135mm lenses- less popular?

G

GarageBoy

Well-known
Local time
6:12 PM
Joined
May 29, 2013
Messages
838
When did 75-100 mm lenses become the more commonly recommended portrait lens over the 135?
I remember the 135 as a really popular focal length at some point (every third party cranked out a 135 2.8 of some sort)
 
135mm was the 9x12cm normal lens - hence one of the lens sizes every maker already had. Cross-format re-use of triplet designs probably had grown irrelevant by the fifties, but habits take longer to die, and after the length grew unpopular, 135mm lenses still had a long phase where they were the cheapest long lenses. But by the late seventies, 135mm already was very, very outdated - even the oldest of my professors did not have it among his preferred focal lengths.
 
sevo said:
135mm was the 9x12cm normal lens - hence one of the lens sizes every maker already had. Cross-format re-use of triplet designs probably had grown irrelevant by the fifties, but habits take longer to die, and after the length grew unpopular, 135mm lenses still had a long phase where they were the cheapest long lenses. But by the late seventies, 135mm already was very, very outdated - even the oldest of my professors did not have it among his preferred focal lengths.
Click to expand...

"9x12cm normal lens"
9x12 = 4x5 inches so we are talking about large format cameras?

"by the late seventies, 135mm already was very, very outdated"
Outdated but was there something inherently wrong or problematic about the FL? I had read somewhere that 135 was an optimal so-called "portrait" lens.
 
I thought it was a compromise lens not too long for portraits but long enough to be useful. Personally I never liked that length but you were certainly spoilt for choice in the day. I had a 90 for my M3 and when that camera was stolen I got an OM1 with a 100mm rather than the 135.

No idea why 135 was considered an 'easy' focal length to manufacture though. I suppose the comment about it being the standard length for 5x4 is the explanation but manufacturers like Olympus for example can't have had any history of making such lenses.
 
There is no "optimal" portrait lens. 135mm on a LEICA will let you cover a head and shoulders area from about 1.5 meters, so in other words, at a distance where distortion is not an object anymore, you can more or less fill the negative with a face. A 90mm will cover half upper body and a 50mm will cover from the waist up. However, anything longer than 50mm will tend to "flatten" the figure and the face, by making distant parts of the body appear bigger than what we are used to through our eyes.
An example of a bigger format lens adapted to 35mm is 135mm Hektor - it has a big coverage circle, but weak resolution compared to lenses that only cover 35mm.
 
When I first started getting into portraits my go to lenses were the 50mm and 135mm, however as I gained more experience I was starting to find the 135mm tight, I was being distant from my subjects.
If you're shooting headshots, houlder shots it's fine

Outside of portraits, I find this lens great and fun for shooting candid or street.

Even 90mm I still find too long, thus selling my 90mm Tele-Elmarit, bought a Voigtlander 75mm and looks promising as it's very close to the 50mm.

I still have a 135mm 2.8 AI-S lens but I haven't touched it in a long time, if I'm to shoot portraits, I would always reach and bring my 50mm with me
 
popularity of 135s

popularity of 135s

At one time the 135mm focal length was the longest lens that most interchangeable lens 35mm rangefinder cameras could handle. Since getting closer was the game, it was often a first choice for an auxiliary lens to purchase. 135mm f4 or f3.5 lenses also tended to be lighter than their shorter brothers. 90 and 100s can be great for portrait work, but were seldom usual for telephoto work. As longer lenses (i.e. 200mm, 300mm) in reasonable sizes and prices for SLRs became available, they became the primary choice for "getting close," and the interest in 135s waned. I found that I often ended taking my 135 Nikkor with me instead of my 105 because of the weight difference, but if I was doing portraits, the 105 was better.
Due to their popularity, 135s also tended to be cheapest telephoto for RF and SLR cameras.
Cheers, WES LODER
 
The Canon 135 f2.0 lens is primary for individual portraits I use for digital capture.

Recently bought a 135 f4 Elmar and I'm anxious to try it out for B&W film individual portraits.

