What happened to 135mm?

[Melvin J Bramley]

The 135mm focal length was once the preferred lens for a telephoto lens; not too long, often hand hold able and compact.
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.

 

[Paul Howell]

By the time of AF the 135 became extinct, Minolta made one in A mount a 2.8 but as zooms got better and better the 135s no were no longer in demand. Canon made a 135 F2 and 2.8, Not sure if Nikon made a 135 in AF. I have the 135 2.8 in A mount, a great lens, very sharp, good contrast, AF is fast and accurate.

 

[thinkbrown]

Not sure what system you're running, but there's a half dozen 135mm lenses available for my "modern" (digital) system. I don't actually have one because that focal length is covered by two different zoom lenses (28-200 and 100-400) that I own, plus I can adapt my various film 135mm lenses if I want something a little more vintage looking.

 

[MattKing]

The 135mm focal length was once the preferred lens for a telephoto lens; not too long, often hand hold able and compact.
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 they were a relatively easy and inexpensive to make lens, while being reasonable in size, so they were a good first choice for the budget minded photographer.
I used mine a lot when I had one, but I had one because I could afford one.
As far as field of view and magnification at convenient working distances, in my experience it is an awkward focal length.
Too long for all except the tightest portraits, but too short for wildlife or most sports.

 

[Taylor K Nankervis]

The Olympus OM 135mm (f2.8) was a rav-fav lens in the time I was a fanatical user of the OM system, starting with the OM10 (and the "must have" manual adaptor!). The lens then found a happy home on the OM1N (very popular in the 1980s with bicycle tourists) and finally the OM4 (a gigantic leap in technology and amount of cash out of the bank account!).

The 135mm focal length was incorporated into a very good Canon zoom with the flash-and-panache T90 in the late-1980s.

Another change to Nikon (F3HP, FM, FE2)) saw yet more short, squat primes (running out of handlebar bag and pannier space and low, low gears to really chug along sedately!).

Today I remember the 135mm Zuiko prime well for the many enjoyable travels on two wheels.
It can be had for peanuts (around AUD$140 here in Australia). Today we have zooms of comparable speed (and faster!), greatly improved optical zen and wider, all-in-one focal lengths that pretty much negate perceived (vs actual) advantages of a prime.

Funny though, I hautily eschew primes for the convenience and immediate flexibility of zooms, but all my 6x7 lenses are "I swear by 'em!" primes and will not put a zoom on my 6x7 boys!

 

[MattKing]

Mine was a Zuiko 135mm f/3.5 - it was really nice and small!

 

[chuckroast]

My Nikon 135mm f2.8 AIS is very much in use.

 

[GregY]

What Matt said (re 35mm cameras) too long for portraits without backing up...too short for sports or distant landscape...... for Nikon folks if you could afford 2 lenses it was 35mm & 105mm. Then 24mm & 180. I have the sense for SLRs (back when) they were target lenses for the amateur.

 

[reddesert]

It might be that the flipside is - a 135mm/2.8 was the compromise that covered the uses of a short telephoto (portraits etc) to a longer tele (sports, distant subjects) in one lens. When 80-200 and 70-210 zooms at f/3.5 to 4.5 became more or less affordable, decent quality, and compact, they displaced the 135mm, at the cost of 1 stop in speed, which matters sometimes. But up till then, it had been doing the zoom's job. I suppose a professional might have carried both a 105 and 180 or 200, depending on use.

Telezooms from the early 1970s are enormous and don't have a great reputation, but by 1980 or so they were decent (though still fairly expensive). They were probably made respectable by the Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 (about 1974). Around 1980 or a little later when I started looking at SLR lenses, one typically started off with a 50mm, and then a 28mm and 135mm in f/2.8 or f/3.5 were typically the next affordable lenses for an amateur or young person. Not much cachet, but also probably easy to make and reasonably fast.

In retrospect I think that moderately-fast-prime budget lineup had several advantages over the industry's transition to slow zooms. 100-105mm lenses existed from many makers but seemed less common than the 135, although I did buy a 105 as my first lens when I switched to a Nikon.

 

[loccdor]

I like them a lot for landscape and subject isolation photography. They can be a little long for portraits unless you have a loud voice to direct your model from far away, or want very frame-filling shots. I prefer 100mm for portraits.

They do tend to be some of the sharpest vintage lenses around, at least in my experience. I've had several that performed well wide open.

