• 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?

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.
 

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.
 
Melvin J Bramley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Melvin, it's never been about the quality of 135mm lenses, but more as to whether people find them a useful focal length or not.
 
Then there was the Pentax 120 and 150 F4s in M42 mount. Not sure why Pentax did not make 180, or did they and I missed it. I have the 24, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm 85, 105, 135 150 and 200, the 120 seems to be rare. Then the 200, 300 and 400. Don't use them much, when a working PJ I would send my Nikon if for CLA and use the Pentax gear for a bus man's holiday, I found the 150 to be quite useful for travel.
 
ic-racer said:
I might have to look into a Nikkor 135.
Click to expand...

Image quality wise the Nikkor 135mm F2.8 is reputably very good or better.
Does the focal length suit you , only you know.
I find the Nikkor 85mm a little short!
Some of my better 35mm photos were taken with a Mamiya SX 135mm F2.8 a lens later re badged Rolleinar!
Looking back I used my 135mm lens more than my optically superior 180mm Nikkor!
 

I have both the 135mm f/2.8 AIS and 85mm f/1.4 AIS. Both a excellent performers, very sharp, and contrasty. I have been very happy with the performance and output from both of these. (The 135mm was replacement for an AI-converted 135mm f/3.5 Q Nikkor which was also an excellent performer.)

The 85mm suffers from being big and bulky and - if I had to do it again - I'd get the f/2 instead. (Mine is nearly mint, so I may sell it to do just that.) However, the 85mm excels if you're shooting film in an available light setting like a concerts, church or stage events or other low light settings where flash is not practical. The one downside is that wide open, the 85mm while very sharp, has very little depth of field. This can be an issue with closer in subjects like faces for a portrait. Like anything else, it's a tool and you have to know it's best applications and its limitations.

Here is an example from the 85mm - scan of silver print:

 
Last edited:
Chuck1 said:
Silly question but what does defocus do?
Click to expand...

The feature (Defocus Control) allows you to change the look of out-of-focus foreground or background areas.

I didn’t buy it for that feature though. It was reputedly a sharp 135mm, nice metal dust-sealed construction and I was still too snobby for a zoom.

I very rarely have use for a focal length that long so I have only used it two or three times. Here's an example I posted in the gallery:

 
Last edited:
I sho

l should add that the 135mm Elmar lenses for Leica M are extremely affordable, I bought one for under 200 EUR. Give it a try!!
 
RezaLoghme said:
I sho


l should add that the 135mm Elmar lenses for Leica M are extremely affordable, I bought one for under 200 EUR. Give it a try!!
Click to expand...

That is true, I had a Canon 135 for my Canon 7S and Leica IIIG, it was the longest lens for a rangefinder without a visoflex type setup. The 200 did fit the Kodak Retina IIIS but did not couple to the rangefinder.
 
Paul Howell said:
That is true, I had a Canon 135 for my Canon 7S and Leica IIIG, it was the longest lens for a rangefinder without a visoflex type setup. The 200 did fit the Kodak Retina IIIS but did not couple to the rangefinder.
Click to expand...

Well you can use zone focussing method and still achieve teck sharp images.
 
I think @MattKing has the answer: it's an awkward length. I have a Canon EF 135/2 and it's a fantastic lens, but one of my least used lenses. I really should take it out more. It would be a great lens for portraits at outdoor gatherings. I got the Nikon 105/2.5 last year and I would bet that that lens it is why Nikon is as big as it is. It is just amazing and a much more comfortable focal length.

Another thing to consider is if you'd shoot it on a 1.4x crop sensor digital camera ( or half frame cameras), which changes how it feels again. When I bought my Canon 20D I splurged and bought a 24/1.4, and that is great on a crop sensor. Later when I got into film and full frame 35mm cameras, the 35mm lens never quite felt as good, and 28mm seems to be my wide angle sweet spot. @Melvin J Bramley, you should get your 135mm. Dunno if you'll like and use it, but if you have the patience for reselling, the exercise won't cost you that much. Looking at my photos I see portraits on walks and in the garden on a full frame camera. 135mm on a 20D worked great at an outdoor play
 

When I first get a focal length new to me with which feels "awkward", I spend a couple days shooting with nothing but that lens. The awkward goes away as you learn that lens' virtues and vices.

The only thing that a new focal length introduces, in and of itself, it a change in magnification and natural depth-of-field. Different lenses can certainly introduce vices like aberrations, distortions, and other optical defects that do have to be studied.
 
For Nikon F and Canon EF I can only recommend the Zeiss Apo Sonnar 135mm f2 T* lens. One of the best lenses ever made for (D)SLRs. I have some razor sharp portraitures on Provia and E100. Images are breathtaking if projected with my Leica Pradovit…
 
I've had several Nikon mount 135s. Favorite was the 135/2 which has great image quality and shallow depth of field in a smaller, less expensive body than the big and fast Zeiss and Sigma 135s or subsequent Nikon offerings. Great portrait lens if you have the distance and can be heard.

A Nikon 135/2.8 AIS is a lot more compact than anything else over 105mm, a fraction of a zoom.
 

