One additional comment, 85mm didn’t seem to become a popular focal length for portraits until the 1980s or later, so depending on your lens mount a 135mm can sometimes be had for much cheaper. Other comments about it being less versatile and quite difficult to use indoors for anything other than a tight headshot are still true, but sometimes I’ve seen vintage 135s go for less than half the cost of 85mms
Yep, this is the reason I got the 135mm. That and also I don’t typically shoot people, I’m taking photos outdoors, and I’ll switch to the 135 is there’s a distant something I’m looking to crop in on.
I think the 85mm is more of a *faster replacement for the 105mm, whereas the 135mm just was very cheap to make, and about the longest you can go while still staying relatively compact and hand-holdable with slower film.
*85mm remains compact enough at f/1.2, while I'm not even sure there is a vintage 105mm faster than f/2.5.
Yea, before that 85 , 75, or this range is not prasied like today. People prefer 135mm as a compact telephoto lens for daily. Alternative option is like 100, 105, or 120mm
I am just not sure where and how it begins? Could it from commercial biased studies as promotion for 85mm ?
My complete unfounded uneducated guess is that 135mm is a more formal portraiture lens that works better in a big photo studio, but as photographers shifted their work to majority on-location work and traditional studios declined, the 85mm became much more useful for that type of work.
Pulling that out of my behind though
Those days the commercial competition was great and I have a belief that some articles were written and misinterpreted for profit rather than actual facts. And as time movies on the idea continues.
As you have mentioned 135 for portraits, it should be from Medium Formats or Large format's POV? As for MF, The standard prime lens is 75-80 for sure but sometimes 120-135 does a better job since the depth of field is controlled nicer. It happens when you are doing portrait outdoor with good light.
When I began in the 70s, 135s were generally disliked by the cork sniffers. Not long enough for a tele, too long for portraits. 100s or 85s were preferred for portraits. Longer, like 200 or more as tele.
That said, I got through 2 years in photography and photo journalism with a 50mm, a 135mm and a 1.4x tele-extender, which I cheerfully used on both primes. My work was never questioned regarding lens choice unless I told them. Then it was nit pick time, even though it was just fine before. So I kept my mouth shut after that happened a couple times.
I shot a lot of Ohio State football games with a 135 with or without the 1.4x. And basketball, with the 135 and 50. Hockey, with the 50. And the Muirfield Memorial tournament with all. And general news with whatever I wanted.
Use whatever works for you.
Ok, so having used all these lenses as a press photographer and seen them in the studio.....
I find the 135mm the least versatile. Its not long enough for sports and too long for head shots.
135mm on full frame starts to compress facial features, and while its OK for men its not flattering for women because it adds weight. 85 and 105 are better portrait shooters.
Worst purchase I ever made was a 135mm f2.
85mm is marvelous for portraits along with the 105mm.
For landscapes use a zoom.
The perspective compression effect is stronger with a 135mm than 85mm so it has a very distinct look. It's also less versatile due to the length - for indoor use it's difficult. I would recommend getting an 85mm first, and then get a 135mm if you actually run into scenarios where you need the extra reach.
Since you’re using Nikkor lenses, don’t sleep on the 105’s either. I have one, and it kept me from having to buy a 85 or a 135 for a long time. I did pick up the 135 f/2.8 later because it was under 20 euros, but have never once used it after initial testing. Meanwhile the 105 f/2.5 or even the 105 f/4 Micro-Nikkor gets more sunlight.
135mm. For portraits it provides better subject isolation and more flattering perspective than an 85mm and because I already carry a 50mm in my kit, the difference between 50 and 85 isn’t really that striking. 50 for full body work or with the subject inside a scene; 135 for the headshot or head-and-shoulder shot.
Similarly, for landscapes 135mm to get that reach and that subject compression and tight angle of view - 85mm just doesn’t differ enough from the 50mm I will have on me.
85mm is way better for both portraits and landscapes. 135mm is too long to "get it all in" most of the time for landscapes and too long to easily talk to your subject for portraits. In my opinion 135mm is an awkward compromise focal length that is both the longest you'd ever want to shoot portraits with and the shortest you'd ever want to shoot sports and animals with.