 

[chuckroast]

I like them a lot for landscape and subject isolation photography. They can be a little long for portraits unless you have a loud voice to direct your model from far away, or want very frame-filling shots. I prefer 100mm for portraits.

They do tend to be some of the sharpest vintage lenses around, at least in my experience. I've had several that performed well wide open.

Because of falling prices for manual primes, I was, ahem, "able to acquire" a whole lot of Nikon AIS lenses beyond my staple 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 105mm.

One of those was an AIed 135mm f/3.5 Q Nikkor. I liked it so much, I gave mine to a friend when a really clean 135mm f/2.8 AIS showed up at a proper price.

I had previously not used the 135mm as a focal length much. I found both the Q Nikkor and now the AIS lens to both be razor sharp and contrasty. What are they good for? Medium distance isolation - that is, shots where I want to isolate a part of the scene without getting up on to it too much, and where I want some of the foreshortening a tele brings.

My preferred portrait lens was always the 105mm f/2.5 but a few years ago I got the 85mm f/1.4 with that in mind. I wish now I had not. It's a great focal length but it's almost unusable wide open because of the nonexistent depth of field. It also is really, really big. I should have opted for the f/2 instead. Instead, I lug a big chuck of glass around and stop it down ;(

 

[blee1996]

Although I don't use 135mm focal length that often, I do believe it should belong to any photographer's gear box.

Canon FD or EF 135/2: I used to take photos of live performances, superb bokeh.

Leica Elmarit-R 135/2.8: excellent for portraits and landscape, and happen to be the cheapest Leica R-mount lens.

Older 135/3.5 manual focus lens from any major brand: great bargain for what they can deliver.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

I had previously not used the 135mm as a focal length much. I found both the Q Nikkor and now the AIS lens to both be razor sharp and contrasty. What are they good for? Medium distance isolation - that is, shots where I want to isolate a part of the scene without getting up on to it too much, and where I want some of the foreshortening a tele brings.

That is the same transition I went through. Decades ago, I just did not "see" the 135 view. I had a 135mm Tele-Elmar and never bonded with it. But in the last 10 years, I like the slightly tele view of the 135 more and more. In my case, the SLR view let me appreciate it, while the M3's finder showed too small a rectangle. My 135mm ƒ/3.5 Pentax-M is remarkably contrasty and high resolution. The older SMC Takumar performs well, too:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2018/06/photographic-bargain-135mm-f35-pentax.html

 

[mshchem]

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/803339345-USE/nikon_1935_af_dc_nikkor_135mm_f_2d.html

 

[rduraoc]

I had the Minolta AF 135 f/2.8, which I used extensively with my Dynax (Maxxum) 7 in my street photography days. Lovely lens, and the focal length was just right for what I wanted from the street shooting.

 

[koraks]

Why did it become an almost rejected lens?

I can think of a few reasons, that are interrelated:
* Zooms rose to prominence. At first they might have only offered tolerable image quality, but their flexibility made for a preferable tradeoff. Currently, zooms perform so well that there's arguably very little benefit to a 135mm prime.
* The 135mm focal length wasn't all that great to begin with. E.g. for portraits, it's on the long side and creates a lot of distance between photographer and subject. For things like wildlife etc. it's really much too short. For portraits, focal lengths like 85mm and 100mm presently seem to be preferred.
* I guess manufacturers just didn't see enough sales on a 135 prime to justify continued innovation.

There's of course truckloads of 135mm primes for mostly older SLR systems out there. Some are excellent, many are quite good; a few are poor performers. Take your pick.

 

[RezaLoghme]

The 135mm focal length was once the preferred lens for a telephoto lens; not too long, often hand hold able and compact.
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.

Why do you believe it is an "almost rejected" focal length?

I can only speak about my own gear, which only consists of older items made 30+ years ago. I do not know what other manufacturer currently offer, but Leica's current product portfolio contains the APO-Telyt-M 1:3,4/135.

I own and use two 135mm lenses. The Elmarit R 135mm (11211), and the Leitz Elmar-M 135mm f4 11850. They can be bought for peanuts, and they deliver great results, especially the 11211.

Using a 135mm on a rangefinder is a bit tricky. I spray and pray. On my R (and Leicaflex SL), the 11211 is a delight. No idea why they trade for around EUR 200 (give and take), maybe in 10 years people will say "oh if I only had bought one when they were cheap". They are from Walter Madler's prime years. I have actually thought about buying a second one, because they are make great pics, look and feel good, and cost almost nothing (in Leica's framwork).

