Having given up finding a budget Nikon portrait lens for my Nikkormat, I switched over to Canon. The original idea was to use the Canon lens w/ a glassless adapter on the Mat, but you can't, unless you want to shoot no more than about 12" away! The Canon 135 lenses are dirt cheap and delivered very good results, especially the tiny, early FL 135 3.5. I also tested the New FD 135 3.5 (too contrasty, quite ugly or bland IQ, depending on the subject), and the venerable FD SC 135 2.5. Both the 2.5 and FL are keepers, but I'm just going to keep the FL. It's small and light, low contrast, and has softish tones wide open, which is perfect for portraits. The FD SC 135 2.5 will blur the background more, but it's big and heavy, so I don't want to carry it. My test camera was a FTb parts camera that I pulled out of a box, and other than some shutter capping at 1/1000 and some easily fixed light leaks on the back, it worked just fine. No filters were used. The FL lens is 4 elements in 3 groups, the FD SC 2.5 lens is 6 elements in 5 groups, and the New FD lens is 4 elements in 4 groups. In terms of age, this is from early to late.
Everything was handheld except for the self portrait (hard to nail this by yourself, as I cut off the bottom here), the table & chair shot, and the frogs. Considering that I was shooting Haley in a coffee house at 1/30 w/ a 135 lens, I'm happy. The tripod shots are obviously sharper. Lens type and apertures used should be visible on the bottom of the pics. Film was Arista EDU Ultra 100 that was metered at 100 (next time I may change that) and developed in Microdol-X full strength. I always shoot portraits handheld because I think it captures a more spontaneous and relaxed subject, but for sure an 85 or 100 lens would be better for this, as you can handhold it easier than a 135 at slow speeds. For the money though, which was $13 for the FL 135 3.5 (beater), $25 for the New FD 135 3.5 (mint in original box), and $26 for the FD SC 135 2.5 (cloudy inside, but easily opened up for a good cleaning), this will work great. I really like this little FL 135 3.5 lens.
Everything was handheld except for the self portrait (hard to nail this by yourself, as I cut off the bottom here), the table & chair shot, and the frogs. Considering that I was shooting Haley in a coffee house at 1/30 w/ a 135 lens, I'm happy. The tripod shots are obviously sharper. Lens type and apertures used should be visible on the bottom of the pics. Film was Arista EDU Ultra 100 that was metered at 100 (next time I may change that) and developed in Microdol-X full strength. I always shoot portraits handheld because I think it captures a more spontaneous and relaxed subject, but for sure an 85 or 100 lens would be better for this, as you can handhold it easier than a 135 at slow speeds. For the money though, which was $13 for the FL 135 3.5 (beater), $25 for the New FD 135 3.5 (mint in original box), and $26 for the FD SC 135 2.5 (cloudy inside, but easily opened up for a good cleaning), this will work great. I really like this little FL 135 3.5 lens.
Last edited by a moderator:
