The classic focal length for portraits is 135mm. This focal length on film or full-frame cameras is very suitable for shooting portraits of people - one of the most popular genres in modern photography. But the problem is that there are practically no modern 135mm discrete lenses.
What happened to 135mm fixes?
In the history of each brand specialized in the sale of lenses, you can find a lot of old non-autofocus lenses of 135 / 2.8 class. Such lenses have moderate aperture, small size and excellent image quality.
For example, take Nikon. Throughout its history, it has released at least 10 different modifications of 135-ok. Mainly with aperture 3.5 and 2.8. The production of the first 135 / 3,5 began in 1959. The last 135 / 2,8 grade lens was released in 2005 and has never been upgraded to an autofocus version. Nikon simply doesn't have an affordable 135mm autofocus lens. Since 1990, only the very expensive 135/2 DC has been produced - this is a lens of a completely different class, and, accordingly, a different price category.
If we take other manufacturers, the situation is the same - neither for Canon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus and other brands. no ordinary 135 / 2.8 class lens available, there are only some specialized versions, the price of which sometimes just rolls over:
- Sigma 135mm 1: 1.8 DG A
- Canon Lens EF 135mm 1: 2 L Ultrasonic
- Canon Lens RF 135mm F1.8 L IS USM
- Sony FE 1.8/135GM (SEL135F18GM)
- Carl Zeiss Sonnar 1.8/135 ZA T* (SAL135F18Z)
- Nikon 135mm 1: 2D AF DC-Nikkor
- Nikon Nikkor Z 135mm 1:1.8 S Plena
- Samyang AF 135 / 1.8 FE
Of the more “simple” autofocus 135-current, I found only Minolta Maxum AF 135mm 1: 2.8 (22), Sony 135STF (Smooth Trans Focus) [T4.5], ZEISS APO Sonnar 2.8/135 T* (Batis 2.8 / 135) and Canon Lens EF 135mm 1:2.8 Softfocus.
Most likely, the fact that there used to be many manual 135s, but now there’s simply nothing to choose from, suggests that this is done on purpose... I suspect that manufacturers are not making 135s just to sell more expensive 80-200 / 2.8 or 70-200 / 2.8 class lenses, because one tiny 135 can be a replacement for a bulky and expensive zoom telephoto. 135mm is just the middle in the 70-200mm range, and therefore 135mm is a very popular lens.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Leave your thoughts on this.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Mmmmmmmm ... .. Possibly!
As for marketing, I support the author of the article :)
Now some kind of brainwashing, it's a whale
it's over whale and so on. The manufacturer needs to sell or steam =)
It seems to me that the fact that FF digital cameras have not so long ago entered the mass market has also largely spoiled it. And until now, most still have crop. And the recalculation of focal lenses caused confusion among many users. As a result, having released a budget aperture 135 you can’t get buyers.
I think the cropped cameras have nothing to do with it, because even during the autofocus film there were also no 135 / 2,8 autofocus ones. But even if it has played, then they produce many lenses where recounting is also needed, and full-format cameras have appeared for a very long time, but there are still no lenses.
I totally agree that 135mm is a very convenient distance for outdoor portraits.
More at Sony Sony Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f / 1.8 ZA є :)
He added, but that doesn’t change matters, because this Zonnar is very expensive.
As an alternative to crop, for example, to Kenon, there will probably be 85 f / 1.8 (taking into account crop factor 1.6 somewhere we get 135 EGF) and at a price acceptable, as you think?
For crop it is logical (described in my article https://radojuva.com.ua/2013/05/the-crop-identity/), but what for the full frame?
It seems to me that the reason for the lack of available 135-ok lies in something else. Most likely, the point here is that it may be economically unprofitable - it can be assumed that the prime cost of the 135s is equal to or even higher than that of the more universal 70-200 + zoom lens, which covers a large consumer audience. This is an option. It can also be assumed that there are accumulated statistics that indicate that 135-ok are sold much less since on the crop, they are not very comfortable, but on the FF, most likely they were bought by everyone who needs it, and the market simply will not accept cheap 135s. These are just assumptions.
