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
By the way, Arkady, there is such a popular focal length as 50 mm. So, when I bought a Nikon 50 1.8D - it was around 2003, it cost me about $ 100. After a while, this lens miraculously jumped to 140-150 dollars. Later, Nikon released an update to this lens G version, now it is sold for about 220 - 230 dollars. Sony does not release the 50 1.8 lens at all for cameras with a sensor size of 24x36, only for crop. Canon are the only ones who make and this lens does not rise in price. I do not consider Pentax and Olympus. Although Canon also suffers from this, only with other lenses. They had a 15 mm fisheye - it cost 500-600 dollars from memory. They took it out of production and launched an 8-14 fisheye zoom instead of it at a price of 1400-1500 dollars. I wanted to buy a fisheye, I used to use a similar lens on a Nikon 10.5, only a fisheye zoom for 1400 is completely unnecessary. Canon did the same with the 28 and 35 lenses. I built in stabilization there and put it on sale at a price twice the previous price.
I want to express my opinion about the fact that 135 mm is not popular now. Certainly not popular, as it is either expensive or all handles. This stops many. What will happen when the modern 135 mm 2,8 lens is released? There will be a lot of marketing and advertising. They will talk about the availability of beautiful portrait shots for amateur photographers and immediately become popular. Perhaps this is postponed for a time when the FF will come to the amateur segment stronger, or perhaps they left it to themselves as a decision on the reserve. When they feel that a sagging in new products is planned, they will throw it out to the people, and everyone will run happy that they have not forgotten about them.
But these are all my speculations.
I completely agree with the author of the article.
As for me. I have only 135 manual Canon FD 135 2,8 out of 1. I use on a film SLR Canon A-XNUMX. The lens, attractive in quality of the picture, is not great.
But Canon has a Canon EF 135mm f / 2L USM. Elka, with a motor, 135 mm. So not a red book. Everything is sad for Nikon - only the old Nikon 135mm f / 2D AF DC-Nikkor without a motor.
Not carefully read the article.
Judging by Yandex.Market, Canon EF 135mm f / 2L USM costs about $ 1000 in St. Petersburg. Which is not so expensive for the L-series of optics. Or do you mean that there is no prof. series? Then yes, everything is really sad.
Nichrome itself is inexpensive. Arkady spoke of affordable.
Please tell me, is a macro at 135 with rings good? what is the increase? much more than 50mm and rings?
I don’t know how I didn’t try with rings, but with wraparound boosting filters (even a full non-name) VERY Worthy !!! - it’s paradoxical to hear this.
Autofocus Pentax 135 / 1,4 on the aucro is now for 14500 grv.
Arkady does not understand what the article is about. Yes 135 is not a lot and cheap. But for example, compare the number of FF and crop produced. And there are 85-ki for crops. Also a little, but there is. Again, for connoisseurs. For “photographers” 18-135 are quite enough, there are 50 and 85 and even 135 and they don't care how many there are - 3.5, 4 or 6. And there are not so many professionals. In addition, modern lenses, compared to old ones, I want to throw in the trash and stuff their designer's face. Cheap plastic with curved glass, no matter how advertisements get rid of. For example, compare any old lens 50 1.8 with Canon 50 1.8 in quality, in appearance, in price. Could this shit be worth 100 bucks?
Comparing 18-135 and 135 / 2,8 is complete nonsense, because you do not own the subtleties and can not understand the essence.
Well, of course before, they did everything better! Not that now it’s a nightmare, plastmass lenses, nowadays there were real metal / Czechoslovak !!!!
I completely agree with the author of the article. Now super zooms are being actively promoted, and presented as the best universal solution not inferior in quality to a similar set of fixed lenses. Unfortunately, this is a general trend that occurs when technology about a level becomes available massively to a buyer.
I would like to add that now Zenit Telezenitar M 135mm f / 2.8 has started to be produced again at a price of 11t.r (about $ 330) so far only for M42, I wrote off with representatives of the plant and promised that they would release a version for Nikon.
The greediness of Russian manufacturers of photographic equipment discourages me. After all, this is an old technique that is inferior in all respects to branded products, which does not have exposure metering on most Nikon cameras, not to mention the lack of autofocus. It is like resuming the production of monitors with a cathode-ray tube and a screen resolution of 800 × 600 today. What was renewed, of course, well done. Just why the heck? Why not finalize it up to date first? ..
THANKS A LOT! I’m just in a fever of your articles, I have discovered so much for myself, I understood, up to this point, I could only guess, expect what I need for implementation, for skillful handling of photography, and to get good results. A good lesson for a novice photographer. I wish you success in your work !!!!!!!!!!
