No Love For 135mm?

magkelly · 07-07-2013, 06:37 PM

I have quite a few MF lenses in the 100-135mm range and I like them very much actually, particularly for portraiture. If my eyes weren't so bad lately I probably wouldn't be so into getting an AF 28-105mm lens. But I just bought one for that reason. MF is getting harder for me and for work 100mm and 135mm MF primes are just not that practical. It takes me too long to focus correctly. People can only pose for so long and lately you don't have an AF lens on your camera they get impatient, smile. When you're shooting with a DSLR people seem to expect a speedier shoot I've noticed. But regardless of whether you are talking AF or MF lenses a lens in that range, 100-135 that is my go to lens for a lot of my work. I know a lot of people take portraits with lenses in the 28-55mm range or with long zooms but I don't usually. I don't particularly like going wide angle to do people's faces. I think it's a bit unflattering.

50-55mm lens can work, and yes, a long zoom can too, but I actually prefer a length of at least 80mm but no longer than 135mm. A lot of lenses in this range they have this nice soft glow that's great for making skin look better than it really does. A lens in that range can be very flattering to the subject. When it comes to working outside, nature shots, I actually like two lenses one around 28-100 and one around 75-300. Sometimes I will add a fast 50 to that, but mostly that's my standard "go" kit. I seldom go wider than 28mm and I do need that 300mm sometimes so that range is what suits me best. But the 100-135mm lenses they're a major component of my kit. I would not choose to have one without them.

Sagitta · 07-07-2013, 10:22 PM

As much as I dislike the 135s (its not the lenses, its me), I do have 5 of them because they usually are throw-ins with kits I go after for other lenses. If I ever get the time to devote to really trying to get to know them, they'll probably see some use from me for portraiture at least.

kevingun · 07-08-2013, 05:14 AM

I have the 135 A 2.8 and the M 3.5. The A135 is great for portraiture out doors i take it along with the ROK 85 1.4 Any time i shoot portraiture out doors. Both lenses focus so much faster out doors then they do in doors in my experience. But that could be just me

chickenandavocado · 07-08-2013, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by kevingun

I have the 135 A 2.8 and the M 3.5. The A135 is great for portraiture out doors i take it along with the ROK 85 1.4 Any time i shoot portraiture out doors. Both lenses focus so much faster out doors then they do in doors in my experience. But that could be just me

arent they both MF?

kevingun · 07-08-2013, 10:00 AM

arent they both MF

Yes! But it just seems faster when i am out side where there is plenty of light. Like i said it is probably just me. I just like taking pictures out side with natural light

gifthorse · 07-08-2013, 10:40 AM

Takumar 2.5 (Bayonet) 135

kevingun · 07-08-2013, 12:50 PM

Nice pictures GiftHorse

magkelly · 07-08-2013, 04:36 PM

The eagle shot, I have that lens and I think it's great. I'm always seeing reviews of that lens saying that it's only so-so but I think it's definitely underrated. I got mine for $5 at Goodwill. Totally worth the $$$! I do think my Tak 105 is better but that 135 Bayonet is a respectable lens nonetheless.

SyncGuy · 07-09-2013, 06:29 AM

Man.... at the rate you guys are praising them 135mm, especially the A135/2.8, the price's gonna skyrocket soon.. Please don't...

**southlander** · 07-17-2013, 05:18 AM

Well. this thread inspired me to take the M135/3.5 out of its case and give it a quick spin.

The following were shot late on a winter's afternoon with heavy rain showers in the area, but with a few clear patches for the sun to poke through. Not a lot of light, so the ISO was slowly being raised as I went (started at ISO400 and progressed to ISO1600). Really needed my monopod which was left back in the car of course!

Distant shot, the full res image shows quite good detail in the low coastal shrubs.

Some of the locals

Not too keen on my presence, they soon scattered. Got lucky with this shot, I think!

Baiting up

Let's try minimum focusing distance...

