What happened to 135mm?

[MattKing]

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.

If you read the Ubyssey then, it was full of my photos - a fair few of which were taken with that Zuiko 135mm f/3.5 lens.
This search will bring up a few of the issues : https://open.library.ubc.ca/search?...&dEnd=284083200000&c=1&collection=ubysseynews

 

[Paul Howell]

In the 60s and 70s some cameras were sold as kits, a body, 35mm and 135mm, I bought a used Spotmatic in 1967 in Long Beach Ca. at a pawn shop that catered to Navy enlisted, it came as a kit, with 35mm 3.5 and 135 2.8 (or was it a 3.5. need to check.). In the day it was thought that the 135, other than a head shot, too long for portraits working distance was too distant, and too short for useful tele. As a PJ I tend to agree, a 200 is fine for tele, a 100 or 105 was my normal lens. The 135 became the defacto tele for weekend shooters, a compermise when someone could only afford one lens. The brands sold many more 135mm than 100 or 105s, My current A mount 135 2.8 works well on cropped sensor Sony with full frame will use a 200 2.8 or 70 to 200 2.8 Zoom. My G zoom is sharp, has good contrast, but the prime is a bit sharper and lighter. The old Life Time photogprhjay books, the editon for Nature Photography advised skipping the 135 and 200 and get a 300 for wildlife.

 

[GregY]

If you read the Ubyssey then, it was full of my photos - a fair few of which were taken with that Zuiko 135mm f/3.5 lens.
This search will bring up a few of the issues : https://open.library.ubc.ca/search?q=matt%20king%20photo&p=0&sort=0&view=0&perPage=0&dBegin=157852800000&dEnd=284083200000&c=1&collection=ubysseynews

Very cool.... Vancouver was a great city in those days.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

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?

David Reuther gave the Nikkor 135mm f 2.8 very high marks in his subjective lens evaluations.
My original 35mm camera was a Mamiya MSX and I had and used extensively a Mamiya 135mm F2.8 which was a very good lens.