Anyone make regular use of a 135mm prime?

Cmaier

Site Master
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
5,210
Reaction score
8,253
I’m looking to replace my old Zeiss 85mm lens for my Sony’s, and the 85GM is a little long in the tooth and may be updated this year, but I hear the 135GM is fantastic. I’m not used to using a 135, though, so wondering if anyone has any experience. I’d be mostly using it to take photos of my daughter at a distance, portraits, and the occasional sporting event (swim meets, that sort of thing). I think it would be a little hard to use for portraits given the distance required, but I hear it’s not completely uncommon?
 

Citysnaps

Elite Member
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
3,601
Reaction score
8,819
Main Camera
iPhone
I think it would be a little hard to use for portraits given the distance required, but I hear it’s not completely uncommon?

I think it would depend on what kind of portraits you want to make. On the long end you're bounded by the environmental context you might want in the frame. On the short end, and needing to get closer to your subjects, dealing with perspective distortion.

I've shot with an 85mm ( a common so-called "portrait lens") and that's a good trade. But for the kind of portrait photography I like to do, environmental context is very important. I also like to get close to subjects. So I shoot with a 35mm f/1.4 lens. But being close I have to be aware of perspective distortion which can exaggerate hands, noses, purses, etc.
 

Citysnaps

Elite Member
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
3,601
Reaction score
8,819
Main Camera
iPhone
Also... For your shooting situations, you could rent a 135 for a few days and see if it make sense. BorrowLenses.com in San Carlos is great place for rentals.
 

Cmaier

Site Master
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
5,210
Reaction score
8,253
I think it would depend on what kind of portraits you want to make. On the long end you're bounded by the environmental context you might want in the frame. On the short end, and needing to get closer to your subjects, dealing with perspective distortion.

I've shot with an 85mm ( a common so-called "portrait lens") and that's a good trade. But for the kind of portrait photography I like to do, environmental context is very important. I also like to get close to subjects. So I shoot with a 35mm f/1.4 lens. But being close I have to be aware of perspective distortion which can exaggerate hands, noses, purses, etc.

The Sony 35mm GM is my most frequently used lens now, with an autofocus-adapted m-mount Leica Summilux 35 f2.0 as a close second. But I tend to use those for street photography-style candids, and not for posed shots. One exception is portraits of my daughter - I’ve been photographing her once a month with a 35 or (rarely) a 24mm lens since she was a baby, always with the same stuffed animal, and I print a photobook and give it to the family each year for the holidays.
 

Cmaier

Site Master
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
5,210
Reaction score
8,253
Also... For your shooting situations, you could rent a 135 for a few days and see if it make sense. BorrowLenses.com in San Carlos is great place for rentals.

I’m in the South Bay and only get up as far as Palo Alto usually, but you’re right, I should check around. Or I suppose i could go with lensrentals. I may just wait and see if Sony does come out with a version II of the 85, since I am comfortable with that focal length.
 

Citysnaps

Elite Member
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
3,601
Reaction score
8,819
Main Camera
iPhone
Just thinking out loud about a 135... And that's so-called lens compression (really about distance to subject and not fl). A reason to get closer, if possible.
 

Apple fanboy

Elite Member
Posts
1,613
Reaction score
3,175
I’m looking to replace my old Zeiss 85mm lens for my Sony’s, and the 85GM is a little long in the tooth and may be updated this year, but I hear the 135GM is fantastic. I’m not used to using a 135, though, so wondering if anyone has any experience. I’d be mostly using it to take photos of my daughter at a distance, portraits, and the occasional sporting event (swim meets, that sort of thing). I think it would be a little hard to use for portraits given the distance required, but I hear it’s not completely uncommon?
In the U.K. you’d never be allowed to take a DSLR to a swim meet.
Personally I prefer zooms. 70-200mm would be my lens of choice for this sort of thing.
 

mollyc

seeker of light
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
1,237
Reaction score
4,088
Main Camera
Fujifilm
In the U.K. you’d never be allowed to take a DSLR to a swim meet.
Personally I prefer zooms. 70-200mm would be my lens of choice for this sort of thing.
i regularly use my 70-200 for my kids’ swim meets, both indoors and out.

i’ve never had a 135. i like primes but prefer zooms for longer lengths.
 

Cmaier

Site Master
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
5,210
Reaction score
8,253
i regularly use my 70-200 for my kids’ swim meets, both indoors and out.

i’ve never had a 135. i like primes but prefer zooms for longer lengths.

