Let's hear it for 135mm

[2F/2F]

A Nikkor-Q 135mm f/3.5 is part of my "holy trinity" of lenses for general photography (28, 50/55, 135); it is my favorite AOV for tightly-framed portraits, and my favorite tight AOV for shooting landscapes. I don't care for 85's unless I am shooting basketball from the baseline or shooting an APS-C camera, in which case it it just shy of what a 135 feels like on film. I do like 100/105 lenses, though, especially since there are many great macro lenses of those lengths.

 

[Steve Smith]

A Nikkor-Q 135mm f/3.5 is part of my "holy trinity" of lenses for general photography (28, 50/55, 135).

I have the same three focal lengths for my Minolta XE-1 and have never thought I needed anything else.

I don't care for 85's

I have not tried an 85/90/105 but if one were to present itself to me for little money, I might try it out.


Steve.

 

[lxdude]

I think you mean:
010100110110111101101110011110010010000001100001011011000111000001101000011000010010000001100011011000010110111000100000011101000110000101101011011001010010000001001101011000010111100001111000011101010110110100100000011011000110010101101110011100110110010101110011001000000011101000101001000011010000101001000001011011000111000001101000011000010010000001100001001000000110011101101111011011110110010000100000011000110110100001101111011010010110001101100101001000000110100101101110001000000110010001101001011001110111100101110100011000010110110000101110


Steve.

Always the stickler, that's you!

 

[Pumalite]

I have a Nikkor-Q and an FD that see little use. I prefer 85mm. 100mm and 105mm.

 

[blockend]

I find it a strange focal length, honestly. I had a 135mm lens for my Pentax KX cameras, but have maybe used it for maybe a hundred frames in ten years.
1. It doesn't have enough reach to be something that gets really close. I prefer the perspective of a 50mm lens and just walking up to the subject matter.
2. The way it compresses the subject matter I find awkward. I have 100mm too and find that I use that much more often...

It's one of those lenses that just keep on hanging onto a spot in my camera bag, without actually getting used much. I should probably get rid of it and get a 200mm instead.

All fair points and shared by many, but in the end it's just another lens and there's usually a way of getting the best out of it. It is an odd length, probably best with slower film and shot wide open, or maybe from a higher vantage point with a deeper DoF for full length shots. Testing last night it seems a framed head and shoulders shot is about 12 ft away, maybe that's the zone to start pre-visualising.

Interestingly, there doesn't appear to be a 135mm Flickr group. Maybe time to rehabilitate the old girls.

 

[hpulley]

I've had an 85mm f/1.8 for my manual focus Canon bodies for years but I hardly ever use it for some reason. 100mm f/2.8 I use quite a bit. 135mm f/2 in autofocus I use a lot.

 

[Wade D]

The only lenses I have for my Exakta VX are a 50mm Tessar and a 135mm Vivitar, both f/2.8's. That's what I learned with in the late 60's. The 135 is great for candid shots.

 

[elekm]

I have a couple of 135s, and for certain cameras, I use them. I've also use it as a portrait lens, and I was very pleased with the photos.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

010100110110111101101110011110010010000001100001011011000111000001101000011000010010000001100011011000010110111000100000011101000110000101101011011001010010000001001101011000010111100001111000011101010110110100100000011011000110010101101110011100110110010101110011001000000011101000101001000011010000101001000001011011000111000001101000011000010010000001100001001000000110011101101111011011110110010000100000011000110110100001101111011010010110001101100101001000000110100101101110001000000110010001101001011001110110100101110100011000010110110000101110

Please don't confuse me!

Jeff

 

[David Lyga]

Two things that were hated by 'professionals' during the 70s were 50mm lenses and 135mm lenses. They were always referred to as having the 'wrong' focal length. The '50' was too long (the 'profs' chose the 35 or the 28 instead) and the 135mm was too long also (the 'profs' chose the 105mm).

In a way they were right about the 135. I never could figure out way there was such a wide gap in the consumer market between the 50 and 135. Why wasn't a 90 chosed to be the 'standard' telephoto: it would have been more amenable for protraits and would not have made such a large gap in focal length between the next smaller 'standard': the 50.

Few 135s are not sharp as a tack. They are clearly underestimated and unappreciated if one looks at pricing. I have taken apart perhaps 100 such lenses to thoroughly clean the elements and can say the the optical design is usually very simple. - David Lyga

 

[Paul VanAudenhove]

Few 135s are not sharp as a tack. They are clearly underestimated and unappreciated if one looks at pricing. I have taken apart perhaps 100 such lenses to thoroughly clean the elements and can say the the optical design is usually very simple. - David Lyga

It was always my understanding that the simplicity of the design of 135s was the reason there were so many of them made. I seem to remember reading something back in the day that stated they were easy to design and build well - and therefore were usually the least expensive to buy as a second lens.

