Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,770   Posts: 1,484,280   Online: 1171
      
Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 89
  1. #21

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    225
    my most used lenses are 35mm and 135mm focal length. I guess that makes me seriously unprofessional

    wayne

  2. #22
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,823
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    They were easier & cheaper to make compared to wide angles and very popular.

    Ian
    But why aren't 85mm lenses as easy and cheap to make? I would love to have the Minolta MD 85mm/2, but the speed of the lens seems to keep the price up on eBay. Why wouldn't Minolta have made an 85/2.8 at a more economical price point? As regards Minolta MC and MD lenses, the original poster is definitely right: 135s are plentiful and cheap.
    Charles Hohenstein

  3. #23
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,382
    Images
    15
    In my distant uni days (25 years about) 135mm was one of the lenses we were required to use for H&S portraiture and candids. Haven't used one of this f/length for a good few years now. It does not surprise me an earlier post mentioned the Canon 135 f2L; being an L-series lens I wouldn't quibble with its optical quality!
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    One beautiful image is worth
    a thousand hours of therapy.


    "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government
    to save the environment."
    .::Ansel Adams






  4. #24
    darinwc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,015
    Images
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy View Post
    But why aren't 85mm lenses as easy and cheap to make? I would love to have the Minolta MD 85mm/2, but the speed of the lens seems to keep the price up on eBay. Why wouldn't Minolta have made an 85/2.8 at a more economical price point? As regards Minolta MC and MD lenses, the original poster is definitely right: 135s are plentiful and cheap.
    Short answer: go ask minolta ~why~

    Sorry to be snippy, but your question sounds more like a complaint.

    Long answer:
    Regarding manufacturing: I think that at the time, consumers were more interested in a telephoto lens to get close to the subject. 135mm seems to be the longest focal length available in a compact size lens. I dont think too many people would want a 200 or 300mm metal barreled lens around their neck. Also remember that fast films were not as good as they are now, so shooting with a long lens may have required a tripod. Finally, note that most 135mm lenses share the same filter thread as their shorter cousins.

    Regarding current trends: ask around for advice on a focal length for portraits and the majority of answers will probably say 85mm or 100/105mm. Not many will reccomend a 135mm for anything.

    Personally I have a Nikon Series E 135mm f2.8 and I like the focal length very much for walking around with. It is reletively compact yet bright, and gets you closer to the action than a 50mm. I've used it at a local nature preserve where I can get pretty close to the animals and at the zoo.

    That said, I think a good tele zoom like a 70-210mm gives you better options for most situations than a 135mm. The 135mm is too long for family photo type shots where a perosn will usually be 5-10 feet from you.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster View Post
    Talking about uses for 135's, the only use I ever found for mine was photographing friends playing tennis. Seems to be just the right distance. What's your use?
    I find 135mm to be a very good focal length for astrophotography. It captures some of the larger nebulae at a decent size while showing the star fields they are located in. Also, it seems to be a sweet spot for minimizing optical aberrations: too short for chromatic aberration to be a problem, and too long for astigmatism and coma. I've found that I can shoot astro with my Pentax 135 wide open without getting defective stars in the corners of the frame.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Japan
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,957
    I prefer to use 135mm more than 85-90mm or 100-105mm because my main lens is 50mm on the 35mm system, and 200mm seems a bit awfully too long, and the 200mm lenses are usually a bit bigger and bulkier I like...

  7. #27
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    They are so cheap because they were a popular length, and were often made in various different "quality" levels by the same manufacturer. For instance, for Canon FD there is the 3.5, the 2.5, the 2.8, and the 2.0. For Nikon there is the 3.5, the 2.8, and the 2.0. (These are just off the top of my head. There may be even more.) They are kind of like a 50mm. High demand made for a lot of quantity over the years, and various models for various budgets made for many very affordable versions (which also are much smaller and lighter, so are quite useful IMO). One common standard three lens setup - and my personal favorite - is 28-50-135. That is what I shot with almost entirely on my recent 65-roll cross-country trip. (I also used a 200 for a good number of rolls, and a 17 for a few special shots, but the vast majority was shot on 50 and 28, and quite a bit on the 135.) When I got my Nikon F, I purchased the exact kit the original owner had bought. It came with 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.4, and 135mm f/3.5 (the cheapie of the lot).
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 04-21-2009 at 07:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy View Post
    But why aren't 85mm lenses as easy and cheap to make?
    Because they are not as popular. No 'scale' advantage.

  9. #29
    naaldvoerder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    578
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Chazzy View Post
    But why aren't 85mm lenses as easy and cheap to make? I would love to have the Minolta MD 85mm/2, but the speed of the lens seems to keep the price up on eBay. Why wouldn't Minolta have made an 85/2.8 at a more economical price point? As regards Minolta MC and MD lenses, the original poster is definitely right: 135s are plentiful and cheap.
    I own the Minolta MD 85/2.0. It's a lovely lens and handsomely compact. I also own the CZ 85mm/1.4 and the CZ85mm/2,8. There must be something wrong with me...

    Jaap Jan Helder

  10. #30
    Aklens200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alaska
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    31
    I to agree with most of what is said above, the focal length is just not useable for much.
    Rich



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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