About the cost fundamentally disagree.
How much should such a lens cost? How many people will want to buy it? FF is really more suitable for FF. But there they will already buy either 70-200 / 4L for 5000 (2.8 - 4.0 - not such a loss in aperture ratio with a gain in universality), or a specialized 135 / 2L for 8K. The difference between 2 and 2.8 is also not that great, the lens is rather large anyway. In metal and at a high price - they will not buy. In plastic, it will break the entire pricing policy, because there is a lot for the crop (mainly 50 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 are designed for it), for FF it is undignified.
Fix may be better than zoom in distortion, vignette, etc. For me, for example, size and weight are very important. I would gladly take a “real” portrait lens 135 / 2,8 for a walk, they are all small and not heavy, they easily fit into a regular photo bag and there is no need to take a photo backpack. But the monster 70-200 / 2,8 is simply unrealistic to place it somewhere, and it weighs more than a kilogram, you don't always want to run around with such a “bandura”.
Well, the course is clearly adopted to switch to zooms in the tele-range. 90-100 were left for macro and a few 135 for specialized ones. And everything else is zooms. I do not see both modern 200oks and 300oks, but they were once.
and 180 current
Canon has both 200 and 300 mm, and sigma has 300 mm
For example, Nikon does not have 70-200 / 4 for 5000, but it is twice as expensive. The difference between 2 and 2.8 is a whole stop - and this is noticeable.
Do not agree - I just assumed, I wrote so :).
It’s also unsuitable for racing rivals, yet I think that fuxi is significantly cheaper in the game. And from another thought logic є. For an amateur, intellectually it seems that 18-300 hell is all that is needed for happiness for about 8 thousand UAH, and from Nikon AF 135mm f 2D DC for 10 thousand. you don’t have any danger anymore, you’ll see and drink the minimum for such a speech.
Conspiracy of companies? Maybe. But why doesn’t any company risk releasing an autofocus 135-ka and luring a part of the audience to its side? Question :)
And do you not allow the so-called cartel conspiracy?
You didn't finish ... Cartel conspiracy of Cosmic Zhidoreptiloids from the planet Nibiru !!!!
But seriously, then with Yangnou, Samyang, Vitlroks also cartel agreement ???? China would be enriched on such lenses.
And in the summer I bought Jupiter 37a for crop (d90) and it became one of my favorites. constantly in the working set. I want his ms version! or would take something from old people with aperture 2.5 -2.8 and a little smaller.
I also think that people are not in the subject of a normal portraiture. All fifty dollars captured. And in general, from my own experience, I think that the larger the focal length, the more measured and thoughtful it is necessary to crop.
the needs of amateurs / professionals have changed, fifty dollars is a compromise one lens for everything. yes for portraits 85 or 135 or something between 105/90 ..
It's just hard to understand, you just have to try it once, with televisions
Since I bought a nikon SB-700 flash, I haven’t removed it from the Tamron 70-300, I used to use the Nikon 35 f / 1.8 all the time, but with a flash on the focal length of 70 mm, portraits are much better, and focusing accuracy is good. But if before I thought about buying a fast 85ki now doubts are, but is it worth it?
I shoot a 90mm tomron often. :) portraits
... try the old Soviet Tair-11 (in a white case!). Nothing else is needed. If, of course, you have photographic experience ...
At most there are two 135s Chinon 135 / 2,8, Jupiter 37A. Very pleased with both. I think that the lack of class 135 / 2.8 lenses is primarily due to demand. Who needs fixes 135?!. There are many photographers, but there are fewer artists. Most people want to take a camera, press a button, get a frame. Nobody wants to think about all sorts of subtleties. Manufacturers of technology know this, conduct market research and as a result give what is demanded by the market. There are, as mentioned above, only some specialized versions, only true connoisseurs, professionals, artists can afford them in general, call it what you want
Recently got an old Tair-11A 2,8 / 135 (with the inscription made in USSR) and, in fact, very good. Of course, you have to select the exposure, but if you do it successfully, then you feel whether you are Modigliani))
Yes, Tair-11 is a very picturesque portrait painter. This is a device for an artist so that the soul sings ...
