Why No DA 135mm Prime?

blende8 · 09-14-2012, 01:25 PM

The FA135 has a much faster AF than the DA50-135.

Sagitta · 09-14-2012, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by blackcloudbrew

Even though I own a DA*50-135 and find it to be a wonderful lens, every time I've shot with one of the several old 135 primes I've owned, on any of my APS-c cameras I find that length hard to work with and just not that useful. Honestly that's why the DA*50-135 is there. It gives you a the 135 length when you need it and a lot of others at the same time. I think one could also pose the same question about why no DA 85 f1.4 and have the same answer, it just isn't that useful with a cropped sensor.

I picked up a cheap, plasticy FA28-90mm - I absolutely love that lens, and I've used the upper end of the lens quite a bit. It stays reasonably sharp, and retains a decent bokeh throughout. Granted, at 90mm its slow as hell at f/5.6, but its not exactly a lens I expect great things from (therefore I'm always getting pleasantly surprised by its performance.

As I said - its a budget lens from the film days and pure plastic, but you can get them dirt cheap with a bit of digging. It primarily is used as my 'out and about grabbing family snapshots' lens. If I break the thing, I'm not going to be overly upset since it costs so little.

This was shot at f/8 at the 90mm end of the lens - you can see the bokeh is staying nice and not-ugly even stopped down a bit.

I also have two manual focus 135mm primes and they're both pains in the butt to use due to the length. If I want a 135mm equivalent, I'm grabbing the plastic wonder instead.

**rbefly** · 09-14-2012, 08:28 PM

Thanks to everyone who has replied to my question, I appreciate all the input and opinions.
I agree that a DA 24 should be high on the list of new releases, I'm not always satisfied with my Sigma Super-Wide and A/F would be great, also. But a good distance scale is a must-have (for me, anyway!) to nail that hyperfocal on scenics.
The M 135mm f3.5 is a fine lens with brilliant color rendition and I.Q.. But sometimes the "A" function is useful (this coming from the proud owner of about a dozen "M"s or other fully-manual lenses!!) and A/F comes in handy.
I don't find the 135mm focal length unwieldy or awkward, either in digital or film format. It's a bridge between 100mm and 200mm, great for tight portraits and isolating subjects from cluttered backgrounds. I ended up getting a Pentax A 135mm f/2.8 and am very happy with the results so far.
The 50-135mm has a good reputation, and I'm sure it's a fine zoom. I'm more interested in a 135mm prime, being smaller, lighter and (hopefully!) cheaper.
Anyway, if Pentax R + D is listening, here's a few votes for a DA 24mm prime and a DA 135mm prime. Oh, and a new teleconverter would be great, too!
Ron

lytrytyr · 09-15-2012, 07:06 AM

Originally posted by rbefly

I agree that a DA 24 should be high on the list of new releases. But a good distance scale is a must-have (for me, anyway!) to nail that hyperfocal on scenics.
Anyway, if Pentax R + D is listening, here's a few votes for a DA 24mm prime.

Maybe a D FA 24/2, like the Zeiss Distagon T* 24mm f/2 ZA SSM in Sony mount.
That lens covers 36x24mm, has a fancy AF motor, and a good distance scale.

**Pål Jensen** · 09-15-2012, 02:19 PM

135mm lenses lost their popularity during the 80's with the advent of high quality telephoto zooms. In short; they don't sell. Most People have this focal lenght covered by a zoom

**fs999** · 09-15-2012, 02:29 PM

and auto extension tubes would also be nice

vrrattko · 09-16-2012, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by msatlas

Well sure, they're not particularly cheap. I paid $550. But hey, that's still way less than a K 85/1.8...

surely not, K85/1.8 can be had for about 300-350 Euros here, which is something like 400-450 USD if I'm correct. Those F and FA135/2.8 are about same price here on used market....

msatlas · 09-16-2012, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by vrrattko

surely not, K85/1.8 can be had for about 300-350 Euros here, which is something like 400-450 USD if I'm correct. Those F and FA135/2.8 are about same price here on used market....

I guess I was going by the last time I had seen one at KEH which was a lot more. Anyway, we're way off topic now.

danielchtong · 09-16-2012, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by vrrattko

yes but those are crazy expensive for an old glass...

You would not have said that if you knew how quick my FA135mm could snap to focus faster than my DA200mm!
These are going rate.

Originally posted by blende8

The FA135 has a much faster AF than the DA50-135.

reeftool · 09-17-2012, 07:31 AM

I'm a couple of days late on this thread (as usual) but I'll chime in on my thoughts. I have a really wonderful M135/3.5. I've never had a bad shot from it. It's sharp as a tack, even wide open. That said, it's just a bit of an oddball length on aps-c. The last time I really used it was for my daughters college graduation pictures and I debated using a zoom for that but chose the 135 because I knew I was going to get good stuff and I was going to be moving around in a crowd and wanted something smaller and light on the camera. The results were great although I ended up cropping most shots and I knew I was going to be doing that from the start. I used my Sigma zoom a week later for another graduation. The distance was just too great and most of my shots were 200mm+ and some were 300 and cropped. And while ok, I can clearly see the difference in IQ. Most of the time, I find it a bit too long or too short. While an AF 135 would be nice, I doubt I would use it any more than my manual one. However, if the dream of FF ever comes to pass, the 135 will become a go to lens once again. I've considered the 50-135 but the SDM issues have scared me away.

**NaClH2O** · 09-17-2012, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by causey

A DA 24mm--that's very needed.

Yep with WR! I'd be on a WR 24mm or 28mm prime in a NY minute!

NaCl(I've got a K 135 F/2.5 that works very well for me thank you very much)H2O

creampuff · 09-17-2012, 09:26 AM

The 135mm lens is relatively simple in terms of optical design. The fact that Pentax cannot even come up with a new 135mm AF lens is a telling indication that they have run out of new ideas.

Blue · 09-17-2012, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

The 135mm lens is relatively simple in terms of optical design. The fact that Pentax cannot even come up with a new 135mm AF lens is a telling indication that they have run out of new ideas.

How hard could it be to re-package the FA 135/2.8 and maybe add Aero Bright and seals and call it a D FA 135/2.8 WR or DA* 135/2.8?

danielchtong · 09-17-2012, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by Blue

How hard could it be to re-package the FA 135/2.8 and maybe add Aero Bright and seals and call it a D FA 135/2.8 WR or DA* 135/2.8?

I agree. They did reissue FA*200mm by throwing in SDM and renaming it DA*200mm with exactly the same elements and configuration. It is a good formula. I had been eyeing FA*200mm for ages until I hit the DA*200mm. It was a no brainer.
Pentax can do that easily with FA135mm

Daniel

Cinders · 09-18-2012, 12:36 AM

135mm on crop is one of my least favorite FL's of all time. Which is funny, since I've owned 3 of them because of super cheap old manual focus options. It feels too long to be a portrait lens, and too wide to be a good telephoto. Even if I've never had a 100 or 200mm prime, I'd probably end up preferring them.

09-14-2012, 01:40 PM	#17
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	Originally posted by blackcloudbrew Even though I own a DA50-135 and find it to be a wonderful lens, every time I've shot with one of the several old 135 primes I've owned, on any of my APS-c cameras I find that length hard to work with and just not that useful. Honestly that's why the DA50-135 is there. It gives you a the 135 length when you need it and a lot of others at the same time. I think one could also pose the same question about why no DA 85 f1.4 and have the same answer, it just isn't that useful with a cropped sensor. I picked up a cheap, plasticy FA28-90mm - I absolutely love that lens, and I've used the upper end of the lens quite a bit. It stays reasonably sharp, and retains a decent bokeh throughout. Granted, at 90mm its slow as hell at f/5.6, but its not exactly a lens I expect great things from (therefore I'm always getting pleasantly surprised by its performance. As I said - its a budget lens from the film days and pure plastic, but you can get them dirt cheap with a bit of digging. It primarily is used as my 'out and about grabbing family snapshots' lens. If I break the thing, I'm not going to be overly upset since it costs so little. This was shot at f/8 at the 90mm end of the lens - you can see the bokeh is staying nice and not-ugly even stopped down a bit. I also have two manual focus 135mm primes and they're both pains in the butt to use due to the length. If I want a 135mm equivalent, I'm grabbing the plastic wonder instead. Last edited by Sagitta; 09-14-2012 at 01:45 PM.

09-14-2012, 08:28 PM	#18
rbefly Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Denver, Colorado Photos: Albums Posts: 2,030 Original Poster	Great Replies! Thanks to everyone who has replied to my question, I appreciate all the input and opinions. I agree that a DA 24 should be high on the list of new releases, I'm not always satisfied with my Sigma Super-Wide and A/F would be great, also. But a good distance scale is a must-have (for me, anyway!) to nail that hyperfocal on scenics. The M 135mm f3.5 is a fine lens with brilliant color rendition and I.Q.. But sometimes the "A" function is useful (this coming from the proud owner of about a dozen "M"s or other fully-manual lenses!!) and A/F comes in handy. I don't find the 135mm focal length unwieldy or awkward, either in digital or film format. It's a bridge between 100mm and 200mm, great for tight portraits and isolating subjects from cluttered backgrounds. I ended up getting a Pentax A 135mm f/2.8 and am very happy with the results so far. The 50-135mm has a good reputation, and I'm sure it's a fine zoom. I'm more interested in a 135mm prime, being smaller, lighter and (hopefully!) cheaper. Anyway, if Pentax R + D is listening, here's a few votes for a DA 24mm prime and a DA 135mm prime. Oh, and a new teleconverter would be great, too! Ron

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Telestar 135mm prime F2.8?	P12	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	02-26-2013 04:47 AM
struggling with zoom 50-135mm and prime 200mm	A8YANG	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	04-03-2012 06:45 AM
How's the idea of using extension cubes for doing macro work on 50mm and 135mm prime?	benhai	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	09-27-2011 06:07 PM
For Sale - Sold: SMC Pentax-M 135mm f3.5 Prime Lens (US)	aerodynamics	Sold Items	6	10-25-2010 11:55 AM

09-14-2012, 01:25 PM	#16
blende8 Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bremen, Germany Photos: Albums Posts: 1,521	The FA135 has a much faster AF than the DA50-135.

