Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,985   Posts: 1,523,930   Online: 936
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Images
    98

    Which 135mm non-AI?

    Wanting a couple portrait lenses for my Nikkormat, not sure if I should get the 135 2.8 or the 3.5? My system is almost complete I recently got a Nifty Fifty 1.4 Nikkor-S

    To complete the system I will need a 135, an 85, a 24, fisheye and 300 4.5 or other super telephoto. Right now I have three different 28's, a 3.5, Rokinon 2.8 and Albinar ADG 2.8 Macro, the 50 1.4, a 50 1.8 Series E that works in stop-down mode with the Nikkormat FTN, 35mm Nikkor 2.8, Vivitar 55-135 f3.5 and a 2x Kiron Teleconvertor.

    My dream system is coming to fruition.
    Last edited by j-dogg; 11-18-2010 at 08:28 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / B+M 135mm Zeiss Tessar + Compur Deckel
    RB67 Pro S /50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
    FED-2 / 50 2.8 Industar 26m / 85 f2 Jupiter-9
    Canon 300v / A2

  2. #2
    PhotoJim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Regina, SK, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,221
    I'd get the f/2.8 if I got a 135, but the lens I would actually get for portraiture would be the 105/2.5. Yum!
    Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada

    A bunch of Nikons; Feds, Zorkis and a Kiev; Pentax 67-II (inherited from my deceased father-in-law); Bronica SQ-A; and a nice Shen Hao 4x5 field camera with 3 decent lenses that needs to be taken outside more. Oh, and as of mid-2012, one of those bodies we don't talk about here.

    Favourite film: do I need to pick only one?

  3. #3
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Get a 135/2.8, either NAI or AI. It became an unappealing focal length once 70-210 offbrand zooms became popular. It's a great long-ish portrait lens and really about the longest that's hand-holdable. If you corner a NAI 135/2.8, make sure it's the "QC" model with multi-coating. Check www.nikonlinks.com for reviews, serial #s and pix of the various models. As Jim noted, the 105/2.5 is sweet in all its iterations. The 85/1.8 is also nice but difficult to find in good shape at fair prices.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Floor-it-duh
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Images
    98
    Yeah I noticed all of the 85 1.8's cost as much as a brand-new Canon EF 85 1.4. That is ridiculous. Hell some of the lenses I use on my Nikkormat I bought originally to adapt to my digital Rebel. They make really neat vintaging effects at night or low light with a tripod, especially on long exposures.

    I'm thinking I might replace that with a 105/2.5 I noticed a lot of the portraits I have shot are in the 80-110mm range on my zooms. I have a few at 135 I really like. I've done a couple 50's.

    So it looks like I will have to find a 135 2.8 and a 300 f4.5, anyone shot the 300 4.5? How is it? I see them for pretty cheap usually. Would make for a good Christmas present and I don't have anything in that range for my FTN.

    Anything with a C on the end is multicoated though? I've seen 105/2.5 PC's also.
    Last edited by j-dogg; 11-18-2010 at 11:16 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    5x7 Eastman-Kodak kit / B+M 135mm Zeiss Tessar + Compur Deckel
    RB67 Pro S /50 4.5 / 90 3.8 / 180 4.5 / WLF / prism finder / polaback
    FED-2 / 50 2.8 Industar 26m / 85 f2 Jupiter-9
    Canon 300v / A2

  5. #5
    lns
    lns is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoJim View Post
    I'd get the f/2.8 if I got a 135, but the lens I would actually get for portraiture would be the 105/2.5. Yum!
    +1 on the 105mm f2.5. A great lens, available at a great price.

    -Laura

  6. #6
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,681
    I agree with Laura, the 105mm f2.5 Nikkor is a much more useful short telephoto lens for portraiture and general photography, 135mm lenses have always seemed to me a compromise for people who couldn't decide between a 100 and a 200 and couldn't afford to own both focal lengths.
    Last edited by benjiboy; 11-19-2010 at 09:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  7. #7
    CGW
    CGW is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,798
    Quote Originally Posted by j-dogg View Post
    Yeah I noticed all of the 85 1.8's cost as much as a brand-new Canon EF 85 1.4. That is ridiculous. Hell some of the lenses I use on my Nikkormat I bought originally to adapt to my digital Rebel. They make really neat vintaging effects at night or low light with a tripod, especially on long exposures.

    I'm thinking I might replace that with a 105/2.5 I noticed a lot of the portraits I have shot are in the 80-110mm range on my zooms. I have a few at 135 I really like. I've done a couple 50's.

    So it looks like I will have to find a 135 2.8 and a 300 f4.5, anyone shot the 300 4.5? How is it? I see them for pretty cheap usually. Would make for a good Christmas present and I don't have anything in that range for my FTN.

    Anything with a C on the end is multicoated though? I've seen 105/2.5 PC's also.
    PC's are multi-coated. Check the Nikonlinks lens lists for serial #s to sort them out. Another alternative to the venerated 85/105 is the teensy E series 100/2.8--a true sleeper lens that you'll have to use in stop-down mode(no NAI meter thingy)with your Nikkormat. Worth a look.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    norway - on the coast
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    758
    Just start in one end..... and buy them all! These things are so damn cheap today, the quality (save for fungus and scratches) are just as good as new (i.e. top notch) and you need them all!

    These arguments are just as stoopid as Nikon vs Canon, Contax vs Leica.

    Why? Get them all and USE them all, both lenses and camera-systems, pretty soon you will find the best lens is the one you have on your camera right now.... and that the best camera is the one you have in the hand...........

    I just brought out my old Ferrania Lince 3 35mm camera, my very first 35mm, Vero shutter 1/30 to 250 B, Steinheil Cassar f:2,5/45mm. Thats it.

    It was a revelation to try to make meaningful pictures with just one fixed lens, yet thats what I did for the better part of 10 years.....

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    72
    I bought the f/2 version. It was converted to Ai at some stage though, but originally a pre-ai lens. Makes very nice pictures! Weight is not that bad either, around 900g with HN-14 metal hood.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ihmemies/5054085886/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ihmemies/4658347460/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/ihmemies/4528894139/

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    A 135 mm lens is a poor choice for portraiture. Faces will look rather flat. Something in the range 85 to 105 mm is a far better choice and will yield an image close to what the human eye sees.

    In fact 135mm is a rather poor choice for everything - too short to be a true telephoto and worthless for portrais.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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