Why all these 135mm primes?

Illuwatar · 03-19-2009, 05:10 AM

I have been browsing the web around in hunt for nice old glass to my new K200D and found something interesting: the 135 mm primes are really common. It seems like every manufacturer had made these with different max apertures. So, I'm wondering, why? Is the 135 mm some kind of magic number regarding tele lens designs? Finding other prime focal lengths (like 85, 100, 150, 200) are not that easy like the 135...

Nesster · 03-19-2009, 05:43 AM

This probably is an accident of history - the old large format 'standard' lenses started off with 135 for 4x5. (What's today called medium format used to be lumped with other miniature formats, and the standard lenses there are approx 105mm and 75-80mm).

Then Leica's first interchangeable set of lenses was 35-50-135mm which became the standard in 35mm photography. Perhaps due to Leica's decision?

These standard lengths became 'sticky' as pre-computers, the optical formulas were worked out and well understood, and thus cheaper manufacture was possible.

The 135mm length on 35mm is also approximately the longest easily hand holdable telephoto. Probably more significant: the 13.5 cm length is about the max the early Leica range finder could focus - and before range finders, about the max you'd want to point with reasonable accuracy.

filmamigo · 03-19-2009, 05:57 AM

The 135mm also makes beautiful portraits (on 35mm film.) It was often the aspirational "next lens" to buy after your 50mm kit lens, because people are a popular photographic subject

The focal length is a little long on an APS-C digital SLR, so I think that also contributes to their used availability these days.

I think the 85mm would probably be the ultimate APS-C portrait lens.

Erik · 03-19-2009, 05:58 AM

Good 135's are so great on APS-C. You can basically get the equal a super sharp, small and light 200/2.8 for $10!

offertonhatter · 03-20-2009, 01:59 PM

As others have said, just the history, during the film 35mm era, the classic ensemble was the 50mm "standard", the 135mm "tele" and the 28mm "wide", all the manufacturers made them, as well as the 3rd party makes, (halina, cosina, et al).
A 135mm was considered a nice fast telephoto which could be used hand held (I know I have 4 of them!), and considerably less to purchase than a 200mm upwards, which were the preserve of the Pros, for sports etc.
It only changed when zooms came out in the 80's and photographers found the flexibilty (if not the ultimate IQ of primes) and increasingly lens ranges of 80-210 strarted to appear.

Of course now, with APS-C sensors, the 135mm is getting a bit of a comeback, not only for its IQ and light weight, but also for the fact it is a useable, small tele of around 200mm (or more accurately 202.5 on APS-C) effective FOV.
Just think in film days, how much would a 200mm F3.5 would cost, let alone an F2.8 or F2.5? pretty steep!

stevebrot · 03-20-2009, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by filmamigo

...It was often the aspirational "next lens" to buy after your 50mm kit lens...

That is so true. Before quality zooms were available, the expectation was that the first lens purchase would be a 135mm. This was considered to be a moderate tele on 35mm film. Many were purchased with a 2X converter to add the "long" end to one's kit. Since this was a popular focal length, the competition was pretty stiff and as a result the optical and build quality was consistently very good to excellent.

I never owned one, back in the day (too poor), but finally picked up a Vivitar 135/2.8 (made in 1971), a few weeks ago. So far, I have been really impressed with the lens. The optical quality is quite good and stays good even when paired with a Vivitar 2x converter of the same vintage. In fact, the results I have been getting have been on a par with any of those I get from my 50mm lenses. It is truly a nice piece of glass.

Steve

X Man · 03-20-2009, 03:02 PM

I'd just like to thank the OP for the question and everyone else for the thoughtful and illuminating answers!

The only thing I can add is that there are some very unique 135s too. Like, the Close Focusing Vivitar or, like the Lentar preset I just got, that has 16 aperture blades!

Regards,
Mike

philbaum · 03-20-2009, 09:13 PM

Here's something else i discovered about the 135's, in particular the M 135 f3.5

They are much more discrete than a hulking big black zoom. Case in point, my Tamron 18-250 sticks out over 8 inches at 135mm. The M 135 f3.5 sticks out only a bit over 3 or 3 1/2", something like that. The 18/250 weighs about 450 gms while the M 135 f3.5 weighs about half that. In a crowd or from your car, you're going to be a lot less noticeable with the 135, and yet you still have 4X magnification for an APS.

The M lenses were derived from the K designs but effort was made to make them more compact and lighter. I ended up with the M but now i'm thinking that in a crowded indoors event, it would be better to have the f2.8 or f2.5. Anyone agree?

My original thinking was, on a backpacking trick or other travel, it would be a lot easier to carry around a 135 and some primes, rather than a great big zoom like the Tammy.

rfortson · 03-20-2009, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by Erik

Good 135's are so great on APS-C. You can basically get the equal a super sharp, small and light 200/2.8 for $10!

Agreed! I've owned several of them, and found them to be great concert lenses (for my cheaper seats). You get reasonable speed and reach, for a great price.

