Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,494   Posts: 1,543,014   Online: 749
      
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 89
  1. #11
    colrehogan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    2,016
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    16
    I tried my 135 mm with a 2x converter recently and really liked the results. I was shooting landscape. It gave me enough to fill the frame with, but I didn't have to get too far off the beaten track (or in this case, the walking trail) to do it.
    Diane

    Halak 41

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    346
    My first "kit" was a Nikon FM, Nikkor 28/3.5 and a 135/2.8 series E. Used the 135 for HS football, basketball sometimes, and a lot of candid street type shooting. That particular 135 is very sharp, light and - used wide open - makes really good "isolation shots" picking faces out of crowds etc.

  3. #13
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    The 135mm as a focal length is something of an historical holdover. It was 1.5 times longer than a 90mm, and was the longest somewhat practical lens for use with a rangefinder camera. It was relatively easy and inexpensive to produce one that performed well, was small, and was a good option for a rangefinder using pj needing a lens with some reach and decent speed before SLRs. After SLRs, many people went to the 200 f:4 as a standard amateur telephoto for more reach than the 135, as it was still affordable.

    I have some candid head shots with 135's that I like a lot.

    My son uses an older Minolta 135 f:2.8 as a macro lens and gets excellent results, very good bokeh, and comfortable working distances.

    Lee

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I appreciate the question in regard to use of the 135mm lens. I have not found a specific or particular use for it yet, but it has, indeed, been useful in certain situations. For instance, I found my Pentax SMC Takumar 135/3.5 especially useful in photographing a ship that was docked just across a small inlet. I could have never fit in the ship "comfortably" (i.e. with some scenery) if I had used a longer lens. It also was very handy in that I was able to shoot hand-held (pun intended).

    Overall, I find that 135mm focal length is perhaps the most useful of any tele length. The 135mm lens is like the poor cousin of the 50mm lens: all the pros seem to despise the ol' 50...but I use a 50 more than any other lens.
    Last edited by FilmOnly; 04-21-2009 at 03:07 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: added comments

  5. #15
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,352
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    441
    Tell that to all those folks plonking down close to a grand for the Canon 135 F2 L. I've been taking a portrait photography class at the Smithsonian, and on a number of occasions I would have loved to have the 135 F2 instead of my 24-105 that came with the camera kit. At 105, I still feel a little too close to my subject when filling the frame with their face. And the F2 gives an amazing compressed depth of field with super smooth out-of-focus areas.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    580
    The Pentax Super-Takumar 1:3.5/135 is another story. This is a little jewell. Sharpness, contrast and bokeh that are unbeliebable.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    I think it unfair to say that the 135 mm was only popular in circles of unwitting "non professionals" / "amateurs", and that it was dumped deservedly as soon as these people started to catch on.
    It's not so.

    Supplies of these lenses are plentiful, because they were popular. Period.

    And that, because they were (still are) great lenses. Versatile enough, and of high quality. No worries.
    The abundant supply is a reflection of how many were bought. And remember that unlike the 50 mm, you did not (!) simply get one with any body you bought. People who bought one had to decide to buy one.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,834
    I have a 135mm and I agree it is a inbetween lense but it does give good images.

    Jeff

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    ...all excellent points, Q.G...

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    471
    Images
    24

    I love my 135mm

    I love this portrait length in both 35mm and Dslr and have one for both the Minolta Manual (f/2.8) and Nikon AF (f/2). I also have the 85mm (Nikon) and 100mm f/2.5 (Minolta). Depends on what I am shooting and why. The studio works well for the 135s and there are environmental/location shots work with the 85mm and the 100mm (forgot there is also a 105mm Series E).
    Luke

    To create one's own world in any of the arts takes courage.

    Georgia O'Keefe

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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