135mm lenses- less popular?

[David Hughes]

How many readers here even know what a slide rule is? I'm old enough to have used a 16inch Hemmi (= pretty old).

Hi,

I must be well past it as I still use the things.

Of course, not having to switch it on and wait five minutes for it to start is an advantage. Plus you don't get adverts for the next generation of gizmo...

And often they give an idea of the answer for several values by glancing along the thing. Unlike spread sheets where each figure has to be entered. When I did the Weber-Fechner based figures for the three primes I could see the answers 85 and 90 and 50 and 53 just by glancing at the scale.

Regards, David

 

[David Hughes]

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.

Hi,

Interesting, I would have said the zoom came into it's own in the early 80's. Mainly because I cut out a 1982 review for the AT-X Tokina that impressed me. Until then I'd not considered them as a serious lens.

I didn't get around to buying one until a few years ago when I could pick one up cheaply on ebay to play with.

Regards, David

 

[DominikDUK]

Most 135 are rather slow at least compared to their shorter siblings and therefore less desirable as Portrait lens, everybody knows Portraits have to be shot at f2 🙂 The zoom kit lenses of the 1980's killed them off imo. The 135 was more an amateur than a pro lens a lot of them were Tessar or Triplets with a few Sonnars thrown in and when the mfg started to Substitute prime lenses for Zooms there was no reason to get a 135mm.

Personaly I like the focal length for landscape and cityscape work and some Portraits.

 

[Dwig]

How many readers here even know what a slide rule is? I'm old enough to have used a 16inch Hemmi (= pretty old).

I used a circular rule in class back in High School and when I started college. It was the equivalent of a 10" log log decitrig at the "seam" but some of the trig scales were a bit shorter as they are near the hub. While I didn't carry it to class, I also used my dad's old K&E 10" log log decitrig, ivory on mahogany. I still have both, but very rarely use them these days. Slide rules are rather pitiful tools for doing addition 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

I used a circular rule in class back in High School and when I started college. It was the equivalent of a 10" log log decitrig at the "seam" but some of the trig scales were a bit shorter as they are near the hub. While I didn't carry it to class, I also used my dad's old K&E 10" log log decitrig, ivory on mahogany. I still have both, but very rarely use them these days. Slide rules are rather pitiful tools for doing addition 🙂

Then again, you could argue that's all they do. It's only the scales that are logarithmic.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

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.

That was always my understanding too, though of course the EFERN f/4.5 was also sold uncoupled for use on early non-RF Leicas...

Cheers,

R.

 

[YYV_146]

Most 135 are rather slow at least compared to their shorter siblings and therefore less desirable as Portrait lens, everybody knows Portraits have to be shot at f2 🙂 The zoom kit lenses of the 1980's killed them off imo. The 135 was more an amateur than a pro lens a lot of them were Tessar or Triplets with a few Sonnars thrown in and when the mfg started to Substitute prime lenses for Zooms there was no reason to get a 135mm.

Personaly I like the focal length for landscape and cityscape work and some Portraits.

My work full-body environment portrait lens is F0.95 😀

My 135mm, on the other hand, is pretty slow...but more bokeh doesn't exactly equate good bokeh. To me the 135mm STF is irreplaceable for half-body portraits and small group portraits.

 

[narsuitus]

"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."

"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 too remember the 135mm as being a popular telephoto lens; not a popular portrait lens. Back in the '60s, I used Asahi Pentax Spotmatics and these three lenses in my "duffer's kit" for shooting general subjects:

a) 50mm f/1.4
b) 28mm f/3.5
c) 135mm f/3.5

Each lens was permanently mounted on a body so I did not waste time changing lenses.

https://flic.kr/p/ahCiMp

 

[narsuitus]

Today, I use the following Nikon telephoto lenses for portraits on a 35mm camera (listed left to right in the photo):

105mm f/2.8 micro
85mm f/1.8
180mm f/2.8
105mm f/2.5
80-200mm f/2.8
75-150mm f/3.5 Series E

All are excellent portrait lenses. The optical differences between them are very subtle.