I do have a 70-200 f4, but it’s not my favorite. Too big and heavy, too conspicuous, focus speed is slow, and I rarely use it unless I need the 200mm focal length.
 

Cmaier

Site Master
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
5,210
Reaction score
8,253
In the U.K. you’d never be allowed to take a DSLR to a swim meet.
Personally I prefer zooms. 70-200mm would be my lens of choice for this sort of thing.
We can use any camera we want, but no photos from behind the blocks.
 

Apple fanboy

Elite Member
Posts
1,613
Reaction score
3,175
I do have a 70-200 f4, but it’s not my favorite. Too big and heavy, too conspicuous, focus speed is slow, and I rarely use it unless I need the 200mm focal length.
Mines the f2.8. Fast to focus, but yes it’s big and heavy.
 

Cmaier

Site Master
Staff Member
Site Donor
Posts
5,210
Reaction score
8,253
Mines the f2.8. Fast to focus, but yes it’s big and heavy.
Focus speed is the main reason I’m looking for a new 85 (or 135). I was at my kid’s performance the other night with my A1 and Zeiss Batis 85, and ⅔ of the shots were out of focus. I had to close the aperture quite a bit to get anything useable. Lighting conditions were a little tough, but the Sony GM lenses would have had no problem.
 

Clix Pix

Focused
Site Donor
Posts
3,159
Reaction score
5,126
Location
Eight Miles from the Tysons Apple Store, No. VA
Main Camera
Sony
I have the Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM and it IS a fantastic lens. I have to admit I don't use it as often as I could, as I don't do portraiture, but IMHO it would be excellent for that purpose. It handles well, and although it is a somewhat heavy lens, it balances nicely on the camera body (either A7R IV or A1) and handles well. It does focus quickly and accurately and it allows for shallow DOF when desired as well as being able to produce razor-sharp scenes as well. I second the recommendation that you rent one first, try it out in the various situations you would be using that lens, and then make the decision about a purchase.


ETA: Inspired by this thread I decided to play with my 135mm this afternoon since I have been neglecting her. One thing I forgot to mention is that this lens has a surprisingly close minimum focus range, too, and can be used to great effect for close up kinds of shots.
 
Last edited:

DT

I am so Smart! S-M-R-T!
Posts
6,405
Reaction score
10,455
Location
Moe's
Main Camera
iPhone
Not that I have the know-how or gear of some of the other posters, but we have a 55-200mm which I leave on the camera like 90% of the time, it's the commonly recommended Nikkor (i.e., AF-S DX NIKKOR 55-200mm f/4-5.6G). It's decently compact (relatively speaking, you're already committed to a large camera), flexible, light, it's also pretty old, I think I got pretty shortly after we got our D40 (which we got ~2008 for new baby pics :)) Kind of left behind technologically speaking, but still does a great job when we [very] occasionally bust it out.
 

bunnspecial

Site Champ
Posts
295
Reaction score
644
Back in the past, I had a 135mm f/2 that I loved dearly and used often for portraits and the like.

When I switched to Nikon, that lens was high on my list to replace and...well 5 years later I've yet to get around to it and haven't really felt the need. In that time I've started using Zooms a lot, and looking at what I take with my 70-200, for example, I rarely find myself at 135mm. Nikon's classic 105mm f/2.5 is a lens I would never want to be without, though, and I've found that I use it or my 105mm f/2.8 Micro in situations where I might have used the 135mm in the past.

Nikon made a pair of really interesting lenses back in the 90s called "DC" or "Defocus Control" lenses. Both are f/2 lenses, one of them 105mm and one of them 135mm. They actually allow you to change the amount of spherical abberation and play with the bokeh. I've played with one in the camera store, and in a sense it seemed a bit gimicky to me but then you can leave it parked at 0 and it's a nice, sharp lens there. They are lenses that have held their value, though. I've come close to buying one, but have pretty much decided that if I did, I'd opt for the 105mm and not the 135mm.
 

Entropy

Member
Posts
20
Reaction score
20
I use m43s and own and love the 75mm f1.8 (150mm equivalent). I really like the particular lens, and the focal length in general. However it is not as universally applicable as a portrait lens as an 85-90mm lens, particularly indoors.
The Sony 135mm f1.8, for all it seems like a fantastic performer, is neither small nor inconspicuous.
If you are used to shorter focal length teles, the perspective might take a bit of getting used to, but it’s not that different from the vanilla options. If you have the option to rent the lens I would suggest doing so.
 
Top Bottom
1 2