Steve Karr
Film tank shaker
Hi everyone,
I have been on reading for days and am confused. I am looking to add a 135mm to my kit. I am looking for an "old school" look. Sharp and new is not the goal but I don't want unsharp & hard too focus either. SO what do you guys like about the 135 & what is not so great? If you have any images to share that is super important, even more than specs. I shoot people/lifestyle/fashion and don't want the Digital / Sharp birthday party look popular in advertising these days.
Thanks in Advance for helping!!
Steve
I have been on reading for days and am confused. I am looking to add a 135mm to my kit. I am looking for an "old school" look. Sharp and new is not the goal but I don't want unsharp & hard too focus either. SO what do you guys like about the 135 & what is not so great? If you have any images to share that is super important, even more than specs. I shoot people/lifestyle/fashion and don't want the Digital / Sharp birthday party look popular in advertising these days.
Thanks in Advance for helping!!
Steve
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The Tele-Elmar f/4 is sharper than the Tele Elmarit f/2.8, smaller and lighter also, but the Tele-Elmarit has the "eyes" which makes it very easy to focus and gives you a bigger finder image. Both lenses have removeable heads to fit short focusing mounts for Visoflx use. The older Hektor and Elmar lenses can also be adapted to the Visoflex but neither one is a good as the first two I mentioned. Lenses that'll fit a Visoflex can be adapted to use on an SLR.
The "modern" Tele-Elmar and Tele-Elmarit are both designs from the late 60's and are sharp but don't "look digital". The older Elmar and Hektor have even more of the "classic" look. The ancient uncoated versions might be a bit too flat. Make sure that you use a lens hood with a 135.
Nikon and Canon also made good lenses in the 135mm focal length. The most bang for your buck would be a black Canon.
The "modern" Tele-Elmar and Tele-Elmarit are both designs from the late 60's and are sharp but don't "look digital". The older Elmar and Hektor have even more of the "classic" look. The ancient uncoated versions might be a bit too flat. Make sure that you use a lens hood with a 135.
Nikon and Canon also made good lenses in the 135mm focal length. The most bang for your buck would be a black Canon.
Last edited:
VinceC
Veteran
You'll probably have to get a very old uncoated lens from the 1930s for the look you seem to want. The 1950s and later lenses are all too sharp and modern. 135mm is not a difficult lens to make, optically. They're also quite affordable.
hans voralberg
Veteran
The old Hektor 135/4 might fit I think
Gary E
Well-known
Yup, I think so too. I've used the 135/4.5 Hektor which produced great results. They're not too heavy and can find them for little money as well. I guess 135mm lenses aren't too popular with RF users. They have that old fashion look to their images if that's what you're looking for.
Last edited:
Richard G
Veteran
Might as well get the Tele-Elmar and pursue the look you want with post-processing. Meanwhile you will get a lot more out of it with an external finder, SHOOC.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have just posted some images taken with an old Zeiss Jena 135mm 4.0 Sonnar. Ialso have the Nikon 135mm 3.5 and a Hektor 135mm 4.5. I sold my Canon 135mm 3.5. They are all good lenses.
peter_n
Veteran
I use the f4 Tele-Elmar v.1 which is excellent. Here's a shot from mine that's a bit fuzzy:
I also use a Jupiter-11 for travel, the J-11 is very light and a pretty good performer. All 135mm lenses are on the inexpensive side, but the FSU lenses are real bargains IMO. The J-11 shot below was handheld. It is also an f4 lens.
I also use a Jupiter-11 for travel, the J-11 is very light and a pretty good performer. All 135mm lenses are on the inexpensive side, but the FSU lenses are real bargains IMO. The J-11 shot below was handheld. It is also an f4 lens.