Please note the absence of the 135mm lens but not the 135mm focal length.

https://flic.kr/p/am5qaX

 

[BillBingham2]

I think for SLRs it was price and focusing that drove it. Dim viewfinders were helped by faster lenses. My guess is it had enough of a reach over a 50 and was lower cost than a good 200 that folks behind the counter recommended them in an effort to perform SWAT (Sell What's Available Today).

B2 (;->

 

[oftheherd]

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

I pondered the reason as well. My first two extra lenses for my SLR were Yashica Yashikors, 28mm and 135mm, both f/3.5, and came as a kit. Fujica had a lot of lens lengths for SLR, but the PX only advertised/carried 28mm and 135mm. I eventually guessed what wes-loder said above, that the 135mm just bridged over from the RF cameras the SLR began to replace. But I never talked to anyone else who made any such connection.

As to popularity, I can only speak for myself, that I did and do like it. I have 200mm, 300mm, and 400mm. I seldom use them. Interestingly I used to have a 600mm Sigma cat that I used a lot, but it was also useful for portraits imho. Of course, part of that is no doubt that I see wide as more interesting than I see long.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I used to use a 135mm f2.8 Zuiko for portraits and weddings years ago and it was a great lens. However, I always felt that I was stood too far away from the subject. I went to an 85mm f2 which I preferred. These days, I use a Nikkor 105mm f2 DC which, for me, is the best I've ever used. Nikon make a 135mm version as well but I went for the 105mm. I suppose it's just how the shot looks to you.

There are a lot of 135mm lenses out there which look like bargains next to other 105mm and 85mm lenses.

 

[GarageBoy]

But sometimes, standing father away gives you the perspective you want

 

[Noll]

I own a lowly zuiko 135mm f/3.5 that came with an OM kit. Based on too much internet browsing, I was under the impression that I wasn't supposed to like this lens at first and planned to sell it! Fortunately I actually used it and now value it for being just long enough, great bokeh, sharpness (on film, at least), and small size - especially compared to the Zuiko 200mm f/4 (which I hardly use, despite being excellent optically as well). So what if everyone else is biased against them?

 

[uhoh7]

David Douglas Duncan shot a bunch of those incredible Korean War portraits with 135. He loved that early nikon 135 🙂

My latest prize is a pre-war CZJ 135/4 which I should try for portraits.

 

[Austerby]

It's the London marathon this Sunday and the runners go past the top of my road. I always go and watch and usually take photos.

This year I thought I'd take my 135/4 tele-elmar on my M3 and perhaps my 75/1.8 VC on my R3A and see how they compare. HP5+ in both as it's forecast to be rainy.

 

[Nokton48]

Personally I think the 135's are under rated considerably. I agree that the kit zooms probably killed off interest in them. What a loss. They can be had for a pittance (bought a nice Minolta MC for 5 Bucks at a camera show). It's a great lens!

Back in the seventies the 135 was my first big purchase, after using the 50 for a while.

 

[Dektol Dan]

135 or 90

135 or 90

I have both, and use both for portraits. I prefer the 135.
On a rangefinder it's not a quick set up lens, so I suppose I should say that it's best for more formal portraits i.e. where one's subject poses.

 

[charjohncarter]

That's me!

I still have a slide rule but have forgotten how to use it. Maybe 'You Tube' has a tutorial. I'm not really in this discussion but I have a 90mm, 100mm, 135mm, and an SLR 200mm, I use them rarely. I don't know why I bought them, as the only time I use them is when I feel guilty for buying. I will say I never take my Leica on vacation but I do pop the 90mm in the bag with my Bessa. It is perfect for across the street shots.

 

[Godfrey]

I use a Hektor 135mm f/4.5 from 1960 and an Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8 from about 1978 with my M-P.

Both are excellent performers, although I use them rather infrequently since I tend to prefer a little shorter and a little longer more of the time.

Leica M-P + Hektor 135mm f/4.5
ISO 400 @ f/8​

The Hektor is long and slender but quite light and RF coupled.
The Elmarit-R is fast, a little bulky, and heavy; use with the EVF.

G