Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,817   Online: 959
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    105

    Do someone know the Zuiko 135 F 3.5?

    Hi guys!Is this lens a good glass?thanks
    regards

  2. #2
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,243
    Images
    60
    I used one for years in the 1970s and early '80s (when I was younger).

    It was always dependable, and it is nice and small. It also takes 49mm filters, which is common with a lot of OM Zuiko lenses.
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  3. #3
    chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    974
    A good sharp, small, inexpensive lens that is built well...all metal. Here's a photo I made with mine. I didn't use it a lot, as I rarely used longer lenses, but it was a good lens.

    Chris Crawford
    Fine Art Photography of Indiana and other places no one else photographs.

    http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com

    My Tested Developing Times with the films and developers I use

    Become a fan of my work on Facebook

    Fort Wayne, Indiana

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    529
    Images
    133
    I own one. It's a fine lens, really. But I think it's neither fish nor meat (to translate a German saying). For most subjects it's too long and if you need a long lens, it's too short.
    Last edited by Ulrich Drolshagen; 01-19-2013 at 07:07 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    North Yorkshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    720
    There is nothing wrong at all with the Zuiko 135/3.5. Nice and compact, light and delivers what you want. The 2.8 version is perhaps not so good so go for the 3.5

  6. #6
    mr rusty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    lancashire, UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    612
    Images
    97
    most zuiko is good glass - certainly all mine are. I have one of these, and yes its good. BUT it's probably my least-used lens because it is both a little bit long and a little bit short for most situations I find. I much more often take the 75-150 zoom, which I think is vastly underated. You will find a few of my gallery shots with this. The 75-150 does seem to suffer from some sort of gassing causing a film/spots around the inside edge of the front element. Mine was bought with possible "fungus" and I have seen others simlarly described. However, it simply wiped off when I took the front element off - which is easy. Definitely not fungus. Both are really cheap so buy both. Probably find them at no more than £/$30 each

  7. #7
    Matthew Wagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sandiacre, Nottinghamshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    97
    I adore mine, I have the silvernose version and it is a dream. Much lighter than the 135 2.8.
    Here's wide open with it.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	8394235059_950e5b2038_o.jpg 
Views:	25 
Size:	101.3 KB 
ID:	62878

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    272
    The more appropriate question would be, "Is there any Zuiko lens that is not good glass?". The 135f3.5 is a tiny little lens, and it is particularly striking as the silver nose. I agree that it is an odd length, but it would probably be very appropriate for portrait photographers.

    It is so small that it is easy to keep in the bag "just in case", though. Given that it does not have a significant perspective distortion it is handy for framing distant scenes that you can't physically approach. I got some nice shots of Stonehenge from outside the fence with mine.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    124
    I have this lens and like it. As others have posted , it is either too long or too short.
    The question is where did the 135 mm come from. It is a holdover from the RF days.
    The rangefinder on the Leicas, Canons, and Zeiss would only go to 135 . Anything longer required some sort of reflex system, Leitz Visoflex for example.
    Sorry if this post is so basic but I see lots of people on this site who have to get their knowledge here instead of in a Camera store due to the dxxxxxx takeover.

    Francis in VT

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    280
    TBH I find something around the 100mm or 120mm mark more useful. Not least because the minimum shutter speed for using them handheld is lower. 1/125 is fine with these lenses but would probably cause shake with a 135mm.

    What's puzzling is how 135mm remained the "standard" telephoto prime. I don't know about other brands but Pentax tried offering 100mm, 105mm, 120mm, and even 150mm around that length (as well as the usual 200mm and longer). People evidently carried on buying 135mm regardless, judging by the way I can lay hands on a used 135mm any day but the others are often pretty rare.
    Matt

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin