[rbefly]

I've just spotted the latest in a long line of posts, dismissing the 135mm focal length for being too long, too short, uncomfortable, useless or obsolete.
That may be true for some, but I have the opposite view; It is a very handy focal length if used to showcase it's strengths.
Let's face it, in APS-C terms, we're talking about a 200mm f/2.8 (usually). A classic focal length with a fast max aperture.
My version is a Pentax A 135mm f/2.8. If Pentax chooses to design a modern DA or Ltd. version, I'll happily buy one.
Rather than try to convince anyone with descriptions of what this FL can do, here's a small sample. Check out the !.Q., skin tones, Bokeh and rendition.
Ron

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[jimr-pdx]

Excellent work and great sales-pitch! I will try 135 again some day; my Rikenon was too heavy, my Pentax-M got too little use.
So many dislike 40mm too, yet they still love Pentax!

[todd]

I am a fan. I haven't spent a ton of time with mine but used it for the month of feb single lens challenge here on the board and had fun and got results I was happy with. I def recommend the one I have and there seems to be an abundance of them out there... Got mine for $40

[reivax]

I've never understood why 135mm never got enough love either. I love my M 135 lens. I bought it for 50 dollars shipped, and next to my 50 1.7, that I got for 40 dollars shipped, it is my favorite lens. I should probably use those two lenses more often but my 17-50 and 70-200 are a lot more convenient to use.

One of my favorite shots with the M 135:

Attached Images

 

---

Last edited by reivax; 07-04-2013 at 03:24 PM. Reason: missed a word.

[RKKS08]

In the 35mm film era, 200mm was a well respected focal length. But till the mid to end seventies, even the 4/200 lenses were quite big and very heavy, faster ones were rare and for most people just too big and heavy to carry them.

With APS formats, tele shooting now became more interesting also for non-professionals (and non-spies). If you are missing shots made with 135mm primes, the reason may be that a big percentage of all sold zooms do cover that focal length. And again, with the smaller format these zooms also are much lighter than they used to be.

[rbefly]

To Jim, Todd, Reivax and RKKS08, thanks for the comments and support. The 135mm is my 'always-take' tele, even if I'm bringing a 90mm or 100mm Macro. The special way it can isolate and pop a subject out from the background is outstanding and you never get that crowded feeling, it leaves some space.
Reivax, that's a beautiful flower photo, and you should be proud of it; I especially like those airy Bokeh bubbles!
Ron

[reivax]

To Jim, Todd, Reivax and RKKS08, thanks for the comments and support. The 135mm is my 'always-take' tele, even if I'm bringing a 90mm or 100mm Macro. The special way it can isolate and pop a subject out from the background is outstanding and you never get that crowded feeling, it leaves some space.
Reivax, that's a beautiful flower photo, and you should be proud of it; I especially like those airy Bokeh bubbles!
Ron

Hahaha. My wife will appreciate the compliment. It's actually a picture I took of a cake that she made. She made the "flowers" as well. I think she made them out of fondant, or sugar, or something like that... Thank you, it is one of my favorite pictures. The background is actually just grass. I think I had just watered my lawn and the sun was reflecting off water from the blades on the grass. I like the way everything came out.

[photolady95]

I don't understand the negatives of these lenses either. I got mine from a member here and I think I paid $35 or $40 for it. I too did a single in month with mine and I love it. Mine is a Sears (rebadged Samyang). Sorry but I don't remember which Single in I did use mine.But I love it!!

[rbefly]

That's a cake? I thought it was a pottery or carved curio! Man, it's so smooth and detailed, had me fooled. Great work, both of you.
Ron

[rbefly]

Thanks, Photolady, maybe this telephoto use will catch on, but then the prices will go up.
Ron

[photolady95]

but then the prices will go up.
Ron

I hope not. I found the Single in, it was October 2012. Here is a sample with my 135mm:

[southlander]

I quite like what has come out of my M 135. Haven't used it enough though. Will line it up for a Single in... challenge at some point to give it a good work out. My copy is mint condition, given to me by my father. In a family context, it is an original one owner.

[robtcorl]

Love my M 135/3.5!
First shot with it back in Jan. of this year using a K-01.


And it's great on the Q with an adapter.

[Just1MoreDave]

The SMC Pentax 135mm f2.5 or Super-Multi-Coated Takumar equivalent are great lenses and look cool on the camera. I had trouble fitting that size into my travel kit so switched to an M120/2.8. If you can find one, I think it's a good trade.

[reivax]

The SMC Pentax 135mm f2.5 or Super-Multi-Coated Takumar equivalent are great lenses and look cool on the camera. I had trouble fitting that size into my travel kit so switched to an M120/2.8. If you can find one, I think it's a good trade.

As a guy whose, 3 out of his 5, closest friends are named Dave, all I can think of when I see your username is "No."

Back on topic, I've never used the 2.5. Do you think it's really a big difference in quality over the 3.5?