The more I get to know people, the more I love dogs - I can't give up manual lenses in favor of autofocus lenses - this is probably old age.
sounded like “inability to use a machine after a manual transmission”.
For a long time I did not dare to make a choice in favor of something portrait by the Nikon system, after much thought, trials and searches I settled on the Nikkor 70-200 f / 2,8 VR II. I found it acceptable to take portraits with this lens at all focal lengths after 100 mm. The lens provides honest, noble sharpness with a negligible minimum of geometric facial distortion. But the Canon 135 f / 2L lens in conjunction with an FX camera gives a picture that is simply flawless in beauty, sharpness, colors and bokeh. This is the lens that makes it worth switching to a Canon system, or at least having one in your arsenal with a Canon FX camera. It's hard to find anything like this on Nikon and this Canon 135 f / 2L is totally worth the money. I think that over time it may be necessary to switch to this “glass” for portrait and staged photos, and leave the Nikon system for reporting.
Denis, this is the same as having two wives. You are probably an oriental man?
What does bigamy have to do with it? Cameras are not so expensive and no one bothers to keep cameras of different systems in operation and not suffer incomprehensible torments about choosing a camera system. A lot of problems with the selection of optics disappear immediately and the nerves are in place. The price of the question is minimal ... (While the fools argue in battles about the advantages of Canon-Nikon, the smart ones use both ... :-)))
Hello everyone! acquired Nikonovsky 300/135 on a crop d2s. I am satisfied with the picture, I tried with the d800, the picture is also wonderful. Well, what about if manufacturers had done modern 135mm, and what would happen to the price ??, as always sky-high for many 2000-2500 usd ??, not everyone will draw such a cost.
135 / 2,8 and 135 / 2,0 feel the difference, with the price it would be the same.
Yes, it and a half thousand greens so far not every amateur photographer will pull. The problem is that now everyone (even including professionals) prefer zooms. It is for their versatility. In fact: in the range from 24 to 200 mm, you need only two lenses, while in the situation with fixes they need a whole bunch. And it’s already run wild: extra time, dust, crooked hands, etc. It’s easier to have two carcasses with two zooms on the road than one with fixes. He put on a shoulder strap with carcasses and drove.
Nikon's 135mm is one of the most unsuccessful in terms of picture quality, optically. mad chromaticism of all colors.
so whoever really needs 135mm - go to Kenon. Alas.
But is there something similar in Soviet optics?
What exactly is similar?
Arkady is right, on crop 135 it is indistinct and a lot. For the crop I bought at one time not expensive Y37 (shabby 1978), but sharp, sharpness does not depend on the aperture practically, only the depth of field changes. So what, the h-ki are good, but for the crop it is very narrow. I rediscovered it for myself after the transition to FF, there he is really correct 135ka. Therefore, there are no them that most of the crops have. And connoisseurs / pros have money for the luxury version ...
sharpness cannot but depend on the aperture :)
In the center, Yu37 is almost independent. Of course, if instrumentally measured, there will be a difference, but it is almost not noticeable by eye. and who are interested in the edges of the portrait lens. Maybe I got a good copy (of the 78th year, worn all over, it can be seen that they were actively used plus ideal lenses, so it was most likely used by someone who knew a lot and this glass suited him)
I, too, did not notice any difference) perhaps if purposefully at large magnification and to compare, then it will be
the reason is purely economic.
amateurs will not see the difference, they are more than enough zoom type 70-300.
pros will buy 135mm for 900 dollars like Kenon 135 / 2L. The price is quite sane for a quality lens.
I'll add more. Looking at old photographs, you can notice some more focus on the portrait genre than now. There were no crop, as a result a lot (even too much) of 135-current. The market is full, needs have changed, crop has appeared. They click everything in a row, and for a 135t you need to approach the layout carefully and accurately, which contradicts the point-shot-wau concept.
