55mm f3.5 Micro Nikkor ...the f3.5 55mm micro was wonderfully planar when used close up yet nothing like planar if you focused out towards Infinity, so it did not perform well at all as a normal lens!

 

[wiltw]

There is a 135mm f/4.5 Zuiko Macro lens designed to be used with the Olympus OM bellows unit or Zuiko Telescoping Auto Extension tube. It is designed, however, for working distances longer than 37 cm.

Used with the Telescopic Auto Tube 65-116, the 135mm Macro focused as close as 0.45X at a working distance of 43mm
Used with the Auto bellows, it could do 1.0X at a working distance of 230mm

Adapted to Canon dSLR, with the Telescopic Auto Tube 65-116, the 135mm Macro focused as close as 0.5X at a working distance of 36.6mm

 

[mshchem]

Nikon 70-180mm AF-D zoom Micro Nikkor. I bought this to replace a 200 AF-D Micro Nikkor. The 200 is great for bugs, but too long for me. The zoom is a stop slower and gets sharper at f8. It's still got an aperture ring so it will work with any body. I've used with new DSLR bodies works great.