[les3547]

Say you prefer primes. Doesn't a lens in the 135mm range offer some unique advantages on FF? It's manageable in terms of holding it steady (especially with Pentax's SR), for portraits (or any subject) it isolates from the background better than the more popular 85mm FL, as a walk around lens in public it allows distance from subjects that is more respectful (and revealing) than shorter focal lengths, as the F and FA 135 prove it can be made lightweight and still offer F2.8 (which at that FL is all that's necessary for great bokeh), and it isn't so long that one can't even do landscape shots that are off in the distance.

Here's a link to an article describing the logic of such a FL.

I imagine that without interest expressed by Pentatians for this FL Ricoh won't give us a modern version.

[MadMathMind]

I shoot all portraits and such...I don't know anyone who regularly shoots with a 135mm--and Canon makes a damn fine one too! It's just not a popular lens, I think. Everyone I've met largely uses an 85mm and those who don't use a 70-200 f/2.8, but that number is quite a bit smaller. I find those unmanageable and unnecessary but if you're doing to do a 135 f/2.8, why not get a 70-200 instead. And in Canikonland, the 70-200 is stabilized and the primes are not.

[VoiceOfReason]

The only 135 FF I have is my Tamron 24-135, which would be awesome in a straight f/4. Of course if I need fast in that range my 70-200 f/2.8 covers it. Actually, why is 135 a sought after FL?

[DeadJohn]

The article claims 135mm is "perfect". No; it works for portraits but so can many other focal lengths.

Pentax has a brand new 70-200 that covers that length. For photographers who prefer a smaller, lighter, less expensive lens, there's a 100mm prime (which would greatly benefit from a refresh that brings back the focus range limiter). Samyang sells a manual focus 135mm f2 if needed.

[Adam]

I think zooms have made this focal length less relevant. We could see an offering once all the key bases are covered, though.

[IgorZ]

I use 135 all the time with my K5. I find it works great with the kids - you can give them some space and still take portraits. I don't have a Pentax lens in this focal length though, so I use Tair 11 and Jupiter 37A

[RGlasel]

I use 135 all the time with my K5.

I guess it is what you are used to and what gives the look you want. A couple of years ago, someone posted full length outdoor nude portraits taken with the DA * 200 on an APS-C body. My question about whether such a long focal length made it difficult to communicate with the model wasn't received particularly well.

[ZombieArmy]

I love my 135. I could imagine it being super fun on FF. I think people just have issues with framing the tighter crop when it's not just getting birds up close.

[les3547]

- you can give them some space and still take portraits

Right, I like it for similar reasons . . . giving people space. On APS-C my favorite FL was 90mm, but on the K-1 my 90 is short. The F and FA 135mm lenses achieved f 2.8 with 3.2 inches and under 400 grams. I know the trend now is massive lenses, both prime and zoom, but possibly there's still a place for quality lightweight primes.

[stevebrot]

It was a traditional favorite because it could do duty as both a short tele and for portraits on 35mm film as part of the classic three-lens kit (28, 50, and 135) in the days before good, moderately priced zooms.* Decent results could be had from fairly simple designs and prices were moderate even for fairly good lenses. If one had some extra dollars the three-lens kit could be expanded to include a 200mm. Back in the day, camera stores usually maintained a good stock of options in those four focal lengths. That sort of explains the relative abundance of those when compared to 24mm, 35mm, 105mm, and 150mm. That members of that "quartet" were usually priced a few notches higher. FWIW, I did not shoot the 35mm focal length on film until just about eight years ago and now I regret not having tried it sooner.

Back to the original post...when the first wave of focal length suggestions for the not-yet-released K-1 went around, my first suggestion was for a decent 135/2.8 as a basic offering followed by a decent quality 28/2.8. There is still a need for the three-lens kit as opposed to a 28-150 zoom.


Steve

* For years I carried a variation on the three-lens kit substituting a compact 70-150/3.5 zoom for the 135.

[les3547]

It was a traditional favorite because it could do duty as both a short tele and for portraits on 35mm film . . .

On APS-C the FA 77 and 85 were likely popular for similar reasons. I posted this in the K-1 section because there is no equivalent on full frame, and few people seem to be calling for one. I know a short tele zoom is planned, but if one wants a nice prime, Pentax doesn't seem to have plans for a modern 135.

[todd]

I'm sure if I had a fast 135mm with AF like Mr. Lincoln, I could shoot amazing street candids like he does... (just kidding)

"Mr.Lincoln" | Flickr

[Pentikonian]

135mm is one of my favorites. I hate having to haul around a zoom to cover that focal length. I'd love a modern 135/2 or 2.8

[les3547]

I'm sure if I had a fast 135mm with AF like Mr. Lincoln, I could shoot amazing street candids like he does... (just kidding)

"Mr.Lincoln" | Flickr

Thanks for the link. His work is amazing.

[kb244]

The 70-200/2.8 of various brands kind of made it unnecessary, though a good 135/2.8 will be lighter (maybe sharper?)