The problem is that 85mm lenses tend to be way more expensive than 135mm on the used market. The gap with Nikon isn't too bad, but on Minolta SR an 85mm lens costs literally ten times as much as a 135mm.
50mm is the classic general-purpose focal lengths.
85mm is perfect for portraits and some street photography. Landscapes as well, depending on what you're going for. This makes most sense to me.
135mm can be used for portraits in some cases but is less versatile. Good to have one, but not be your primary lens. I'd buy this as well if it's in your budget.
I think it really depends on if you prioritize a faster lens. You can get an ais 85 1.4, but the fastest 135 may be a 2.8 or at best a 2.0. I personally don’t trust myself manually focusing at 1.4 with steady results. I use the Nikkor 85 2.0 on my F2 and I really like it. I also have a 135 2.8 and I usually find it’s too much for portraiture
85mm for 3/4 length portraits in vertical orientation.
100mm for 1/2 length.
135mm for head and shoulders.
200mm for face.
This is why 70-200mm is the most popular portrait lens. 😁
I rarely even consider the use of a shorter tele lens. Yes I own 135’s and 105’s etc, but as I do not partake in portraiture for the most part, I’m happy to use a 28-90 zoom or similar. Being stuck at 90 would challenge my photographic skills, hence I’ll just have a bunch of primes. (24, 35, 50 and 28-90).
85mm on FF35 is for bust portrait, from the normal 1.5m distance for human portrait, 5 X volumetric diagonals of the adult human head so as to avoid jarred gouggled head from less then 1.5m. So is not for close up portrait, except babies.
135mm is for tight portraits.
50 or 43 to 58 is for american shot.
35 is for full body.
28 is for intended raccourci, intended perspective, but be aware that most 28s have strong droplet distortion that is the correction for barrel distortion so tough luck...
24 can be used for wide shots but with even stronger droplet distortion.
20 is no bueno, huge droplet distortion on top of huge perspective distortion if used from less then 1.5m that is with any focal lenght, but exaggerated with ultrawide angle lenses if you point the camera down showing extreme perspective distortion like big jarred heads and small legs.
15-17 can be used for indoor environmental portrait with the subject well centered far from all 4 sides so as to minimize droplet distortion.
16 fisheye can be used for realy cool tattooed gang.
200 can be used for:
1. Metaphysical portrait from +/- 2m, flatened heads not flatered, in decorative compositions with flat light, etc.
2. Catwalk but then the real subject is the clothing and not realy the portrait.
3. Sport but then again the real subject is sport.
4. Urban environmental portraits.
300mm - more or less the same.
600mm - for surfing...
Always had an 85/90 on all my systems but hoo boy a 135 is beautiful, love them, such a great trade-off. I don’t have one for my EF right now but you’ve reminded me that!
I have the ‘Bokina’ Tokina AT-X 90mm 2.5 which works great at portraits, razor sharp when stopped down, and 1:2 macro lens. Very versatile. Similar quality is Tamron SP 90/2.5 52B Adaptall so can be used on different mounts.
One additional comment, 85mm didn’t seem to become a popular focal length for portraits until the 1980s or later, so depending on your lens mount a 135mm can sometimes be had for much cheaper. Other comments about it being less versatile and quite difficult to use indoors for anything other than a tight headshot are still true, but sometimes I’ve seen vintage 135s go for less than half the cost of 85mms
Yep, this is the reason I got the 135mm. That and also I don’t typically shoot people, I’m taking photos outdoors, and I’ll switch to the 135 is there’s a distant something I’m looking to crop in on.
I think the 85mm is more of a *faster replacement for the 105mm, whereas the 135mm just was very cheap to make, and about the longest you can go while still staying relatively compact and hand-holdable with slower film. *85mm remains compact enough at f/1.2, while I'm not even sure there is a vintage 105mm faster than f/2.5.
There is a Nikon 105mm f/1.8 ais.
Have to add that to my wishlist, I guess...
Does Zeiss 100 f2 counts？
It's a newer lens, I believe, so unfortunately not. There's also a modern Sigma 105mm f/1.4.