Yes, just the demand for 135 2.8 is scanty, that's all, there is no secret or conspiracy here.
The market is full of beautiful 135-oct, and the prices of excellent used optics tell us that the same Zeiss Sonnars 85 2.8, 90 2.8, 100 3.5 are much more in demand than 135 2.8.
Good idea.
I got a telezenitar 135mm f / 2.8 lens for free, I’m not a fan of manual optics, so I decided to sell it, but there’s no information about it, how much to ask for it? It looks like it’s in good condition, there are practically no scratches, made in Russia, I don’t understand how the diaphragm works on the lenses, it may not work, it doesn’t close.
Canon has 135 / 2.8 soft focus. Affordable price, good performance. Soft Focus Chip.
If you really want to, you can always find a way out. If there is no ready-made lens, then it remains to do it yourself.
There is nothing difficult - there would be a desire and some free time; the result is something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wTbfaGjge0
If you do not make a controlled aperture, then everything is much simpler: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nHM6Kda3z8
Dear author! The train of your thoughts (THIS was done on purpose ...) is understandable to me and we even perceive it very well, but: in that time period, when the 135 mm telephoto camera dominated in the photographer's arsenal, there were practically no zoom lenses, which subsequently pulled the blanket over themselves, especially among reporters, weddings and others working online. In the end, the photographic mistress-fashion, dictating her terms, has not gone anywhere, with a certain PR warm-up from the bloodthirsty marketers. Now, for example, zooms seem to have receded slightly into the background, tk. the "topic of FIXES" is being promoted ... after all, this huge mass of photographic "dummies" with money (no offense for beginners) must be directed in the direction necessary for the traders ...
Let me give you a yard of ridiculous assumptions. I believe that cheap 135s are not produced due to the fact that a lot of them were riveted at one time. Accordingly, the amateur photographer who started looking to the left and nevertheless cheated on the kitozums will most likely try a manual fifty dollars or 135-ku, which in most cases can be obtained even for free (at best), and if not lucky, then twenty bucks. Fifty rubles and especially 135s are easy to focus on, autofocus in the latter case is needed less than half a ton, because you need to think a little more, with 135 you are especially reluctant to hurry up - there are twigs there, flowers, girls, etc. Nonetheless, autofocus fifty rubles are produced. I think the point is that sharpness characteristics, micro-contrast, resolution are more important for fifty rubles. This is what modern lenses have, but is often lacking in old glasses. In 135s, all these disadvantages mean almost nothing, and many do not like sharp and high-contrast 135s at all - women's portraits are drawn poorly. Another thing with the 85s. They were made a little and even Jupiter is now less than a hundred greens hard to find. Here, a small surcharge for autofocus is quite appropriate if you are not so much a fan of hard zonnars. So 135s in the budget are not released precisely because we use Jupiters, Tairas, Takumars, Meyers, Schneiders, mines, Soligors and other Japanese non-names. And almost all of them are cool! After kitozums and hyperzums from any 135-ki, a photographer tears his roof off. It's like first love.
PS But I ordered the Minolta 135 2.8 AF from the Japs myself. Another year or two to pull and generally you will not find them at auctions, even at very inadequate prices.
I will add one interesting information: it is pointed out that the great Cartier-Bresson always used only fifty dollars. But we can open his autobiographical book and read in black and white that basically he did, he crawled and tried to use two fifty dollars - in the afternoon 50 / 3.5 Elmar at diaphragms 8 or 11, and at dusk Zeiss 50 / 1,5, as well as he almost always had 35mm and 135mm fixes with him (35 was put on another camera, and 135 was used by chance). So even he used a 135mm lens ...
Another information - 135mm fixes are now produced by many manufacturers: several Chinese manufacturers of optics (for example, Zhongye produces a wonderful 135mm lens for 6 different systems, it looks like a lens from Leica R, and weighs 600g (!), 6x6, 9-blade layout diaphragm, and it costs only $ 150 for a new lens), besides, very good quality and at very low prices, in metal frames and with real glasses, Samyang produces a 135mm prime, the quality of which almost bypasses the Keno 135L, Sony produces under the Zeiss brand has a shy and expensive autofocus 135 / 1.8, only Pentax does not produce an autofocus 135mm. Nikon has a special 135mm portrait lens, so who says 135mm lenses aren't made? In fact, only Pentax does not produce it. In the 4/3 system, 60 or 75mm lenses appeared, which approximately corresponds to this focal length. So the answer to this question most likely sounds like this: 135mm fixes are produced in exactly the quantity and form that the market consumes, and in fact, it should be so based on the laws of the market economy.
Koba, here we are talking about autofocus 135mm. I love Samyang myself, but the manual 135mm is no longer relevant.
