[CarbonR]

Here are all the ~135mm lenses I had for testing :



135/3.5 Takumar are all equivalent (M37 version does not reach infinity due to the adapter)
Confirmation : there is a real difference among the two 135/2.5, and the V2 is clearly good !
The Sigma is a good surprise, I knew it was not extremely good at full aperture but I did not expect it to be as good as the 135/2.5 V2 when stopped down (at least in center)
The small 150/4 are very good
Zooms are quite good, especially the 45~125
The 150/2.8 is quite deceiving, and makes me a reddish spot in center

[AggieDad]

Thanks for this.

The SMC 135/2.5 is on my lens list and I will be looking for one sometime in early 2021. You sort of confirm that it is a good choice.

[CarbonR]

I always considered it (V2) as a good lens, and this test confirmed it

[DWS1]

In the film area 135mm lenses were all the rage. Today with all the full frame cameras 135mm doesn't seem so desirable. I don't know why.

[CarbonR]

I see at list some factors for this phenomenon I agree with :
- Zooms are more common now and far better than decades ago, so we less need primes for general work. There is now many zooms between 70-200/300mm range, while they were not common 50 years ago. Nowadays we do not have many fixed lenses between 85mm (excluded) and 300mm (excluded), macro lenses excluded, like if they were all replaced by 70-200 or 70-300 zooms.
- 135mm is a bit long for portraiture, a bit short pour wildlife and sports in large areas, but in 1971, a S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5 was £67 worth, while a 85/1.9 was £99.99 (same price for the 200/4) and a 105/2.8 was £79.99 (be careful when analysing this, these prices have almost 50 years). Is also is the cheapest solution for portraiture without the standard 55-58mm lens or even for a telephoto lens, especially with many "noname" lenses available. Today we have many options like Samyang's or second hand market of old lenses to have cheap portrait lenses, or even for telephoto.

[Breakfastographer]

I see at list some factors for this phenomenon I agree with :
- Zooms are more common now and far better than decades ago, so we less need primes for general work. There is now many zooms between 70-200/300mm range, while they were not common 50 years ago. Nowadays we do not have many fixed lenses between 85mm (excluded) and 300mm (excluded), macro lenses excluded, like if they were all replaced by 70-200 or 70-300 zooms.
- 135mm is a bit long for portraiture, a bit short pour wildlife and sports in large areas, but in 1971, a S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5 was £67 worth, while a 85/1.9 was £99.99 (same price for the 200/4) and a 105/2.8 was £79.99 (be careful when analysing this, these prices have almost 50 years). Is also is the cheapest solution for portraiture without the standard 55-58mm lens or even for a telephoto lens, especially with many "noname" lenses available. Today we have many options like Samyang's or second hand market of old lenses to have cheap portrait lenses, or even for telephoto.

1971 GBP in today's terms:

£67 -> £835.77 (S-M-C Takumar 135/3.5)
£100 -> £1,247.43 (Tak 85/1.9 or 200/4)
£80 -> £997.94 (Tak 105/2.8)

According to inflationtool.com

[CarbonR]

Fun fact : I did not take the time to search for a such tool, but said to me that roughly a x10 on prices would not be so far from reality This is not decorrelated to actual prices... but now we have Af lenses !