 

[brucemuir]

My 135L in EF is the sharpest lens I own for 135, probably.

 

[blockend]

Two things that were hated by 'professionals' during the 70s were 50mm lenses and 135mm lenses.

Yep. One of the many myths that kept the Pro's behind their magic curtain and the rest of in awed ignorance. I still hear people repeating that 'wrong focal length' stuff today.

 

[fstop]

Its not the wrong focal length, its just not suitable for a particular shot.
The lens manufacturers know a lot more about lenses than anyone else, they wouldn't produce the "wrong" lens because they are in the business of selling lenses.
There are pros and there are "pros"

I got my first new 35mm slr in the 70s during the SLR craze. Dealers were pushing 135s pretty hard and people were buying, a large part of the reason was the price jump going from 135mm to 200mm and beyond.
Typically going from 135 to 200 was double or more.

 

[blockend]

Typically going from 135 to 200 was double or more.

I remember that. Most production costs are in set up, if a company could guarantee to sell two million 85mm F1.4s a year, they'd cost £150, not ten times that much. Marque lenses are well built but manufacturers also know where the niche markets are, and if they can make people believe there's magic in a 105mm, they'll put on whatever price tag they can get away with.

A focal length is what it is, greater magnification, shallower DOF, or vice versa. If your subject fits in the frame it's the correct lens for the job. I suppose I'm trying to find out if people think 135mm is the ugly sister of focal lengths for a reason, or if they'd just been invented and promoted in the hands of top photographers, would everyone want one?

 

[Roger Cole]

A bit too long to be short and too short to be long. I had a couple back in the day. I like them within reason, but something around 100mm is more generally useful to me. OTOH they do make a good portrait lens - a bit long but workable. A good candid lens as folks here have suggested.

Not as bad as the pro disdain of the 70s would have indicated, but no magic bullet either. All things considered, a lens - if it fits your style and your photos, use one. They are typically of good optical quality for the money.

 

[fstop]

True, if a prominent photographer was using an Acme 135mm a whole bunch of people would own Acme 135 lenses.

I wouldn't worry what anyone thinks. The 135mm I have gets flare when shooting sunsets/sunrises (after thinking about the number of shots I made with my 135 I found it actually was my most used lens for sunsets) some people will gripe about the flare being a "flaw", I thought it added a feel/mood to the image.

 

[agphotography]

I'm quite a fan of my 135mm f/2L for my EOS cameras. It's a splendid lens

 

[narsuitus]

I use 28mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.4, and 135mm f/3.5 lenses for general shooting on my Pentax M42 screw mount 35mm cameras.

I have never owned a 135mm for my Nikon bayonet mount 35mm cameras because I prefer the faster 35 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, and 180mm f/2.8 lenses for general shooting with the Nikons.

However, if I ever got a good deal on a 135mm f/2 Nikon lens, I would have to reconsider my preferences.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

This thread has spurred me to use my 135mm lens again. I'll put it on the camera and won't take if off until I've used a whole roll. Should be good fun.

 

[hpulley]

This thread has spurred me to use my 135mm lens again. I'll put it on the camera and won't take if off until I've used a whole roll. Should be good fun.

I do that sometimes with a lens I'm not using much. Funny, I find I sometimes take my best shots when doing this silliness...

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I do that sometimes with a lens I'm not using much. Funny, I find I sometimes take my best shots when doing this silliness...

I have been known to bring only one lens on photo trips. Photostock 2008 was a good example where I only brought a 150mm lens for my Mamiya 645, and made it work for the whole duration. That made me some of my best negatives ever, and a staunch believer that "It's all in the mind".
But of course we develop favorites... Why and how I don't know.

 

[benjiboy]

A bit too long to be short and too short to be long. I had a couple back in the day. I like them within reason, but something around 100mm is more generally useful to me. OTOH they do make a good portrait lens - a bit long but workable. A good candid lens as folks here have suggested.

Not as bad as the pro disdain of the 70s would have indicated, but no magic bullet either. All things considered, a lens - if it fits your style and your photos, use one. They are typically of good optical quality for the money.

I agree, it's a compromise focal length that was popular before 80-200 mm zooms were optically any good that tries to be a 100mm and a 200mm combined for people who didn't want to buy both, and it fails at both.

 

[blockend]

I put a roll of Portra 400 through an AV-1 and a 135mm F3.5 at the weekend. Waiting to do a batch of C41 to see the results.

 

[darinwc]

I really like the 135mm for portraits outdoors. It is much easier to get close without having to be in someones face.