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.

 

[GregY]

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, it's never been about the quality of 135mm lenses, but more as to whether people find them a useful focal length or not.

 

[ic-racer]

I might have to look into a Nikkor 135.

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

I might have to look into a Nikkor 135.

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!

 

[chuckroast]

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:

 

[Milpool]

Silly question but what does defocus do?

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:

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Silly question but what does defocus do?

Many years ago Sigma had a 135mm F2.
If my memory serves me well they also Had a 135mm that stopped down to F32!!