• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

What happened to 135mm?

I have a canon EF 135L, and it's a flawless lens.
 
mshchem said:
Click to expand...

miha said:
I have a canon EF 135L, and it's a flawless lens.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

And Nikon also did not forget about 135mm in Z mount.

There ARE 135mm lenses. Maybe there are not as many as 50s, but neither are many different 180mm, 200mm, etc... out there.

If you can't find a 135mm lens for your camera, that means that you are using a rejected camera/mount and not a rejected focal length...
 
runswithsizzers said:
Today, I am content to carry around a 100mm f2.8 for my Konica kit, and I am thinking about getting a 100mm lens for my Pentax MX, as well
Click to expand...

For your K mount MX, you have some interesting options. Pentax made 85, 105, 120, 135, and 150mm lenses. Pentax also made a 75-150mm zoom lens, an interesting range.
 
Kodachromeguy said:
For your K mount MX, you have some interesting options. Pentax made 85, 105, 120, 135, and 150mm lenses. Pentax also made a 75-150mm zoom lens, an interesting range.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reminding me about the Pentax 75-150mm f4 zoom. I had almost forgotten, I actually have that lens in the M series, given to me by a friend. I should get it out and use it some to see how I like it.

When using my digital APS-C mirrorless cameras, I am a big fan of zooms. But with my SLR film cameras I usually end up carrying a traditional three prime kit. One of the reasons I love to use my Pentax MX is the big bright pentaprism viewfinder. I almost never shoot any lens wide open, but I hate to give up viewfinder brightness when using slower lenses, so maybe that is why I gravitate to primes.

EDIT: Like many film-era zooms, I assumed the Pentax 75-150mm f4 zoom would not be that great, optically, but it actually gets pretty good reviews on the Pentax forum.
 
Last edited:
I have been taking a lot of pictures using 135 mm lenses - I have fallen in love especially with Ludwig Bertele's 135 mm f/4 Sonnars for my Contax RF.

I was surprised by this effect I watched on an Ektachrome 100D colour slide (a coated Zeiss-Opton lens, wide open, Skylight filter KR1.5) - when it's in the projector, it looks to me almost like a painted picture:



Last spring in Paris, I noticed that even the uncoated 1939 Zeiss Jena Sonnar delivers good contrasts as soon as the sun does not shine into the lens (Fomapan R100 slide film, orange filter, Contax IIIa) :



This is a picture with a late-70s Zeiss Oberkochen Sonnar T* 135 mm f/2.8 (de facto rather an Ernostar), wide open, on a flea market in Paris (Fomapan R100 slide, yellow/green filter, Contax RTS II) :



The mid-60s Rodenstock Rotelar 135 mm f/4 seems to have a very good colour rendering. This was 40 years ago on Ektachrome 400 with a Praktica FX-2, the Edixa version of the Rotelar - sorry I messed it up when I scanned it, the original slide has much stronger and warmer red and green colours:

 
This seems to be a popular subject. My history with 135s goes back more than half a century. After my standard lens in 1971, my next lens, in 1972, was a 28. In 1973 I finally got a 135. It was a Vivitar f/2.8 (28XXX...) model and it served me very well. My only complaint about it was that it didn't focus very close. I would later trade it toward a 135/3.2 Konica Hexanon, which as has been mentioned, focused down to three feet. If my memory on this is correct, the 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1 which I later got, also focused down to three feet. These two lenses were useful for portraits. The 135s which got down to five or more feet were not so useful for portraits, especially of young people. I think my favorite 135 must be the Vivitar f/2.8 Closse Focusing. It gets down to 1:2 and has always given me good results. I think I have it in every mount it was made for. It does not seem to have been made in Yashica/Contax mount. Some of my best portraits have been made with it. For outdoor medium distance shooting I prefer a 135 to a 90-105. I think it separates the subject better.

Some of my other favorite 135s: Canon FL 135/2.5, Canon FD 135/2.5, Nikor QC or 'K' 135/2.8, Sigma 135/2.8 Pantel, Konica Hexanon 135/2.5, SMC Pentax 135/3.5.
 
The 135mm focal length was chosen by Leitz in the 1920s, as the longest lens that could be accurately focused with the camera's rangefinder. The magnification was not too large for a reasonably accurate external viewfinder, and the focal length was a popular one with larger format cameras (so an existing lens design could be used or adapted). Since the Leica became popular, and then dozens of camera makers copied Leitz' design, the focal length became a standard. Remember that so long ago, a telephoto lens of any sort was both rare and expensive, so the 135 became popular.
Decades later, the f.l. went out of fashion, as described above by other posters. Still, that makes no difference at all if you see things that way- use your 135 with pride.
Full disclosure: I had a chrome 135/3.5 Canon RF lens from 1979-2020. It was a high-quality optic that I rarely used on my Leicas... ten years after I divested those, a friend made me an offer on the 135. He's happy now and so am I.
 