I just gave my last one to my sister along with the Samsung GX-1L I got for her. Of course, I have my 50-135 now, so I'm happy.

But yeah, to me the 135/2.8's are one of the great bargains out there.

Illuwatar · 03-21-2009, 04:03 AM

Thanks everyone for the replies. Interesting to find out the reason behind the 135. And yes, they are easy to obtain - without much effort, I already have five of them, both K and M42 mount (and one Nikkor-F), none specially expensive. Maybe, I should hunt down a 135/2.8 in K-mount (missing that) to be used with 2x tele converters...

**dadipentak** · 03-21-2009, 05:21 AM

Phil B's right: a 135mm is nicely discrete for indoor candid portraits. The size/working distance is optimal for shooting skittish subjects--like my in-laws ;~)

woof · 03-21-2009, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by filmamigo

The 135mm also makes beautiful portraits (on 35mm film.) It was often the aspirational "next lens" to buy after your 50mm kit lens, because people are a popular photographic subject

Dad was a photojournalist for the Newark News and Star Ledger in the late 1950's.

When he gave me my first camera, among other things he gave me a fast 135mm. He told me that the 135mm was great for portraits and "head shots."

I do think you are correct in that that was one of the common, slotted uses for this focal length.

woof!

Miserere · 03-21-2009, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by dadipentak

Phil B's right: a 135mm is nicely discrete for indoor candid portraits. The size/working distance is optimal for shooting skittish subjects--like my in-laws ;~)

Still hunting for those in-laws, huh

danielchtong · 03-21-2009, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by Miserere

Still hunting for those in-laws, huh

I adore my 135mmF2.8

Taken with a lowly DL at iso 1600

Huge file

http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/70731924/large.jpg

Candid at F4

http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/70731924/original.jpg

Daniel

F-Stop · 03-30-2009, 01:49 AM

One of my favorite walk in the park/outdoor nature lenses would have to be a $15 eBay purchase 6 years ago. My Image brand 135mm f/2.8 lens just produces overall good photos I'm always pleased with. Could be sharper but I haven't complained for what I paid for it.

03-19-2009, 05:10 AM	#1
Illuwatar Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Stockholm/Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 29	Why all these 135mm primes? I have been browsing the web around in hunt for nice old glass to my new K200D and found something interesting: the 135 mm primes are really common. It seems like every manufacturer had made these with different max apertures. So, I'm wondering, why? Is the 135 mm some kind of magic number regarding tele lens designs? Finding other prime focal lengths (like 85, 100, 150, 200) are not that easy like the 135...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
So you own a 16-50mm and 50-135mm, what primes do you still run back to?	alfdog	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	31	12-27-2009 12:29 PM
135mm Lens test: Six primes and a zoom	Just1MoreDave	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	27	07-30-2009 09:38 AM
For Sale - Sold: SMC-A Primes 50mm f1.4, 135mm f2.8	raybird	Sold Items	9	04-06-2009 04:12 PM

03-19-2009, 05:43 AM	#2
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	This probably is an accident of history - the old large format 'standard' lenses started off with 135 for 4x5. (What's today called medium format used to be lumped with other miniature formats, and the standard lenses there are approx 105mm and 75-80mm). Then Leica's first interchangeable set of lenses was 35-50-135mm which became the standard in 35mm photography. Perhaps due to Leica's decision? These standard lengths became 'sticky' as pre-computers, the optical formulas were worked out and well understood, and thus cheaper manufacture was possible. The 135mm length on 35mm is also approximately the longest easily hand holdable telephoto. Probably more significant: the 13.5 cm length is about the max the early Leica range finder could focus - and before range finders, about the max you'd want to point with reasonable accuracy.

03-19-2009, 05:57 AM	#3
filmamigo Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 797	The 135mm also makes beautiful portraits (on 35mm film.) It was often the aspirational "next lens" to buy after your 50mm kit lens, because people are a popular photographic subject The focal length is a little long on an APS-C digital SLR, so I think that also contributes to their used availability these days. I think the 85mm would probably be the ultimate APS-C portrait lens.

03-19-2009, 05:58 AM	#4
Erik Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Umeå, Sweden Posts: 755	Good 135's are so great on APS-C. You can basically get the equal a super sharp, small and light 200/2.8 for $10!

03-20-2009, 01:59 PM	#5
offertonhatter Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: North West UK Posts: 390	As others have said, just the history, during the film 35mm era, the classic ensemble was the 50mm "standard", the 135mm "tele" and the 28mm "wide", all the manufacturers made them, as well as the 3rd party makes, (halina, cosina, et al). A 135mm was considered a nice fast telephoto which could be used hand held (I know I have 4 of them!), and considerably less to purchase than a 200mm upwards, which were the preserve of the Pros, for sports etc. It only changed when zooms came out in the 80's and photographers found the flexibilty (if not the ultimate IQ of primes) and increasingly lens ranges of 80-210 strarted to appear. Of course now, with APS-C sensors, the 135mm is getting a bit of a comeback, not only for its IQ and light weight, but also for the fact it is a useable, small tele of around 200mm (or more accurately 202.5 on APS-C) effective FOV. Just think in film days, how much would a 200mm F3.5 would cost, let alone an F2.8 or F2.5? pretty steep!