So - long story short, if you are looking for an affordable 135mm, Elmarit R 135mm (11211) is your friend. Happy to send you sample pics if you PM me.

PS: Maybe this is a bit like bicycles' wheel sizes. From 26" to 29" to 27.5", with a lot of folklore and snake oil legends. Luckily, Leica's R system has 50, 60, 80, 90 and 100mm lenses (and many below 50 and above 135), so nobody has to go to bed without having their dinner.

 

[loccdor]

My preferred portrait lens was always the 105mm f/2.5 but a few years ago I got the 85mm f/1.4 with that in mind. I wish now I had not. It's a great focal length but it's almost unusable wide open because of the nonexistent depth of field. It also is really, really big. I should have opted for the f/2 instead. Instead, I lug a big chuck of glass around and stop it down ;(

The 70-90mm range has always been the hardest for me to compose in. Just doesn't feel right for some reason...

 

[Michael Howard]

My favorite lens, almost always on the camera, is my Hexanon 135/3.2. Short focus at 1 meter, it's an almost macro lens. Love it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Melvin, if this is an academic question asking tor reasons from our collective brains why 135 appears to be a forgotten lens that's fine but if it is the one for you and your style of photography then the reasons why it has or has not been forgotten or isn't used by some of us anymore doesn't matter a damn, does it ?

It certainly wouldn't to me

pentaxuxer

 

[Ian Grant]

The 70-90mm range has always been the hardest for me to compose in. Just doesn't feel right for some reason...

We all have different preferences, I actually really like that 70-90mm range.

I can think of a few reasons, that are interrelated:
* Zooms rose to prominence. At first they might have only offered tolerable image quality, but their flexibility made for a preferable tradeoff. Currently, zooms perform so well that there's arguably very little benefit to a 135mm prime.
* The 135mm focal length wasn't all that great to begin with. E.g. for portraits, it's on the long side and creates a lot of distance between photographer and subject. For things like wildlife etc. it's really much too short. For portraits, focal lengths like 85mm and 100mm presently seem to be preferred.
* I guess manufacturers just didn't see enough sales on a 135 prime to justify continued innovation.

There's of course truckloads of 135mm primes for mostly older SLR systems out there. Some are excellent, many are quite good; a few are poor performers. Take your pick.

I agree, Zooms really came of age with Multi Coating, and the first third party Zoom to match the quality of the major camera manufacturers zooms were the Vivitar S1 70-210mm f3.5 lenses released in 1973. I had earlier zooms, but was never happy with them, quality was not as good as my 135mm.

Since 1973 zooms have improved even further, the use of aspherical elements was a game changer.

Would I still buy a fixed prime? Yes, I bought a Canon 85mm f1.8 a couple of years ago, if I wanted a 134mm then it would be the f2.

Ian

 

[koraks]

Would I still buy a fixed prime? Yes, I bought a Canon 85mm f1.8 a couple of years ago

Same here, I bought an EF 100/2, which is a very similar lens - just usually a little cheaper. It's fairly compact and light-weight, while offering excellent optical quality. I also find the focal length to be more useful than the longer 135, which to my taste is stuck in the middle a bit as I've highlighted earlier.

 

[loccdor]

By the way, the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 is available in EF mount, came out not that long ago, and is the sharpest lens I own: so I wouldn't say they're a rejected focal length, they're still being produced, to rave reviews.

The EF 100/2 is a great travel lens. The nFD 100/2.8 was even more pocketable: unfortunately the aperture failed on mine.

 

[IMoL]

Personally, I have never really gelled with the 135 focal length. I have had a couple over the years, but they never got a lot of use.

I do, however, really like lenses in the 100-105mm focal length range - the Nikkor-P 105 f/2.5 and the Zuiko 100 f/2.8 are regularly in my bag (and used). The combination of 28, 50 and 100/105 is my standard three lens kit in both my Nikon and Olympus outfits. Two lens kits are normally a 35 and 100/105 combination.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I don't know how I've managed to shoot 35mm SLRs for 55 years, yet I've never owned a 135mm focal length lens. I did own something close -- a 120mm Pentax, I think(?). But I didn't use it much, and after it was stolen I never replaced it.

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. I have 200mm lenses for both kits, but I never carry them in my shoulder bag, so not doing me much good.