135mm lenses- less popular?

[charjohncarter]

Maybe, because it is not popular now might be a good reason to use it. I'm always zigging when everybody else is zagging. At least that's what my parents said, God rest their souls. So I think I'll get mine out tomorrow.

 

[uhoh7]

it has to be said, 135 is the trickiest FL to hit focus and frame properly on RF. Well, I guess it's nice to see the whole frame anyway 🙂

 

[Phil_F_NM]

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

Back when I was in the beginnings of engineering classes, I asked one of the co-chairs of the math department at my school (Temple University) if I could use a slide rule and they said it was considered an unfair advantage almost on par with cheating. I had to learn the use of a slide rule when I was a meteorologist in the Navy, so I always felt comfortable with them.
Engineering school didn't work out so I got a degree in journalism. 😕

Aside from that, the only 135mm I've ever used on an SLR was a Fujinon EBC hung in front of an ST801.

I had one for my Leica, a 135mm f/4.5 Hektor. I made an adapter for the visoflex threads and modified it for use on a Bronica 6x6 with focal plane shutter and it was great.

These days I'd like to get the 135mm f/2 AIS but will probably skip that focal length for the 180mm ED.

Phil Forrest

 

[Pablito]

The 135 2.8 is an excellent lens for use on crop sensor mirrorless cameras. It becomes a 200mm 2.8 equivalent - great for theatrical work or events that won't let you get close.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Just spent a day with the 135mm on my OM-2n and it is great for picking out details and so on.

Regards, David

PS Glad to hear that there are still some slide rule users out there. Nothing wrong in picking the right tool for the job. We must start a club...

 

[Texsport]

Most of the excellent lenses discussed are manual focus, but that's not always possible, as when trying to capture spontaneous expressions.

For fast portrait style shots, nothing beats the Nikon 135/2.0 AF DC on an F5.(I love the sound of that Nikon auto drive in the morning!)

I certainly also appreciate my Canon EOS3 with 85/1.2 AF.(The eye controlled focus feature of that camera is swell)

If I'm taking posed portraits, and taking my time, I'd always go medium format - Noritar 80/2, Fujica 100/3.5 likely with extra Auto Up close up lens, or Carl Zeiss Jena 180/2.8.

Texsport

 

[Bill Clark]

I have always liked the 135 telephoto lens. I bought my first one, a f2.8 Nikkor in 1972.

 

[Brian Legge]

I grew up in the SLR era; a 80-200mm was the default long lens for me. 135mm made no sense to me as a result.

Rangefinders eventually brought me around to try one. My first was a chrome Canon 135mm. I didn't use it often but really liked what I was getting with it. I sold it to buy a lighter black version but found a 135 Tele-Elmar first. I haven't used the lenses for portraits or headshots though.

 

[Dwig]

How can people say "it was never a popular recommendation"?? ...

I never said it wasn't a popular recommendation. I just said that the recommendation was as a general purpose single lens tele and not as a purely portrait lens.

In 2015 we are far, far, faaaaar away from the headshots from the 80s and 90s. Blur, mottled backdrops and all.

Those "headshots from the 80s and 90s" were an affectation of a period only 1/2 way back in time to the period of the 135's heyday. Salse of 135mm lenses in the '80s and '90s were very very small, as a percentage of long lens sales, compared to the sales percentage during its heyday in the '50s and early to mid '60s.

The majority of the small group who bought 135s in the '80s and '90s were either the few RF users, who had little other choice for a GP long lens, or SLR users looking for tight faceshots, as opposed to more classical portrait framing, and wanted the shallower DOF that they couldn't get with the slower zooms of the day.

True, the 135 was "popular", but by 1970 that popularity was only with a small percentage of those buying photographic gear. I sold camera gear in camera stores catering to advanced amateurs and real professionals from the mid '70s through the mid '90s. Sales of 135s during that period were very very small. We generally only stocked 135s in the brands our pros used, Nikon and occasionally Canon. In other brands, and in 3rd party lenses, we only stocked zooms, macros (typically 90-100), and occasionally 85s, 100/105s, and 200 and longer.

 

[Texsport]

Today, a 135mm lens seems less handy partly because of higher quality zooms, but primarily because of crop sensor digital cameras.

The option of 50mm,80mm, and 100mm FOV using a single 50mm lens on 3 different camera bodies is more useful than 135, 201, and 270mm FOVs. (FF, 1.6X crop, and 2X crop FOV digital cameras)

And obviously a 50/1.2 lens on a crop sensor digital camera is going to be faster than any 135mm lens.

Texsport

 

[presspass]

I have, and use, 135 mm lenses on Leica Ms, both film and digital. My favorite is the oft-maligned 135 2.8 Tele-Elmarit. It's part of my daily kit and very handy when I don't want to mount a Visoflex and the 200, another wonderful combination. If you want to use just one rangefinder body, the 135 is about as long as you can go without adding kit. I use mine for scenery, sports, animals, and at fires. On a keeper level, it produces as many good shots as a 50 Summicron or a 35. But that's just me, for others, it may not be a handy lens.