What happened to 135mm?

[aw614]

What mount?

LTM. Found my copy at an antique store.

This lens.

Pardon Our Interruption...

 

[BHuij]

I love my 135mms and am not complaining that virtually every 35mm lens mount has extremely affordable options in that focal length

 

[Tony-S]

Man, I have 6...

nFD 135mm f/2
nFD 135mm f/2.8
FD 135mm f/2.5
Super Takumar m42 135mm f/3.5
Super Takumar m42 135mm f/2.5
Pentacon-Meyer m42 135mm f/2.8 15-blade ("bokeh monster")

Sheesh.

 

[Paul Howell]

LTM. Found my copy at an antique store.

This lens.

Pardon Our Interruption...

I would have thought the width of the rangefinder would be too narrow to couple with a 200 even at 25 feet. The Kodak 200 was made for the Retinaflex which shared the same mount as the Retina IIIS, rangefinder lens would also fit the Flex. From my limited knowledge Kodak was the only system that used the same lens for both SLR and rangefinder.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I love my 135mms and am not complaining that virtually every 35mm lens mount has extremely affordable options in that focal length

Indeed! My 135mm lenses for Leica M and R were probably the cheapest of all lenses for those systems.
I think the usage of smartphones has people got used to 24mm equivalents as "default". "Street" has become a popular genre in social media, while "portraits" (for example) has not.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Previously, I wrote that I seldom used 135mm with my Leica. But I found an example where the 135mm ƒ/4 Tele-Elmar was perfect. The Acropolis hill from Lycabettus, Athens, Greece. Sunset in June of 1995. Kodachrome 25 film, braced on a wall.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Previously, I wrote that I seldom used 135mm with my Leica. But I found an example where the 135mm ƒ/4 Tele-Elmar was perfect. The Acropolis hill from Lycabettus, Athens, Greece. Sunset in June of 1995. Kodachrome 25 film, braced on a wall.



View attachment 416238

Which ref. is the lens?

 

[rulnacco]

I like the 135mm focal length--I actually have a non-AI f3.5 for my Nikkormat, and I have at present three 135mm lenses for my old Minoltas: two versions of the f2.8, and one of the f3.5. Gonna try 'em all and decide which one I like best and sell the other two.

The 135mm focal length apparently is far from dead so far as Nikon is concerned. This is what they have out right now for the Z series of cameras: Nikon 135mm/f1.8 Plena.

Looks like a stonkingly fantastically good lens, with a whopping price to match. I'd love to have one of those bad boys!

 

[Nopo]

As has already been written, the 135mm focal length is still very much in use, even in mirrorless cameras.
For my part, I have a Pentax 135mm f/3.5 lens that is always mounted on my Pentax ME, and I never go out without that camera.
Some of the images I have taken with it and TMX.

These are photos of prints on Kentmere Fine Luster paper.

 

[Tony-S]

The 135mm focal length apparently is far from dead so far as Nikon is concerned. This is what they have out right now for the Z series of cameras: Nikon 135mm/f1.8 Plena.

The problem is they are really expensive. The film 135mm f/2.8 lenses were really cheap compared to anything available new today.

 

[Paul Howell]

The 135 1.8 is an expensive lens, fast teles are made in small numbers, a stop faster than a 2.8.

 

[rulnacco]

The problem is they are really expensive. The film 135mm f/2.8 lenses were really cheap compared to anything available new today.

True. The nice thing is, you can still get cheap old 135mm/2.8 lenses (or my Leica Tele-Elmar 135mm/f4, which is possibly the cheapest actual Leica lens) and use them on film cameras or very nicely on mirrorless. I have adapters that let me use my Nikon, Minolta, and Leica 135mm lenses (I have 135s from all three brands) on my Z8.

That f1.8 Nikon is probably well worth the price, though--if you can afford it in the first place.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Nikon 1.8 has 16 elements in 14 groups, it is weather sealed, my Konica 135 3.5 has 5 elements, the 2.5 has 4 elements.

 

[ic-racer]

Ok it looks like I do have a nice Nikkor 135mm; it is hidden in my 80-200 zoom!

Fixing Floppy Zoom and Focus Ring : Nikkor 80-200 f4.5

I got a beautiful Nikkor 80-200 f4.5. I cleaned the inner elements (those that needed it) based on the detailed desctiption by Richard Haw here. However, he did not go into how to fix the floppy focus/zoom ring. I suspect many know the problem; the zoom ring bangs down when the lens is...

www.photrio.com

 

[ts1000]

The 135mm focal length was once the preferred lens ..
Why did it become an almost rejected lens?
I am currently looking for an affordable 135mm that has been sadly missed in my lens line up.

I think what happened was 70-200 zooms became better quality. Making them more comparable to a bunch of 135 primes at 5.6 aperture.

In general, primes became less attractive as better quality zooms started to show up.
A dedicated enthusiast who did not mind carrying 3 primes, also, perhaps, did not mind carrying a 70-200 zoom with 2.8 (or smaller) aperture.

Film, as a medium also did not reveal the superiority of prime lenses (as we now see with digital sensors)

 

[Tony-S]

True. The nice thing is, you can still get cheap old 135mm/2.8 lenses (or my Leica Tele-Elmar 135mm/f4, which is possibly the cheapest actual Leica lens) and use them on film cameras or very nicely on mirrorless. I have adapters that let me use my Nikon, Minolta, and Leica 135mm lenses (I have 135s from all three brands) on my Z8.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Mine are used occasionally on my Z5 and X-T4/X-E5 (with focal reducer). But for autofocus, the last f/2.8 I'm aware of was Canon's EF 135mm f/2.8 SF. Not a bad lens but it's not been manufactured in years. Somewhere along the way, the 135mm f/2.8 lenses just stopped being made. It's still part of my typical 3-lens "out the door" kit for my Canon A-1 or F-1N.

 

[Tony-S]

Ok it looks like I do have a nice Nikkor 135mm; it is hidden in my 80-200 zoom!

Fixing Floppy Zoom and Focus Ring : Nikkor 80-200 f4.5

I got a beautiful Nikkor 80-200 f4.5. I cleaned the inner elements (those that needed it) based on the detailed desctiption by Richard Haw here. However, he did not go into how to fix the floppy focus/zoom ring. I suspect many know the problem; the zoom ring bangs down when the lens is...

www.photrio.com

But it's only f/4.5.

 

[Tony-S]

I think what happened was 70-200 zooms became better quality. Making them more comparable to a bunch of 135 primes at 5.6 aperture.

I never bought an f/2.8 lens to shoot it at f/5.6. I bought it to shoot at f/2.8.

In general, primes became less attractive as better quality zooms started to show up.
A dedicated enthusiast who did not mind carrying 3 primes, also, perhaps, did not mind carrying a 70-200 zoom with 2.8 (or smaller) aperture.

It's clear that zooms have improved dramatically in the last 25 years; however, they have also become much bigger. I had a Canon EF 70-200 f/4L for several years but it was a lot bigger and heavier than any 135mm lens (at the time). I have a Canon FDn 80-200mm f/4 L and it's an outstanding lens. But it's heavier than my FDn 135mm f/2.8 and even my FDn 135mm f/2. It's more convenient, for sure, but one or two stops slower.

I suppose everything is a trade-off.

 

[ags2mikon]

In my Pentax m42 kit it is lost between my 120mm and my 150mm.