09-15-2012, 07:06 AM	#19
lytrytyr Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,310	Originally posted by rbefly I agree that a DA 24 should be high on the list of new releases. But a good distance scale is a must-have (for me, anyway!) to nail that hyperfocal on scenics. Anyway, if Pentax R + D is listening, here's a few votes for a DA 24mm prime. Maybe a D FA 24/2, like the Zeiss Distagon T* 24mm f/2 ZA SSM in Sony mount. That lens covers 36x24mm, has a fancy AF motor, and a good distance scale.

09-15-2012, 02:19 PM	#20
Pål Jensen Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 4,371	135mm lenses lost their popularity during the 80's with the advent of high quality telephoto zooms. In short; they don't sell. Most People have this focal lenght covered by a zoom

09-15-2012, 02:29 PM	#21
fs999 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Luxembourg Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,638	and auto extension tubes would also be nice

09-16-2012, 08:33 AM	#22
vrrattko Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 753	Originally posted by msatlas Well sure, they're not particularly cheap. I paid $550. But hey, that's still way less than a K 85/1.8... surely not, K85/1.8 can be had for about 300-350 Euros here, which is something like 400-450 USD if I'm correct. Those F and FA135/2.8 are about same price here on used market....

09-16-2012, 06:08 PM	#23
msatlas Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Madison, WI Posts: 309	Originally posted by vrrattko surely not, K85/1.8 can be had for about 300-350 Euros here, which is something like 400-450 USD if I'm correct. Those F and FA135/2.8 are about same price here on used market.... I guess I was going by the last time I had seen one at KEH which was a lot more. Anyway, we're way off topic now.

09-16-2012, 06:35 PM	#24
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by vrrattko yes but those are crazy expensive for an old glass... You would not have said that if you knew how quick my FA135mm could snap to focus faster than my DA200mm! These are going rate. Originally posted by blende8 The FA135 has a much faster AF than the DA50-135.

09-17-2012, 07:31 AM	#25
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,553	I'm a couple of days late on this thread (as usual) but I'll chime in on my thoughts. I have a really wonderful M135/3.5. I've never had a bad shot from it. It's sharp as a tack, even wide open. That said, it's just a bit of an oddball length on aps-c. The last time I really used it was for my daughters college graduation pictures and I debated using a zoom for that but chose the 135 because I knew I was going to get good stuff and I was going to be moving around in a crowd and wanted something smaller and light on the camera. The results were great although I ended up cropping most shots and I knew I was going to be doing that from the start. I used my Sigma zoom a week later for another graduation. The distance was just too great and most of my shots were 200mm+ and some were 300 and cropped. And while ok, I can clearly see the difference in IQ. Most of the time, I find it a bit too long or too short. While an AF 135 would be nice, I doubt I would use it any more than my manual one. However, if the dream of FF ever comes to pass, the 135 will become a go to lens once again. I've considered the 50-135 but the SDM issues have scared me away.

09-17-2012, 08:25 AM	#26
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by causey A DA 24mm--that's very needed. Yep with WR! I'd be on a WR 24mm or 28mm prime in a NY minute! NaCl(I've got a K 135 F/2.5 that works very well for me thank you very much)H2O

09-17-2012, 09:26 AM	#27
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	The 135mm lens is relatively simple in terms of optical design. The fact that Pentax cannot even come up with a new 135mm AF lens is a telling indication that they have run out of new ideas.

09-17-2012, 10:20 AM	#28
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by creampuff The 135mm lens is relatively simple in terms of optical design. The fact that Pentax cannot even come up with a new 135mm AF lens is a telling indication that they have run out of new ideas. How hard could it be to re-package the FA 135/2.8 and maybe add Aero Bright and seals and call it a D FA 135/2.8 WR or DA* 135/2.8?

09-17-2012, 05:24 PM	#29
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by Blue How hard could it be to re-package the FA 135/2.8 and maybe add Aero Bright and seals and call it a D FA 135/2.8 WR or DA* 135/2.8? I agree. They did reissue FA200mm by throwing in SDM and renaming it DA200mm with exactly the same elements and configuration. It is a good formula. I had been eyeing FA200mm for ages until I hit the DA200mm. It was a no brainer. Pentax can do that easily with FA135mm Daniel

09-18-2012, 12:36 AM	#30
Cinders Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Florida Posts: 118	135mm on crop is one of my least favorite FL's of all time. Which is funny, since I've owned 3 of them because of super cheap old manual focus options. It feels too long to be a portrait lens, and too wide to be a good telephoto. Even if I've never had a 100 or 200mm prime, I'd probably end up preferring them.