daveco
Newbie
ZeissFan
Veteran
I've used the f/4.0 135mm Sonnar for the Zeiss Ikon Contax a number of times. I love the focal length, and its very usable as a portrait lens.
The lens is very sharp, easy to focus and reasonably versatile.
I use an auxiliary viewfinder. Works fine.
The lens is very sharp, easy to focus and reasonably versatile.
I use an auxiliary viewfinder. Works fine.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A superb answer, Dave.
Changing the subject, I have had maybe half a dozen: 2x 135/2.8 'goggles', 2-3 Soviet in LTM and Kiev fit (I've forgotten whether I had 2x TM or one: it was a long time ago, when the Soviet Union still existed), a Dallmeyer and a Foca.
I never used them much, and although I did get a few good landscapes with the 135/2.8 (the only convenient one), I sold it maybe 10 years ago. Then a friend lent me one of the last 'goggles' lenses ever made and I tried it on the M8. I bought it off him...
It's a 180 equivalent on the M8 and pure magic, especially in the mountains and for selective-focus close-ups. In fact when I leave for the South of France and the Pyrenees on Monday, it's going to be one of the most important lenses I have with me.
Cheers,
R.
jalLee2001
jallee55
Those are some great pic, I think I will blow the dust off of mine and starting using it again.
brachal
Refrigerated User
I have the Jupiter-11 and use it fairly often. Usually at music festivals or for wildlife shots in the swamp. The 11 is only f/4, but it's a good performer and usually very cheap. Also small enough that it isn't an issue to have it in my bag.
deepwhite
Well-known
My Elmarit M 90mm f2.8 becomes an 135mm on the R-D1s, and to my surprise I found I love it more this way. It's totally personal. Me loving 135mm more than 90mm.
caperunner
Established
Tried my nikon f3.5 on the S3 and very happy with the results. As a few have said previously this lens wants and deserves more work - the outcome is very satifactory.
VinceC
Veteran
This thread inspired me to shoot some 135mm pictures a couple of weekends ago. Nikon SP and Nikkor 135/3.5. Nothing special but I like the way it isolates subjects. It also lets you get in tighter on a subject than any other RF lens.
Attachments
ferider
Veteran
When doing landscapes, 135 is great for isolating details. Like this:
Also, it is the only RF lens that shows the moon large enough for me. If you have seen AA's photo of moon and half dome (overlaying two 250mm and 80mm 6x6 photos), you know what I mean. I took this for my wife since it shows our house:
Both taken with Elmarit 135/2.8. Cheers,
Roland.
Also, it is the only RF lens that shows the moon large enough for me. If you have seen AA's photo of moon and half dome (overlaying two 250mm and 80mm 6x6 photos), you know what I mean. I took this for my wife since it shows our house:
Both taken with Elmarit 135/2.8. Cheers,
Roland.
VinceC
Veteran
Great shots, Roland.
The second shot also shows the 135mm's other strong suit -- it's the only RF lens that really shows telephoto compression and flattening.
The second shot also shows the 135mm's other strong suit -- it's the only RF lens that really shows telephoto compression and flattening.
grainhound
Well-known
This thread now has me wanting to get something to post with my Nikkor 135. I saw Bjørn Røslett's website recently, and he says this about the lens:
“A short telephoto design harking back to the late 1940's, the 135 mm can be expected to show its age and certainly is a little long in the teeth. The image is quite soft with the lens set wide open, and sometimes strong blue-yellow fringing is seen. By stopping down to f/8, the image sharpens up remarkably and the fringing is virtually gone. Colour saturation is much lower than by today's standards, so the final impression is of a well-rounded almost 3-D image with a slightly pastel-like look to it. Quite attractive in fact, if you find the appropriate subject to fit the image characteristics of the 135 mm lens.”
I've shot a few frames wide open, and they look sharp to me, though I haven't made any 11x14s from them. Bokeh alone is enough reason to keep the lens, but what do others make of Bjørn's assessment of its wide open performance?
“A short telephoto design harking back to the late 1940's, the 135 mm can be expected to show its age and certainly is a little long in the teeth. The image is quite soft with the lens set wide open, and sometimes strong blue-yellow fringing is seen. By stopping down to f/8, the image sharpens up remarkably and the fringing is virtually gone. Colour saturation is much lower than by today's standards, so the final impression is of a well-rounded almost 3-D image with a slightly pastel-like look to it. Quite attractive in fact, if you find the appropriate subject to fit the image characteristics of the 135 mm lens.”