In the late 1970's and early 1980's, the Daily Illini and UPI stringers I knew debated between 24/35/85/135 and 28/50/105/180 setups.

Chuck1 said:
Silly question but what does defocus do?
Click to expand...

Defocus allows limited control over how and where spherical aberrations are rendered. You can choose to undercorrect in either the background or foreground, at the cost of overcorrecting in the opposite direction. So, for a portrait you can create a smoother looking background rendition, or alternatively soften foreground framing elements. Nikon patented this techology in 1989, and introduced it first in the 135mm f/2 DC. Both that lens and the 105mm f/2 DC have a cult following but never sold particularly well.

US4908639A - Optical system having a variable out-of-focus state - Google Patents

An optical system includes a forward group having a first lens group of positive focal length and a seconds lens group of negative focal length, the forward group having a positive focal length, a stop, and a rearward group having a positive focal length. The forward group, the stop and the...
patents.google.com
 
Paul Howell said:
That is true, I had a Canon 135 for my Canon 7S and Leica IIIG, it was the longest lens for a rangefinder without a visoflex type setup. The 200 did fit the Kodak Retina IIIS but did not couple to the rangefinder.
Click to expand...

There is the Komura 200mm that is rangefinder coupled, but with a minimum focusing distance of 25 ft.

Need to give it a shot again, but it was kind of painful to focus it.
 
I've used the 135mm f/4 Jupiter-11 on my Kiev 4 rangefinder for landscape and portrait. It's small, light, and nice to use. You compose using the size of the rangefinder patch if you don't want a turret finder.
 
I think my original post forgets that I find the 135mm lens gives me the most reliable hand held results of any medium length telephoto lens.
Results wise my old Mamiya 135mm 2.8 provided just as good results as my Nikkor P AI converted lens but with that extra bit of reach!
Those results may not stand up to some technical scientific analysis!
 
Nikkors, I've had a few... Let's keep this brief and on topic of the 135mm in 35mm (Mamiya TLR 135mm tasty).

I could and have gone on and on about the time shooting sports indoor B&W for a small newspaper and the choices of shooting the 135mm versus the 180mm, for some brighter arenas the 180 was better (larger venues usually had better light but further away) whereas in some (most) HS gyms of the era f/2 was f/2 and I had a wider but closer range to work with. Especially with Basketball season where the 85mm f/1.4 Ai-s sat on one body for weeks, the 135mm f/2 was a valued optic that was usually specifically packed for use.

However, I wish to discuss one of my very favorite lenses period, and that's the Nikkor 135mm f/3.5 in the early "K", hopefully
Ai-converted as I found. This is the earlier 4 element/ 3 group lens from the previous larger F 1960's style mount which itself was a slightly tweaked version of the Super OG Nikkor-S for rangefinder, of DDD Lore and such. Very few changes to the optical formula, the K series has the smaller 1970's style build but natively didn't have the Ai specification so a homemade or factory conversion has the most flexibility.
This lens in any of the early 4/3 versions has a couple of fun tricks that make it a useful tool. It is a stellar portrait classic; at moderate distances for a 'thigh-to-hair' vertical portrait at wide open to f/5.6 is the sweet spot, bonus bokeh points if you can line up a brighter background without a hood for dreamy sharp flare. An easily wonderful lens just for these two looks, but stopped down to f/8 or f/11 with a small tripod or even a bean bag stabilization makes an astounding landscape lens. Deep Field and the whole frame sharp, to the limits of the local air quality. The build of the earlier Q and Q.C. types are superlative but a bit overkill, they still take 52mm filters and need a hood, my favorite is the HN-7 but the usual clip on works well and is a requirement for lower level of flare in backlit situations; th Q.C. and K versions have the updated Nikon Multicoating which cleans up the color and contrast especially with a hood. The earlier Q versions are very sharp in black and white with a hood. I prefer the K series version that I found with factory conversion, it works very well on both film and converted to Z6 for my uses as a tag along tele for beach days or hiking to shoot landscapes and the occasional portrait in the style I described.

The later Ai and Ai-s 135mm is also a fine lens with a slightly altered 4 element / 4 group that has a similar look but the background bokeh had a stronger look, overall a more 'sharp and modern' look. Both versions are lighter than the Q's but the Ai is the lightest and also has the longest focus throw, so check the feel of that if it suits your uses. These Ai and Ai-s versions are on a much smaller build and have a pull out hood which is handy for traveling.

Those inclined to discover more about the lineage can read the always excellent Nikon Thousand and One Nights series, this one https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0043/ discusses this lens.


"As the point images do not undergo any unnatural transformation, the lens seems to produce images that are unaffected and devoid of any quirks. Notably, the low field curvature produces a pleasing blur (bokeh) quality in the image background. A nice and simple blur quality can be expected, coupled with a tendency for the bokeh to increase closer to the edge of the image. The lens is also good at correcting for distortion (which is supposedly difficult to correct for), with the level of distortion being around 0.6%"


This lens is always priced as a bargain and easily found and I think others will enjoy shooting with it, on either film or digital.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register