[ElJamoquio]

I'm sad Tamron went away from the Telephotos with macro. It was a nice bonus. I have the 70-200, really an awesome lens for Pentax bodies (for Nikon the AF is disgustingly slow).

[eyeswideshut]

It is less of a specialty lens than a 100mm macro. The number of people making a living shooting wedding and portrait work is many times greater than the number of professional macro photographers. The 135mm is still a popular lens for professionals. Yes, many have gone to slower F/2.8 70-200 zooms, but many of use still shoot primes 90% of the time.

I don't understand what any of that has to do with what I said - which was a 1.8/135 is not terribly useful. Maybe manufactureres sell more 100mm macros, maybe they sell more 135mm lenses. I neither know nor care. The point of having an f/1.8 lens at that focal length presumably is to use it at that aperture sometimes. Have you ever tried that in portraiture? Depending on your distance to the subject - and you will have to stand back, you'll be lucky to get half a head in sharp focus. That's why I said it is not very useful. And of course the fact that there are so few of them in production bears that out.
Other than that, 135mm is one of my favorite focal lengths, but I like an old old Zeiss Sonnar f/4 the best - and even that aperture gives you plenty of subject isolation and background blurring and all that good stuff. f/1.8 is massive overkill imho.

[ElJamoquio]

Half a head = about 10cm
DOF of 10cm with a focal length of 135mm = 4 meters distance

135mm angle of view, portrait width = 10.2 degrees

4 meters subject distance with 135mm lens = 72cm, or 28".

So, something like a waist-up portrait, wide open, will have only half-a-head in focus. I dunno, doesn't sound out-of-this-world unreasonable to me. F/4 would double the DOF, which of course would still be acceptable.

[eyeswideshut]

Half a head = about 10cm
DOF of 10cm with a focal length of 135mm = 4 meters distance

135mm angle of view, portrait width = 10.2 degrees

4 meters subject distance with 135mm lens = 72cm, or 28".

So, something like a waist-up portrait, wide open, will have only half-a-head in focus. I dunno, doesn't sound out-of-this-world unreasonable to me. F/4 would double the DOF, which of course would still be acceptable.

There you go - dof calculator and experience agree

[ElJamoquio]

There you go - dof calculator and experience agree

Now all I need is an AF system that works well indoors with an F/4 lens! And of course another body to put the lens on. And someone to drag the camera and lens around for me.

Realistically, we'd be lucky to get ANY lens in this range from Pentax. I think the most we can hope for is a F/2.8, which is fine by me, but of course then I'd rather have a 70-200 than a 135 prime.

[eyeswideshut]

Now all I need is an AF system that works well indoors with an F/4 lens! And of course another body to put the lens on. And someone to drag the camera and lens around for me.

Realistically, we'd be lucky to get ANY lens in this range from Pentax. I think the most we can hope for is a F/2.8, which is fine by me, but of course then I'd rather have a 70-200 than a 135 prime.

If I would still consider zoom lenses for aps-c or ff dslr's I'd stick with the 70-200 f/2.8. Why add a specialist lens if you are happy with the zoom? The optical performance is not going to be significantly better this side of dxomark. My approach is entirely different though. I kissed all my large zooms good-bye and will only consider primes of moderate focal lengths ( ca. 24mm to 135mm) for a large dslr. Zooms, to me, are a perfect fit for m43 (and even the Q), as indeed are ultra wides and very long focal lengths.

[ChristianRock]

One interesting thing is that a modern 135 1.8 lens would be at its peak at around f4. So the DOF is still thin enough to get just the head and it would isolate the background nicely - yet the image quality will be superb.

[Winder]

I don't understand what any of that has to do with what I said - which was a 1.8/135 is not terribly useful. Maybe manufactureres sell more 100mm macros, maybe they sell more 135mm lenses. I neither know nor care. The point of having an f/1.8 lens at that focal length presumably is to use it at that aperture sometimes. Have you ever tried that in portraiture? Depending on your distance to the subject - and you will have to stand back, you'll be lucky to get half a head in sharp focus. That's why I said it is not very useful. And of course the fact that there are so few of them in production bears that out.
Other than that, 135mm is one of my favorite focal lengths, but I like an old old Zeiss Sonnar f/4 the best - and even that aperture gives you plenty of subject isolation and background blurring and all that good stuff. f/1.8 is massive overkill imho.