One of the 800-odd varieties of seaweed of the South Australian coast. On-board flash used to get some pop in an otherwise dull light.

I've been fidgeting with post processing these images on and off for over a week in Lightroom. The lighting conditions were nicely atmospheric, but technically challenging. This is not with the 135mm, but with my Tamron 17-50 to give you an idea of the passing weather...

ignmar · 07-17-2013, 06:05 AM

i was thinking about buy an M 135 but i don't really sure about it. after this read this post i think i'll buy 1 just for try

**southlander** · 07-18-2013, 03:53 AM

Ignmar: just be warned the green/purple chromatic aberrations in the OOF bokeh can sometimes be quite prominent. It pays to choose the background with some care. Minor CA clears up in Light room or similar software OK though. If you look at the image of the pelicans with the jetty in the background, there is some stubborn green CA on the jetty outline where there is high contrast to the water surface. Backlit leaves/branches are things I would specifically seek to avoid in the background. But overall, the M135 can produce some very nice images.

**southlander** · 07-18-2013, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by gifthorse

Takumar 2.5 (Bayonet) 135

Some great shots there.

**southlander** · 07-18-2013, 04:50 AM

And one from a few months back. Again with the M135/3.5

I think I am convincing myself that this should be my next Single in... challenge lens!

robtcorl · 07-18-2013, 05:57 AM

A few of us Pentax Q owners have found that the M 135/3.5 makes a pretty decent little 700mm plus lens when using an adapter.
Fotodiox adapter, Pentax M 135/3.5 @ f5.6, 800 ISO, hand held. Cross posted on the Q forum.

07-17-2013, 05:18 AM	#40
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	M135/3.5 Well. this thread inspired me to take the M135/3.5 out of its case and give it a quick spin. The following were shot late on a winter's afternoon with heavy rain showers in the area, but with a few clear patches for the sun to poke through. Not a lot of light, so the ISO was slowly being raised as I went (started at ISO400 and progressed to ISO1600). Really needed my monopod which was left back in the car of course! Distant shot, the full res image shows quite good detail in the low coastal shrubs. Some of the locals Not too keen on my presence, they soon scattered. Got lucky with this shot, I think! Baiting up Let's try minimum focusing distance... One of the 800-odd varieties of seaweed of the South Australian coast. On-board flash used to get some pop in an otherwise dull light. I've been fidgeting with post processing these images on and off for over a week in Lightroom. The lighting conditions were nicely atmospheric, but technically challenging. This is not with the 135mm, but with my Tamron 17-50 to give you an idea of the passing weather...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why No Love for AK & HI in the Marketplace?	sb in ak	General Talk	9	01-04-2013 10:21 PM
No Love for Pentax at Consumer Reports	Pioneer	General Talk	10	10-20-2011 07:24 PM
Suggestion No love for spotmatics?	summonbaka	Site Suggestions and Help	6	04-23-2010 11:27 PM
no love for the 14mm	Pentaxor	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	20	08-22-2009 02:54 PM
No love for the LX?	juniusbugg	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	33	10-18-2008 01:39 PM

07-07-2013, 06:37 PM	#31
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	I have quite a few MF lenses in the 100-135mm range and I like them very much actually, particularly for portraiture. If my eyes weren't so bad lately I probably wouldn't be so into getting an AF 28-105mm lens. But I just bought one for that reason. MF is getting harder for me and for work 100mm and 135mm MF primes are just not that practical. It takes me too long to focus correctly. People can only pose for so long and lately you don't have an AF lens on your camera they get impatient, smile. When you're shooting with a DSLR people seem to expect a speedier shoot I've noticed. But regardless of whether you are talking AF or MF lenses a lens in that range, 100-135 that is my go to lens for a lot of my work. I know a lot of people take portraits with lenses in the 28-55mm range or with long zooms but I don't usually. I don't particularly like going wide angle to do people's faces. I think it's a bit unflattering. 50-55mm lens can work, and yes, a long zoom can too, but I actually prefer a length of at least 80mm but no longer than 135mm. A lot of lenses in this range they have this nice soft glow that's great for making skin look better than it really does. A lens in that range can be very flattering to the subject. When it comes to working outside, nature shots, I actually like two lenses one around 28-100 and one around 75-300. Sometimes I will add a fast 50 to that, but mostly that's my standard "go" kit. I seldom go wider than 28mm and I do need that 300mm sometimes so that range is what suits me best. But the 100-135mm lenses they're a major component of my kit. I would not choose to have one without them.

07-07-2013, 10:22 PM	#32
Sagitta Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,081	As much as I dislike the 135s (its not the lenses, its me), I do have 5 of them because they usually are throw-ins with kits I go after for other lenses. If I ever get the time to devote to really trying to get to know them, they'll probably see some use from me for portraiture at least.

07-08-2013, 05:14 AM	#33
kevingun Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: north carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 84	I have the 135 A 2.8 and the M 3.5. The A135 is great for portraiture out doors i take it along with the ROK 85 1.4 Any time i shoot portraiture out doors. Both lenses focus so much faster out doors then they do in doors in my experience. But that could be just me

07-08-2013, 09:21 AM	#34
chickenandavocado Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 327	Originally posted by kevingun I have the 135 A 2.8 and the M 3.5. The A135 is great for portraiture out doors i take it along with the ROK 85 1.4 Any time i shoot portraiture out doors. Both lenses focus so much faster out doors then they do in doors in my experience. But that could be just me arent they both MF?

07-08-2013, 10:00 AM	#35
kevingun Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: north carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 84	arent they both MF Yes! But it just seems faster when i am out side where there is plenty of light. Like i said it is probably just me. I just like taking pictures out side with natural light

07-08-2013, 10:40 AM	#36
gifthorse Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Nevada Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,945	Takumar 2.5 (Bayonet) 135

07-08-2013, 12:50 PM	#37
kevingun Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: north carolina Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 84	Nice pictures GiftHorse

07-08-2013, 04:36 PM	#38
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	The eagle shot, I have that lens and I think it's great. I'm always seeing reviews of that lens saying that it's only so-so but I think it's definitely underrated. I got mine for $5 at Goodwill. Totally worth the $$$! I do think my Tak 105 is better but that 135 Bayonet is a respectable lens nonetheless.

07-09-2013, 06:29 AM	#39
SyncGuy Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 821	Man.... at the rate you guys are praising them 135mm, especially the A135/2.8, the price's gonna skyrocket soon.. Please don't...

07-17-2013, 06:05 AM	#41
ignmar Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Batam Posts: 43	i was thinking about buy an M 135 but i don't really sure about it. after this read this post i think i'll buy 1 just for try

07-18-2013, 03:53 AM	#42
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	Ignmar: just be warned the green/purple chromatic aberrations in the OOF bokeh can sometimes be quite prominent. It pays to choose the background with some care. Minor CA clears up in Light room or similar software OK though. If you look at the image of the pelicans with the jetty in the background, there is some stubborn green CA on the jetty outline where there is high contrast to the water surface. Backlit leaves/branches are things I would specifically seek to avoid in the background. But overall, the M135 can produce some very nice images.

07-18-2013, 04:04 AM	#43
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	Originally posted by gifthorse Takumar 2.5 (Bayonet) 135 Some great shots there.

07-18-2013, 04:50 AM	#44
southlander Site Supporter Join Date: May 2012 Location: Adelaide Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,364	And one from a few months back. Again with the M135/3.5 I think I am convincing myself that this should be my next Single in... challenge lens!

07-18-2013, 05:57 AM	#45
robtcorl Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: St Louis, MO Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,606	A few of us Pentax Q owners have found that the M 135/3.5 makes a pretty decent little 700mm plus lens when using an adapter. Fotodiox adapter, Pentax M 135/3.5 @ f5.6, 800 ISO, hand held. Cross posted on the Q forum.