Olympus Zuiko 135mm f3.5 or..

[darinwc]

I'm looking for a tele or portrait lens for my OM's..
Something compact, good for traveling.

How well liked is the Olympus Zuiko 135mm f3.5?

My other options are the 135mm f2.8 or maybe a good zoom such as the Tokina ATX or Vivitar series 1..

Any suggestions?

 

[darinwc]

Also, what is a good focal length to best use the spot meter of the OM-4?

 

[Q.G.]

You can use the spot meter with any focal length to the same effect.
It is a tool that allows you to know what you are metering better, and that doesn't change with focal length.

I think the f/3.5 135 is perfectly good.
No need for the bigger and more expensive f/2.8.

Zoom lenses are not my thing, really. Instead of having one small and lightweight lens hanging off your camera, you have an entire arsenal of focal lengths weighing you down.
I have never minded changing lenses when needed yet, nor have i ever experienced a need for continuously variable focal lenght. So what convenience zoom lenses offer is lost on me.
Zooms are slower too (unless you spend far too much money), and will not offer better image quality than a fixed focal length lens anyway.

But to each his own, of course.

 

[Java]

I have a Zuiko 135 f2.8 and think it is great makes the view finder on the OM series very bright. The down side to it is it takes a 55mm filter size where as lots of the other Zuikos take 49mm.

Zoom lens, 70-150 is very good.
100-200 is not much money and again very good.

Vivitar Series 1 Lens are good but I found them heavy

Don't know about the Tokins's never used them.

 

[Rick A]

My preference for portrait work has always been a 100mm for 35mm. I have both the 100 and 135 for an OM-4, and never cared for the look given by the 135. But then, thats only one mans opinion. As for spot metering, learn to use it whenever you shoot, just dont get caught up in it and miss the shot. Find a copy of How to choose and use your Olympus SLR to get a fair understanding of how the OM-4 works, and you'll get some good hints.
Rick

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I have issues with the focal length itself, I never really understood it's use. If I need a tele it's usually too short and in all other cases it's too long. I never did find a reasonably priced 180mm Zuiko.

Ulrich

 

[Seabird]

I put my Zuiko 135mm f3.5 on my OM-4 and use the combo as a spot meter when out shooting with my Technika. Interestingly, during the period that the same unfinished roll of film has been in the OM-4 I've chewed through about 100 sheets of 5x4 FP4+...

Carey Bird
http://members.iinet.net.au/~cbird/index.html

 

[Allan Swindles]

I have the 135mm f3.5 Zuiko. It's a very nice lens - light, compact, built-in hood and 49mm filter. However, my favourite all-round short telephoto / portrait lens is the Zuiko 100mm f2.8, I think the perspective is better for portraiture. It all depends on your budget, you will be able to buy the 135 f3.5 for considerably less than the 100 f2.8.

 

[Mark Fisher]

Another vote for the 100 f2.8. Fast, sharp and tiny.

 

[dynachrome]

I have the 135/3.5 Zuiko and use it sometimes. If I need more speed or I need to get closer I'll use a 135/2.5 Vivitar TX or a 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing. There was no 135 Tokina AT-X lens. The closest thing was the 90/2.5 AT-X. For portraits I prefer the 100/2.8 Zuiko. For general outdoor shooting I like a 135 better.

 

[timk]

My preference would be the Zuiko 100mm f/2.8 such a great portrait lens for it's size, weight, value for money. I find 135mm a bit long, I also have the zuiko 135/3.5 and the one I have doesn't perform as well as the 100/2.8 (though it's not in as good condition).

 

[RH Designs]

I also have the zuiko 135/3.5 and the one I have doesn't perform as well as the 100/2.8.

That's been my experience as well, I have both the 135s and my 2.8 is a lot sharper than the 3.5, and probably as good as the 100/2.8.

 

[nsurit]

The 85mm f2 almost lives on my camera. I love it. I also have the 100mm f2.8 and the 135 f2.8. Both good lenses and the 85mm is my "go to" lens for portraits. The 135mm f3.5 is great, however I prefer an f2 or 2.8 as opposed to the 3.5. The 3.5 also has a habit of a little plastic part on the interior breaking and your not being able to get the lens locked on the camera body. Bill Barber

 

[Ken N]

My 100 F2.8 lens is THE portrait lens in my kit. A "money lens" if there ever was one. The 135/3.5 just doesn't have the right bokeh for portraiture and the extra working distance it affords causes a flattening of the facial features which aren't quite as attractive.