I used the 135L for years which is an F/2 lens. To answer your question I have used it in portraiture. Have you ever shot portraiture? Ever hear of the Sony (Minolta) 135mm STF? That lens was built specifically for portraiture. I'm not sure why you think there are so few 135mm lenses in production.

Canon 135L F/2
Sony 135mm CZ F/1.8
Sony 135mm STF - designed specifically for portraiture.
Nikon 135mm F/2 DC - designed specifically for portraiture.

Sigma List of new Sigma DSLR lenses rumored to be announced in 2014 | Photo Rumors
One of the best lenses ever designed by Pentax is the A* 135mm F/1.8 which sells for $2,000 used.

---------- Post added 07-01-14 at 06:02 PM ----------

One interesting thing is that a modern 135 1.8 lens would be at its peak at around f4. So the DOF is still thin enough to get just the head and it would isolate the background nicely - yet the image quality will be superb.

And if you use it on an APS-C you get a fast 200mm lens which is excellent for indoor events and sports. Or has 200mm lost it popularity?

[ElJamoquio]

If I would still consider zoom lenses for aps-c or ff dslr's I'd stick with the 70-200 f/2.8. Why add a specialist lens if you are happy with the zoom? The optical performance is not going to be significantly better this side of dxomark. My approach is entirely different though. I kissed all my large zooms good-bye and will only consider primes of moderate focal lengths ( ca. 24mm to 135mm) for a large dslr. Zooms, to me, are a perfect fit for m43 (and even the Q), as indeed are ultra wides and very long focal lengths.

No doubt that's the higher-IQ-way-to-go. My Pentax kit is mostly primes. I do have a few zooms. But for an event (wedding) photographer, I think the versatility of zooms is the way to go.

I have a different take entirely on the zoom situation though - for me, they sit best on the FF's, where max aperture isn't as critical. YMMV!

[jsherman999]

I used the 135L for years which is an F/2 lens. To answer your question I have used it in portraiture. Have you ever shot portraiture? Ever hear of the Sony (Minolta) 135mm STF? That lens was built specifically for portraiture. I'm not sure why you think there are so few 135mm lenses in production.

I agree but are we talking about 135 f/1.8 on aps-c, or FF?

I use the 180 f/2.8 on FF all the time for 'portraiture', and it's equivalent to about a 120mm f/1.8 on aps-c - so 135 f/1.8 on aps-c is usable for that purpose, I would say, even wide open. Heck, 135 1.8 is great on FF for portraiture - it's generally used for 'longer' portraits but it works fine.

180 f/2.8 == 120 f/1.8 apsc:

[theraven871]

If Ricoh/Pentax do not release a "Full Frame" DSLR this year, then I will be migrating to another brand.
I would prefer Pentax, but I do need a Full Frame sensor and can no longer ignore that gap.

I'd most likely go with:
Nikon D610
Nikon 24-70 F2.8
Nikon 70-200 F2.8
Nikon 85 F1.4

Love my pentax camera. Love my pentax lenses. Perhaps I'll keep it as a backup.
But once you shoot with a Full Frame camera and pro lenses, its really tough to shoot with anything else.
Pentax is the absolute best......for their weight. There is no other camera system that is so compact and light that I can take such great exposure with.
But, as far as the best system? In my mind, Full Frame beats crop sensor every day.

[asahi man]

Maximum need of fullframe and it should be the 610?????

[cali92rs]

Maximum need of fullframe and it should be the 610?????

Yes, because who would want superior image quality, weather-sealed lightweight body that happens to be affordable? ?

[theraven871]

Yes, because who would want superior image quality, weather-sealed lightweight body that happens to be affordable? ?

I'd rather spend my money on quality lenses.

[Enrique S Toso]

My FF needs are so extreme that I would go for a D610 and those lenses too, or maybe a used D700. Dont have much more money, and my customers still complaining about my night/indoor pictures in weddings. Im keeping my K30 as backup, I just love that camera.