I've shot a few frames wide open, and they look sharp to me, though I haven't made any 11x14s from them. Bokeh alone is enough reason to keep the lens, but what do others make of Bjørn's assessment of its wide open performance?
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
I don't really agree with his assessent of wide-open performance. Maybe his focus wasn't accurate. That's the biggest challenge with this lens, particularly if you're using it with a camera that doesn't have a 1:1 lifesize finder. Most of my 135mm pictures are taken wide open or f/4 and it's extremely sharp. This is also a pretty undemanding optical formula, so almost all reviews of 135mm lenses remark on their sharpness.
ferider
Veteran
100% agree with Vince.
Best shot on a long EBL RF though, like an M3 or Nikon.
In general, it is very hard to find a bad classic 135mm lens, pick Canon, Leica, Nikkor, they are all good in my experience, relatively high resolution corner to corner and nice OOF; but accurate RF calibration is a must.
Roland.
Best shot on a long EBL RF though, like an M3 or Nikon.
In general, it is very hard to find a bad classic 135mm lens, pick Canon, Leica, Nikkor, they are all good in my experience, relatively high resolution corner to corner and nice OOF; but accurate RF calibration is a must.
Roland.
grainhound
Well-known
Thanks, Vince. You've said what I'd read before I bought the lens (especially from Dante Stella), and what I've thought after buying it. Certainly, focusing requires care; my last shots with it, at dusk with an M3, were focused on the wrong flower. I really did take some flower shots... I wanted to see its sharpness and bokeh, and may actually post something like that. At least I learned something about handling the lens for when I get a chance to photograph someone interesting in a pub. Merciful's shot with the insane ISO comes to mind.
Guy
Guy
Bingley
Veteran
I have the compact MD Rokkor 135 for my Minolta SLR, but don't have a 135mm lens for rf, prefering instead the little (and excellent) Canon 100/3.5. Frankly, I've never warmed to the 135 focal length, although I have to say from the photos in this thread that I should give it another try. There's some very nice work posted here.
Sonnar2
Well-known
My favorite 135mm is the 135/2.8 Sonnar (4 elements) for the Rolleiflex SL350 camera.
This is a reasonable short and lightweight lens, for the speed.
135mm is a great focal length but I prefer SLRs for it. Focussing is much much easier.
100mm is the longest where I use RF. My Canon RF 135 lenses don't see much daylight.
This is a reasonable short and lightweight lens, for the speed.
135mm is a great focal length but I prefer SLRs for it. Focussing is much much easier.
100mm is the longest where I use RF. My Canon RF 135 lenses don't see much daylight.
Last edited:
Spider67
Well-known
I used the 135 for taking pics at concerts readings never for portraits.
A Kiev + 135 is my special combo for readings etc.
Yes the 35+50+135 combo was the classic set.......and many people (myself included)actually knew what to do with them. The 135 for grabbing some pisc of people but until recently the 35 was quite a mystery for me.....
A Kiev + 135 is my special combo for readings etc.
Yes the 35+50+135 combo was the classic set.......and many people (myself included)actually knew what to do with them. The 135 for grabbing some pisc of people but until recently the 35 was quite a mystery for me.....
noimmunity
scratch my niche
I have a Komura 135/2.8 that is getting CLA'd... It is an ernostar design, so actually very compact and light.
Haven't found anything much on the web, but it seems the SLR versions of these lenses were well regarded. Has anybody tried the Komura 135s? (they also made a 135/3.5 in LTM). I expect performance close to the Konica Hexanon 90/2.8, which is also an ernostar design...
Haven't found anything much on the web, but it seems the SLR versions of these lenses were well regarded. Has anybody tried the Komura 135s? (they also made a 135/3.5 in LTM). I expect performance close to the Konica Hexanon 90/2.8, which is also an ernostar design...
ferider
Veteran
I have often wondered about that one, Jon. The Komura teles (105/2, 105/2.8, 135/2.8) are supposed to behave similarly to Nikkors of that period. Do post some photos when you get it, please. Also, what is the minimum focus distance ?
Best,
Roland.
Best,
Roland.