I wouldn’t be without a 135mm lens. Got 2 Zuiko & 5 Nikkor' 135mm lenses in my cabinet. Did have an M42 one, but sold it when I ditched my M42 outfit.

With the OM's, a heavy zoom feels out of place on a light body so I rarely use it. Have s Vivitar Series 1 70-210 F3.5.

The onmy zoom that I have that can replace the 135mm for speed is an 80-200 AF, but such a weight penalty.
 
Back in 1964, the 'standard' lens FL offering from the majority of manufacturers was six FL. about
24mm or 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 100mm, 135mm, 200mm were typical
 
To add to my first post!

Zooms do not have the character of single focal length lenses??
 
135mm popularity took two massive hits. The first was the widespread acceptance of 80-200mm f/4 and similar telephoto zooms. That took away the consumer market. The second began with an almost forgotten lens today -- the introduction of the Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 in 1984.

The Tokina was less than a third the price of the Nikkor manual focus lens, and was smaller as well. Within 5 years, Canon and Nikon responded with their own similar (and better) 80-200mm f/2.8 lenses, and such lenses have been a mainstay of professional photographers ever since.

Another factor may have been the "Afghan Girl" shot in 1984. That one shot did more to popularize 105mm as a portrait length than any other.
 

Lots of water under the bridge well before the McCurry photo. From the Leitz mountain Elmar 105 in the '30s to the Nikkor 105 for rangefinders 1954 & then 105 P for the Nikon F.
 
GregY said:
Lots of water under the bridge well before the McCurry photo. From the Leitz mountain Elmar 105 in the '30s to the Nikkor 105 for rangefinders 1954 & then 105 P for the Nikon F.
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning their existence. But looking at Nikon's serial numbers, up until the mid-1980's, 135mm primes outsold 105mm primes. Afterwards, 100mm and 105mm lenses handily outsold 135mm lenses. Tastes had changed.
 
In 40 years, I don't think I have any prints made from negatives exposed with 135mm lenses. Probably because I never had a sharp 135mm lens. In all my years in photography I only had two, a "Lentar" 135mm that was not good and a 135mm Tele Tessar that was maybe ok for portriats (which I don't do), but inadequate for landscape.

I wonder if the 135 focal length would work for me if I had a high quality lens. I'm in the Nikon F system now. Wonder what they offer?
 

Great, all of them!
 
benveniste said:
I'm not questioning their existence. But looking at Nikon's serial numbers, up until the mid-1980's, 135mm primes outsold 105mm primes. Afterwards, 100mm and 105mm lenses handily outsold 135mm lenses. Tastes had changed.
Click to expand...

They outsold them because the 28/50/135 was the hobby photographers set. I used both Nikon F & Leica M since the late '60s and yes I tired but never stuck with the 135 for the M. I never owned a 135 for the F. Even at University i never saw a U paper photographer with a 135mm...
 
GregY said:
Even at University i never saw a U paper photographer with a 135mm...
Click to expand...

If only you had been at UBC between 1974 and 1979 and had run into me
 
I use a Nikon 135mm AF DC on my F3. It’s surprisingly sharp but on the large side if that’s a consideration. I never had any use for the defocus feature or the high speed so in retrospect (this was 20+ years ago) I should have bought a zoom and saved some money.

Nikon probably doesn’t have many/any current options for Fs in that focal length. Zeiss makes some. If I were buying now I’d look at Sigma.


 
MattKing said:
If only you had been at UBC between 1974 and 1979 and had run into me
Click to expand...

I was thinking of my undergrad McGill years....but i was by coincidence in gradschool at UBC during that time but was more interested in climbing...& had trimmed down to a single M4.
 

You can get a Nikon 135/3.5 or 135/2.8 in non-AI or AI mount. Neither of these had an AF version. Both are probably very reliable.

I think all of the modern (say 60s-70s and after) camera makers had a name brand 135mm that was likely good to excellent. 3rd party lenses were more of a crapshoot.
 

all the 135 primes by major makers were high quality.....whether they were the lens of choice is the key question.
 
GregY said:
all the 135 primes by major makers were high quality.....whether they were the lens of choice is the key question.
Click to expand...

Sure, I was just responding to ic-racer's question about what he could get in (Nikon) 135mm and his previous experiences.

WRT the influence of McCurry's "Afghan Girl" photo in 1984: I switched to Nikon in fall 1985 because my previous SLR broke. I got a used Nikon F and 105/2.5, in part on the advice of my uncle, who'd had an F since the 70s. At that time the 105mm was already long well-known as a portrait lens, why I got it. I wasn't aware of its use in McCurry's photo; that may have added to its popularity, but IIRC it was already somewhat legendary.

Having only a 105mm is more than a little limiting, and within a couple of months I had to do an interior assignment (I was a college first-year), took the train into the city, and found a used Nikon 35/2.8 at the first camera shop I stopped in - not a legendary lens, though it served me just fine, but that is another story.
 

Silly question but what does defocus do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register