Olympus Zuiko 135mm f3.5 or..

[benjiboy]

Darin, I own a 135mm lens (Canon FD) I find it too long for portraits,except tight head shots (where it tends to compress perspective and give my sitters flat faces) and too short as a telephoto they were very popular in the sixties because most people saw them as do everything compromise between buying a 85 or100mm and a ,180 or 200mm in addition in the days before zoom lenses became affordable and fashionable .
an 85 or 100 is in my experience much more compact, handles and balances better on the camera ,and is better to use with on camera strobe.
My advice would be to wait until you can afford a 100mm f2.8 which is not only a very good portrait lens, but a great walk around lens that will go in your pocket.

 

[oscroft]

Bit late on the thread here, but I have all three of the following lenses - 135/3.5, 100/2.8, and 85/2, and I like and use them in the opposite order to that...

The 135/3.5 is a perfectly good lens, but it's a length that just doesn't suit my type of photography very often - and like others, I think it's too long to use as a portrait lens.

The 100/2.8 I like and do use a lot, and I'd say it's definitely a much more suitable for portrait work than a 135.

But the gem of the three, for me, is the 85/2. I just love it - its perspective is great, and I love the fast aperture. In fact, it's one of my favourite Zuiko lenses.

But unfortunately, as you've noticed, the order I like them is the same as the order of price - the 85 is by far the most expensive, the 100 is cheaper but can still be pricey, and the 135 is bargain-priced.

Best,
Alan

 

[philosomatographer]

I know this is an old thread - but I recently scanned some prints of images shot with the Zuiko 135 3.5, and it continues to delight me - it's a wonderful lens in all respects.

(OM-3Ti, 135mm @ f/3.5, Kodak TMY2-400)

(old image - OM-2N, 135mm @ f/3.5, Ilford FP4+)

P.S. Ken N's assessment is interesting, where he claims that the 135/3.5 "merges" the subject with the background, whereas the 100/2.8 "separates" them. I guess I have not seen enough samples, but I think my first image pretty much negates that statement? The 135/3.5 is not in the same class as the longer f/2.0 Zuikos in background separation, but to me, the practice does match the theory, i.e. that both lenses (100/2.8, 135/3.5) offer almost identical separation. I don't have the 100/2.8 though, but I do have the 90/2.0 Macro, and it does not offer vastly greater separation than the 135/3.5 does, due to the more compressed background offered by the 135