Also I own, bought in the early sevenities, a 135 f2.8 Nikkor.

So I'm loaded to the gills with 135mm lenses!

Smiles!
 
News to me!

I use my Nikon 135/2.0 AF DC all the time for portraits.

Also use the Biotar 58/2 on m43, which has close to the same FOV.

Texsport
 
Hi,

As I saw it then & now, you had 90mm and 90 x 1½ = 135mm and 90 x 2 = 180mm.

All popular focal lengths from you know who...

Regards, David

PS I can see the logic of it but would have spread the focal lengths over a log scale and not a linear one. Oddly enough, 28, 50 and 90mm almost fit the log scale version; as does 35, 53, 85mm but more exactly. Sums done on a slide rule for speed, so not 100% right...
 
No passport photos anymore?. That's what it came out for the 135. Ya I know; over night photographers are into expert digital now.
 
GarageBoy said:
When did 75-100 mm lenses become the more commonly recommended portrait lens over the 135?
I remember the 135 as a really popular focal length at some point (every third party cranked out a 135 2.8 of some sort)
Click to expand...

The 135 was NEVER a "popular" recommendation for portraits. The popularity of the 135 was originally based on its being the longest practical tele on 35mm RFs. As SLRs began to dominate, they inherited the 135 as a practical compromise as a single tele to own.

135s fell from popularity when reasonably decent and reasonably priced 85-210 zooms came on the market in the mid to late '60s. Prior to that, 85s and 100-105s were generally only commonly used by pros and well-heeled amateurs who could also afford an additional longer lens, typically 200-300.

When I started using SLRs in the early '60s the common duffer's kit was 35, 50, & 135. By the late '60s it had evolved into a 28, 50, & 85-210, with the 85-210 evolving into a 70-210 or 80-200 by the mid '70s.
 
I am briefly considering a 135 after doing headshots with a 105 that didn't feel "right" to me-
They all look like I'm too close
Perhaps I should grab a 180 instead?
Though 135s are CHEAP in all mounts
 
john s--A sixteen inch, wow! I used and still have a Dirtzgen Maniphase Multiplex (Decimal Trig Type L0g Log Rule). No Kidding!
 
As a general rule of thumb when doing portraiture, I like to keep at least five feet away from the person/s being photographed to avoid perspective distortion. With this in mind, as Marek and others have pointed out, 135mm is an ideal focal length for a tight head-and-shoulders shot of an individual. I don't use this focal length much otherwise, but I wouldn't be without it.

I also use 100mm and 85mm for portraits, depending upon whom and what I want to include in the frame. I would even use a shorter focal length for environmental portraits.

- Murray
 
The headshot portrait of me here was made with a 135mm lens.

I have found that an important feature of the 135 lens is the fact that with the camera, which was mounted on a tripod, was far enough away to give space so as my subject could relax and show more of a natural look in the photos. Most of the folks I photographed were not trained models or actors! And even those trained people will usually start our nervous and sometimes stiff that will evaporate as the session progresses.

I do have a 85 f1,4 Zeiss Planar manual focus for my Canon cameras but I only use it when spsce doesn't allow the 135.
 
Bill Clark said:
The headshot portrait of me here was made with a 135mm lens.

I have found that an important feature of the 135 lens is the fact that with the camera, which was mounted on a tripod, was far enough away to give space so as my subject could relax and show more of a natural look in the photos. Most of the folks I photographed were not trained models or actors! And even those trained people will usually start our nervous and sometimes stiff that will evaporate as the session progresses.

I really began my pro career doing "lots" of model headshots.
The 135mm Hektor was that bit longer, making me less intrusive..
The models I became friendly with, later preferred I use the 90mm.
More available light, f2.8 vs 4.5.
I bought a 135mm Hektor some years ago for less than $50.
It's worth a lot less..
My Tele-Elmar is stunningly sharp!
Too sharp for "happy" likeness..
Maybe my 90, an Elmarit later a Tele-Elmarit were way better.
My 105mm f2,5 and a 135mm f3.5 are my Nikon choice.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom