[redcat]

it still great for headshot or far-away portrait ^^ I got one not long ago and very pleased with it ^^

Coslinar Auto MC 135mm 2.8 Lens Reviews - Miscellaneous Lenses - Pentax Lens Review Database

[WPRESTO]

As a historic note, I believe 135mm was developed/introduced originally because it was the longest FL that could be accurately focused by a rangefinder camera, given the limit of the base length for the RF mechanism. Or at least, it was thought to be the longest FL that could be reliably focused via a parallax type rangefinder. I suspect that Leica pioneered the 135mm FL, perhaps with the "Hektor."

[pleo]

the M 3.5/135 is my favourite on dslr and Q
- because it is so handsome and offers great IQ.
It never seems to have such a long focal length so people don't think about you when you're taking pics.

[pathdoc]

As a historic note, I believe 135mm was developed/introduced originally because it was the longest FL that could be accurately focused by a rangefinder camera

Interesting!

28, 35, 50, 55, 58, 135... So many focal lengths, common to so many systems. Paranoid conspiracy theorist numerologists, eat your hearts out!

[WPRESTO]

Interesting!

28, 35, 50, 55, 58, 135... So many focal lengths, common to so many systems. Paranoid conspiracy theorist numerologists, eat your hearts out!

And FYI: Why a FL of 28mm (rather than 30mm or 25mm) for wide angle? This was a consequence of the physical/optical problems of designing a classic wide-angle lens (a true wide-angle/short-FL lens arrangement as opposed to an inverted telephoto design). 28mm was the shortest FL that could be made as a true wide angle and still fit properly on a 35mm RF camera, but because of the size of the lens mount opening, only if the aperture were limited to f2.8. Shorter FL and/or larger apertures almost always mean an inverted telephoto lens design, not a true WA/short FL design. Inverted tele lens arrangements for achieving WA coverage were really a consequence of the SLR, which because of the mirror severely limited the distance of the rearmost lens element from the image plane. To get even 28mm the WA had to be an inverted tele design, but that lens arrangement allowed for greater maximum aperture, f2 or even f1.4 @ 28mm and even 24mm. I'm not sure why 21mm became for a long time the widest angle for 35mm. I think Nikon really pioneered lens shorter than 21mm with greater angular coverage, including the almost unbelievable monster that covered 270 degrees on 35mm FF.

Correction added after some research. The 6mm f2.8 Nikkor covered 220 degrees (not 270). It has a tripod shoe at the base of the metal ring around the huge front element, and good thing: the lens weighs over 11 pounds (!!!!) The 6mm came out in several versions. The original non-AI did not have a tripod foot and required mirror lock-up. Starting with the second version there was a tripod foot and no need for mirror-up. Needless to say only a small number have been made. According to one site I found, IF you can find one for sale, expect to spend upwards of $100,000 (!!!!!) Nikon apparently still lists the lens in some catalogs, manufactured by request with no price stated until you are serious about ordering. But, think what a handy thing to have in your camera bag. In a standing position, you could simultaneous photograph your shoe laces and the Milky Way. From three feet back, you could photograph the entire height of the General Sherman Sequoia, include a good deal of ground clutter as well as your shoes, plus all the trees in the forest right and left of the Sherman.

Inverted telephoto design was eventually adopted by Leica for their RF lenses. This allowed them to make both a 24mm f1.4 and an astonishing 21mm f1.4 lens.

The original 15mm f8 Hologon made by Zeiss had only 3 lenses, the center element being complex in design, the front and rear each being a 180 hemisphere. The center of the rear element was 4.5mm from the film plane. There was substantial vignetting, so the lens came with a special graduated center-dark filter to compensate. This lens only came mounted on its own 35mm body. However, when Zeiss went bankrupt, Leitz purchased and redesigned the lens as 5 element 16mm f8 that could be mounted on M-series bodies. The original Hologon has become legendary, credited with excellent contrast for an ultra WA because of the very few lens elements.

The 12mm f5.6 Voigtlander Heliar remains the widest rectilinear lens for rangefinder cameras (it was also offered in a Nikon SLR mount, to be used only with the mirror locked up). It is still in production, I believe for M-mount only, but presumably it might be mounted on EVF FF DSLR such as the Sony if it were made with the appropriate mount.

[pathdoc]

including the almost unbelievable monster that covered 270 degrees on 35mm FF.

That one sounds like a real "because we can!" lens. Any more than that and you could just about include the camera in the picture!

[Digitalis]

On full format 135mm lenses are great, I like the framing and the degree of compression they offer.

However, on APS-C they have a FOV resembling a 200mm lens and frankly, 200mm is too long for portraiture, too short for wildlife. I rank 200mm lenses as perhaps the most useless 35mm focal length ever made. The only time making a 200mm lens actually made sense is when Pentax came out with the A* and FA* 200mm f/4 ED Macro lenses, both happen to be superb lenses optically and the generous working distance offers real advantages over more common 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses.

[ScooterMaxi Jim]

Even in my film days, I wasn't enthusiastic about the 135mm. By the time I was active in photography, the m75-150 was available and that lens was nearly as small as the 135mm lenses. The quality of that zoom was very close to prime, and it allowed for perfect framing. Not long after that, you had any number of variable aperture 80-200 lenses that fully displaced the 135s. They tended not to be nearly as good as the 75-150, but people really craved the extra reach.

[pathdoc]

I wonder also if 135mm wasn't the longest lens that could carry a fast-ish (2.8 or thereabouts) aperture without being unpleasantly large and heavy, especially back in the days when no plastics were involved.

[WPRESTO]

I wonder also if 135mm wasn't the longest lens that could carry a fast-ish (2.8 or thereabouts) aperture without being unpleasantly large and heavy, especially back in the days when no plastics were involved.

My memory and/or knowledge may be faulty, but I think the original 135mm Hektor was an f4.5. I don't thing there was an f2.8 135mm until after the switch-over from rangefinder to SLR for 35mm.

---------- Post added 09-29-15 at 01:28 PM ----------

On full format 135mm lenses are great, I like the framing and the degree of compression they offer.

However, on APS-C they have a FOV resembling a 200mm lens and frankly, 200mm is too long for portraiture, too short for wildlife. I rank 200mm lenses as perhaps the most useless 35mm focal length ever made. The only time making a 200mm lens actually made sense is when Pentax came out with the A* and FA* 200mm f/4 ED Macro lenses, both happen to be superb lenses optically and the generous working distance offers real advantages over more common 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses.

Agreed. However, the 200mm f4 SMCA is a good base lens for reverse mounting either a 100 f4 bellows or a 45-50mm enlarging lens for extreme close-ups. The regular lens seems to give better results in that configuration than the 200 f4 ED macro.

[gofour3]

I wonder also if 135mm wasn't the longest lens that could carry a fast-ish (2.8 or thereabouts) aperture without being unpleasantly large and heavy, especially back in the days when no plastics were involved.

Pentax made the K200/2.5 which was released in 1977, which is still the fastest 200mm that Pentax ever made. The K200/2.5 is heavy (950g) but still not too bad.

Most folks who started with film usually got a 135mm as their first general purpose telephoto, then you would progress/upgrade to 200mm or 300mm. Anything over that was beyond the budget of most people. There was also a 150mm lens during the 1960's to mid 1980's, but I don't think it was a popular FL.

Phil.

[WPRESTO]

Pentax made the K200/2.5 which was released in 1977, which is still the fastest 200mm that Pentax ever made. The K200/2.5 is heavy (950g) but still not too bad.

Most folks who started with film usually got a 135mm as their first general purpose telephoto, then you would progress/upgrade to 200mm or 300mm. Anything over that was beyond the budget of most people.

Phil.

I managed, in high school, to purchase a 400mm f5.6 preset Pieskar, a brand long defunct. It was really a long focal length lens, not a true telephoto. It had excellent bokeh, everywhere across the frame.

[lmd91343]

As a historic note, I believe 135mm was developed/introduced originally because it was the longest FL that could be accurately focused by a rangefinder camera, given the limit of the base length for the RF mechanism. Or at least, it was thought to be the longest FL that could be reliably focused via a parallax type rangefinder. I suspect that Leica pioneered the 135mm FL, perhaps with the "Hektor."

+1

At least Pentax did not name lenses after dogs! However some folks used to call the ST and SMCT 20mm the "bow-wow" lens.

135mm was just about the longest RF lens you could buy. In fact the Canon bottom loaders from the late '40s had built in viewfinder magnifiers that matched the 135mm FOV. The Leica M series, starting with the M3, from the mid '50s as well as the Canon 7 series models starting in '61 had moving frame lines that matched a 135mm lens. For all three camera types mentioned had 135mm as the longest on-camera option.

Of course both Leica and Canon had longer lenses, but the use of a specially designed mirror box was required. Leica called its model the Visioflex. Canon called the model they made the "Mirror Box".

[reeftool]

I really like my M135/3.5. I don't use it all that often because my eyesight isn't all that great anymore. If it was AF, it would be a regular inhabitant of my camera bag. I do agree with a lot of the comments about 135 being a less than useful focal length on aps-c. I would actually love an AF version of the old M135. It's the perfect length to shoot the motocross races at the MX park nearby but I really need an AF lens to catch the high flying racers.

[hoopsontoast]

I really like my FA135, I'll be honest I don't use it that much on the K-3II as its a bit long for portraits, but I really like 85mm on APS-C. I've not shot any film with the FA135 yet though, I plan to end a current roll tomorrow with it now