 

[Bateleur]

Personally I favour the 85mm f2 lens although to get in tight the 135 is very useful. A useful alternative and a superb performer, is the 75 -150 f4 zoom although it's a little heavier.

 

[Mike P]

I find the 135/3.5 to be an excellent performer, as good as the 100/2.8, contrary to a couple of opinions I read above. If you like and need the focal length, I think it's a great choice.

 

[darinwc]

Unfortunately this was not the answers I wanted to hear. The 100mm and 85mm seem to go for much more than the 135 f3.5, and they seem to be hard to find. I guess I will have to save my pennies =]

 

[darinwc]

I find the 135/3.5 to be an excellent performer, as good as the 100/2.8, contrary to a couple of opinions I read above. If you like and need the focal length, I think it's a great choice.

I do like the 135mm f2.8 on my nikon, but I find that I like the perspective of different focal lengths on different cameras. On my cannon I prefer the 100mm. Weird I know but then many seem to prefer a 35mm lens on a rangefinder and a 50mm lens on an slr. What can I say we are odd creatures.

 

[goodfood]

My 135mm f3.5 only $60 from ebay. It's a light weigh lens. Quality is good. I have 85mm f/2 and 75-150mm too. I use my tiny 135mm more than others. Don't know the f2.8 better or not.

 

[MattKing]

When I was younger, my kit consisted of a 28mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/3.5. It got a lot of use, in all sorts of weather, and served me well.

I ended up trading my 135mm lens toward an 85mm f/2.0 and I prefer the shorter, faster lens, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the small and sharp 135mm f/3.5.

Matt

 

[Simon E]

The 100mm and 85mm seem to go for much more than the 135 f3.5

There will be a good reason for that.

They are both lovely lenses to use. I sold my 100mm to buy an 85mm f2 and regret it. At the time I wanted the faster lens but in hindsight the 100mm was perfect. Optically I think they were closer than some people would have you believe. I find 85mm isn't "longer enough" when partnered with the 50mm.

<sigh>

@RH Designs: any chance I could buy it back?

 

[RH Designs]

There will be a good reason for that.

They are both lovely lenses to use. I sold my 100mm to buy an 85mm f2 and regret it. At the time I wanted the faster lens but in hindsight the 100mm was perfect. Optically I think they were closer than some people would have you believe. I find 85mm isn't "longer enough" when partnered with the 50mm.

<sigh>

@RH Designs: any chance I could buy it back?

Errm ... dunno about that. It is rather a good lens!

 

[philosomatographer]

The 135mm f/3.5 is a very very good (optically) lens, with unmeasurable distortion, and good resolution, though contrast is lower than some of the other similar lenses.

I love mine, use it for landscape and street scenes all the time, however it wouldn't be my go-to lens for portraiture - a slightly shorter, slightly faster lens might be better. Of course, the 100mm f/2.8 ofers no shallower depth of field than the 135/3.5, so I would consider them both equal for the task, save for the extra working distance the 135mm would enforce. The 135 f/3.5 has great (soft) out of focus rendering in my opinion.

Although the (there was a url link here which no longer exists) lives on my camera (which is actually way to sharp for flattering portraits) I always keep my 135mm f/3.5 close by, it's such a special lens that embodies the "style" of the OM system - well built, small, built-in sliding hood, etc. And really cheap.

If you're on a budget, get one. Otherwise, get the 85/2.0. If money is no object, get the 100/2.0 - that's the OM system's ideal portrait lens (because they unfortunately never produced more than a couple of prototypes of the 85mm f/1.4 GRIN lens - that would have been amazing). The 90/2.0 Macro is too good for portraits

 

[Steve Bellayr]

85mm f2.0

 

[Ken N]

I love mine, use it for landscape and street scenes all the time, however it wouldn't be my go-to lens for portraiture - a slightly shorter, slightly faster lens might be better. Of course, the 100mm f/2.8 ofers no shallower depth of field than the 135/3.5, so I would consider them both equal for the task, save for the extra working distance the 135mm would enforce. The 135 f/3.5 has great (soft) out of focus rendering in my opinion.

In my experience, the image Bokeh is so substantially different between the 135/3.5 and the 100/2.8 to be in entirely different categories. The 100/2.8 is an outstanding portrait lens, the 135/3.5 just doesn't give the same subject/background separation. The 100/2.8 isolates the subject from the background, the 135/3.5 merges the subject with the background.

From a calculated DoF perspective, the two lenses are nearly identical in DoF equivalencies, but functionally they are worlds apart.