I once looked at which focal length I shoot more with telezoom. It turned out just 135mm ...
Hello Arkady! Help me choose a lens. The choice was between Nikon 16-85, or some sort of width of Sigma, Samyang. I don’t have a lot of financial resources. Sometimes I pay attention to Soviet lenses. I have Nikon D3200, two whale lenses 18-55 and Nikon 35 1,8.
Sigma 17-70 / 2.8-4, Sigma 17-50 OS, Tamron 17-50 VC
I recommend looking for used Sigma Advanced / Professional
Sigma DC ZOOM 18-50mm 1: 2.8 EX
Sigma DC 18-50mm 1: 2.8 EX MACRO
Sigma DC 18-50mm 1: 2.8 EX MACRO HSM
Sigma DC 17-50mm 1: 2.8 Zoom EX OS HSM
Sigma DC 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4.5
Sigma DC 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4.5 Macro HSM
Sigma DC 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4 OS MACRO HSM
Sigma DC 17-70mm 1: 2.8-4 C (Contemporary) OS HSM MACRO
Sigma DC 18-50mm 1: 2.8-4.5 HSM OS
And Tamron
Tamron Aspherical LD XR DI II SP AF 17-50mm 1: 2.8 [IF]
Promaster DIGITAL XR EDO AF Ashperical LD [IF] 17-50mm 1: 2.8 MACRO (same eggs as the previous lens)
Tamron Aspherical LD XR DI II SP AF 17-50mm 1: 2.8 [IF], model A16 NII
Tamron Di II SP 17-50mm F / 2.8 VC B005, Model B005 E / NII
and more
Tokina AT-X PRO SD 16-50 F2.8 DX Internal Focus
Any of these lenses will be better than the overestimated 16-85 at equivalent focal lengths and apertures
Arkady, enlighten the incompetent — if I have FF 85 f1.4 in the crop to 135, and the aperture also increases by the crop factor of 1.5 or does f1.4 remain?
Aperture ratio in plan T-stops remains the same. But sometimes the number F is recounted in terms of the depth of field. You can find a recalculation of aperture for cropped lenses. For example, F / 2.8 for Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-55mm 1: 2.8G ED IF SWM DX on Nikon DX cameras will have the equivalent of F / 4.2. This does not mean that such a lens has a real darker aperture when used on cropped cameras - it only means that the depth of field for such a lens will be F / 4.2 equivalent for full-format cameras. Attention: this recount does not affect the exposure, it only affects the recalculation of the depth of field.
Hello Arkady! Hello from Novorossiysk! The Minolta 135 2,8 lens will fit the Sony Alpha 77 ll / mark 2 /? Camera by carving. I want to buy it! I’ll not be tormented with this Minolta then ???
If the Minolta 135 2.8 AF, should come up.
I thought about this article, which begins with a phrase about the classic 135mm focal length for portrait. I remembered the old Canon catalogs, looked at them. The manufacturer positions lenses 85 mm (with aperture 1,2 - 1,8) as portrait. And, as it seems to me, 85 mm are still the classic focal length for manufacturers. But 135 mm lenses are in catalogs as telephoto lenses, suitable for including portraits, sports, and nature. High-aperture 85 mm portrait lenses have not gone anywhere and are produced in sufficient quantities. Even for double-crops, manufacturers have noted several 42,5mm lenses. And the 135 has simply lost ground to the zooms from the 70-300 range. And among them there are quite compact, folding lenses, which are quite comparable in size to the old 135 mm.
Hello, can someone tell me about the Konik 135 F3.2 lens, is it worth buying. The price is not large, the appearance and optics, in general, is in perfect condition. Only information about him is very small. Maybe someone used or is using. Tell me please.
Hah, I came across an article by Arkady on a Google request “Why do we need a 135mm lens” - Well, really, the zoom is much more convenient. And the light-gathering power of 2.8 is just behind the eyes, and it seems to me that f4 is quite enough for such a focal point to blur the plan and not carry a kilogram of glass with you
In my opinion, a classic portrait lens is a lens that gives a picture that most closely matches the proportions of an object as seen by a person. Lenses with focal length less capture more, so the picture comes out as if we took a large piece of the photo and squeezed it to the required sensor size. The output is distortion. With a focal point, there is also more distortion - it makes the proportions wider than in reality. Although if you shoot a thin one, it will look large, as if looking in a mirror in a gym. But a large focal length also flattens, you do not need to shoot people with arms and legs extended forward - they are very short.
For a full frame, this is somewhere around 50 mm, or rather even more classic 58 mm. But of course, 85 mm, and even more so 135 mm, more blur the background, removing many unnecessary details.