And since the pros have not gone anywhere, there are luxury versions that most do not need. So everything is logical
I will not say for the whole of Odessa, but on Canon, such a problem is practically absent.
For crop there are 85 1.8, giving out EGF of 136 mm. A person who has forked out for a full frame ($ 2000 for a new 6d, $ 1500 for a used 5d2) price of 135 2.0 ($ 1100) is more likely to please.
If we assume that a person, for example, bought a 5d classic, which has already fallen in price, or a Kodak SLR. Or, it seems to me, more likely, first bought an expensive carcass and only then thought about the role of the lens in the life of a photographer, then 100 2.0 or 135 2.8 can help him (both cost about $ 500). Yes, the first one does not quite satisfy the conditions, but 100 mm, as far as I know, is no less deserved distance for portraits. The second, strictly speaking, is out of production, but while its stocks in warehouses become scarce, a new version of Canon 135 2.8 will already appear. The only thing that darkens this joyful picture is the suspicion that this next version may not be so available anymore.
Nikon, Canon ... and I use Tair 11A))) it fits both systems))) and the quality of the photo pleases ... the lack of autofocus does not upset, the lens was not purchased for commercial photography)
People, ni, not so, comrades! What about 135? The price is just 135, as it is not needed by more amateurs. Not so long ago, having given people a try, poltinik 1.8, so win in shots shots for a picture, is there a great number of images in the frame? And 135-ka for such people like a black bandage for two eyes, and marketers know about the price, because of those who are not worthy and more masovy prodovjuvachiv 'kind'. Good zoom is our all! It is not necessary for people to think, take their feet in their hands and rob good and good photography, I don’t know how in the capital, but in the regions people are simply far from the fact that culture and photography aren’t, they know everything by 18 mm! І I don’t read sob I want to 'educate myself', I don’t want to point out the truth!
Sitting in the mine for 12 hours five days a week, it is difficult to instill understanding and love for photography. But even in the regions they hire professional photographers for weddings and other events. :)
Maxim, I don’t understand what you wrote. Which hat?
It's just that 135s have supplanted 85s: the aperture is higher, and the price is lower. and you don't need to go far. I was cool with 85s (mainly because of aberrations), but having bought Helios 40-2, I realized that 85 was needed (at least on a crop). Her bokeh when open is very portrait. The fifty-kopeck piece is far from it, but I didn't really like 135 in the face of Jupiter-37a. The background is poorly blurred, too sharp. Maybe Nikon's dear would change my opinion ...
135 background blurring badly? Well, what are you))) Here are a few photos taken by Tair 11A on the D5100 .. and it blurs everything as it should and everything I need breaks into the frame!) http://vk.com/album177799853_181469427
I agree, not popular FR 135 mm now, for many 85 "our everything"
135 there are enough of these.
Previously, glasses were produced much more often and reissued too. A new fifty-fifty version is expected by 1,4 from the canon which they are waiting for a year, but 85 / 1,4 is not there at all. And give you another version of not the most popular lens. This is marketing.
Does it make sense at the current level of quality of the glasses to release 2,8 and 3,5 if they are covered by zooms?
The meaning I mentioned more than once in the comments.
It's just that photographers will only buy fixes for themselves, and even that will not be enough since they already have their own arsenal of lenses.
Well, zooms are now in demand by the “fashion” for them. Now there are many newcomers in the photo business who want a lot at once and in one "package", that's what marketing is aimed at!
Arkady completely agrees with your article. 135mm lenses are really convenient for taking portraits. Once I took a Canon 135 f2 from a friend and liked the result very much. The photographs required virtually no post-processing. My personal Canon 70-200 f4 didn't stand next to me. Now I'm collecting money for this lens. There would be a 135 f2.8 variant with a price of $ 500. and with slightly worse characteristics, perhaps he stopped on it. But now there are no options how to collect on f2.