03-20-2009, 02:29 PM	#6
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by filmamigo ...It was often the aspirational "next lens" to buy after your 50mm kit lens... That is so true. Before quality zooms were available, the expectation was that the first lens purchase would be a 135mm. This was considered to be a moderate tele on 35mm film. Many were purchased with a 2X converter to add the "long" end to one's kit. Since this was a popular focal length, the competition was pretty stiff and as a result the optical and build quality was consistently very good to excellent. I never owned one, back in the day (too poor), but finally picked up a Vivitar 135/2.8 (made in 1971), a few weeks ago. So far, I have been really impressed with the lens. The optical quality is quite good and stays good even when paired with a Vivitar 2x converter of the same vintage. In fact, the results I have been getting have been on a par with any of those I get from my 50mm lenses. It is truly a nice piece of glass. Steve

03-20-2009, 03:02 PM	#7
X Man Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 478	I'd just like to thank the OP for the question and everyone else for the thoughtful and illuminating answers! The only thing I can add is that there are some very unique 135s too. Like, the Close Focusing Vivitar or, like the Lentar preset I just got, that has 16 aperture blades! Regards, Mike

03-20-2009, 09:13 PM	#8
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Here's something else i discovered about the 135's, in particular the M 135 f3.5 They are much more discrete than a hulking big black zoom. Case in point, my Tamron 18-250 sticks out over 8 inches at 135mm. The M 135 f3.5 sticks out only a bit over 3 or 3 1/2", something like that. The 18/250 weighs about 450 gms while the M 135 f3.5 weighs about half that. In a crowd or from your car, you're going to be a lot less noticeable with the 135, and yet you still have 4X magnification for an APS. The M lenses were derived from the K designs but effort was made to make them more compact and lighter. I ended up with the M but now i'm thinking that in a crowded indoors event, it would be better to have the f2.8 or f2.5. Anyone agree? My original thinking was, on a backpacking trick or other travel, it would be a lot easier to carry around a 135 and some primes, rather than a great big zoom like the Tammy.

03-20-2009, 10:49 PM	#9
rfortson Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,129	Originally posted by Erik Good 135's are so great on APS-C. You can basically get the equal a super sharp, small and light 200/2.8 for $10! Agreed! I've owned several of them, and found them to be great concert lenses (for my cheaper seats). You get reasonable speed and reach, for a great price. I just gave my last one to my sister along with the Samsung GX-1L I got for her. Of course, I have my 50-135 now, so I'm happy. But yeah, to me the 135/2.8's are one of the great bargains out there.

03-21-2009, 04:03 AM	#10
Illuwatar Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Stockholm/Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 29 Original Poster	Thanks everyone for the replies. Interesting to find out the reason behind the 135. And yes, they are easy to obtain - without much effort, I already have five of them, both K and M42 mount (and one Nikkor-F), none specially expensive. Maybe, I should hunt down a 135/2.8 in K-mount (missing that) to be used with 2x tele converters...

03-21-2009, 05:21 AM	#11
dadipentak Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Baltimore, Maryland Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,590	Phil B's right: a 135mm is nicely discrete for indoor candid portraits. The size/working distance is optimal for shooting skittish subjects--like my in-laws ;~)

03-21-2009, 05:55 AM	#12
woof Inactive Account Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the present Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,870	Originally posted by filmamigo The 135mm also makes beautiful portraits (on 35mm film.) It was often the aspirational "next lens" to buy after your 50mm kit lens, because people are a popular photographic subject Dad was a photojournalist for the Newark News and Star Ledger in the late 1950's. When he gave me my first camera, among other things he gave me a fast 135mm. He told me that the 135mm was great for portraits and "head shots." I do think you are correct in that that was one of the common, slotted uses for this focal length. woof!

03-21-2009, 06:03 AM	#13
Miserere Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Boston Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,993	Originally posted by dadipentak Phil B's right: a 135mm is nicely discrete for indoor candid portraits. The size/working distance is optimal for shooting skittish subjects--like my in-laws ;~) Still hunting for those in-laws, huh

03-21-2009, 06:15 AM	#14
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by Miserere Still hunting for those in-laws, huh I adore my 135mmF2.8 Taken with a lowly DL at iso 1600 Huge file http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/70731924/large.jpg Candid at F4 http://www.pbase.com/danieltong/image/70731924/original.jpg Daniel

03-30-2009, 01:49 AM	#15
F-Stop Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Paradise, Newfoundland, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 303	One of my favorite walk in the park/outdoor nature lenses would have to be a $15 eBay purchase 6 years ago. My Image brand 135mm f/2.8 lens just produces overall good photos I'm always pleased with. Could be sharper but I haven't complained for what I paid for it.