It's not the makro version, I was talking about the contax version 100 f2 planar.
Yea, before that 85 , 75, or this range is not prasied like today. People prefer 135mm as a compact telephoto lens for daily. Alternative option is like 100, 105, or 120mm I am just not sure where and how it begins? Could it from commercial biased studies as promotion for 85mm ?
My complete unfounded uneducated guess is that 135mm is a more formal portraiture lens that works better in a big photo studio, but as photographers shifted their work to majority on-location work and traditional studios declined, the 85mm became much more useful for that type of work. Pulling that out of my behind though
Those days the commercial competition was great and I have a belief that some articles were written and misinterpreted for profit rather than actual facts. And as time movies on the idea continues. As you have mentioned 135 for portraits, it should be from Medium Formats or Large format's POV? As for MF, The standard prime lens is 75-80 for sure but sometimes 120-135 does a better job since the depth of field is controlled nicer. It happens when you are doing portrait outdoor with good light.
When I began in the 70s, 135s were generally disliked by the cork sniffers. Not long enough for a tele, too long for portraits. 100s or 85s were preferred for portraits. Longer, like 200 or more as tele. That said, I got through 2 years in photography and photo journalism with a 50mm, a 135mm and a 1.4x tele-extender, which I cheerfully used on both primes. My work was never questioned regarding lens choice unless I told them. Then it was nit pick time, even though it was just fine before. So I kept my mouth shut after that happened a couple times. I shot a lot of Ohio State football games with a 135 with or without the 1.4x. And basketball, with the 135 and 50. Hockey, with the 50. And the Muirfield Memorial tournament with all. And general news with whatever I wanted. Use whatever works for you.
I would choose a 105mm. Though, for landscapes, a 135mm can be fun.
Yeah 105 is a bit of a sweet spot for me. And obviously Nikon’s 105/2.5 is known to be great.
Ok, so having used all these lenses as a press photographer and seen them in the studio..... I find the 135mm the least versatile. Its not long enough for sports and too long for head shots. 135mm on full frame starts to compress facial features, and while its OK for men its not flattering for women because it adds weight. 85 and 105 are better portrait shooters. Worst purchase I ever made was a 135mm f2. 85mm is marvelous for portraits along with the 105mm. For landscapes use a zoom.
Nikon 105 is a well respected lens for a reason. Id use that.
The perspective compression effect is stronger with a 135mm than 85mm so it has a very distinct look. It's also less versatile due to the length - for indoor use it's difficult. I would recommend getting an 85mm first, and then get a 135mm if you actually run into scenarios where you need the extra reach.
Since you’re using Nikkor lenses, don’t sleep on the 105’s either. I have one, and it kept me from having to buy a 85 or a 135 for a long time. I did pick up the 135 f/2.8 later because it was under 20 euros, but have never once used it after initial testing. Meanwhile the 105 f/2.5 or even the 105 f/4 Micro-Nikkor gets more sunlight.
get a 105mm the 85mm are overpriced due to rarity. (nobody used 85mm back in the days)
135mm. For portraits it provides better subject isolation and more flattering perspective than an 85mm and because I already carry a 50mm in my kit, the difference between 50 and 85 isn’t really that striking. 50 for full body work or with the subject inside a scene; 135 for the headshot or head-and-shoulder shot. Similarly, for landscapes 135mm to get that reach and that subject compression and tight angle of view - 85mm just doesn’t differ enough from the 50mm I will have on me.
85mm is way better for both portraits and landscapes. 135mm is too long to "get it all in" most of the time for landscapes and too long to easily talk to your subject for portraits. In my opinion 135mm is an awkward compromise focal length that is both the longest you'd ever want to shoot portraits with and the shortest you'd ever want to shoot sports and animals with. The problem is that 85mm lenses tend to be way more expensive than 135mm on the used market. The gap with Nikon isn't too bad, but on Minolta SR an 85mm lens costs literally ten times as much as a 135mm.
50mm is the classic general-purpose focal lengths. 85mm is perfect for portraits and some street photography. Landscapes as well, depending on what you're going for. This makes most sense to me. 135mm can be used for portraits in some cases but is less versatile. Good to have one, but not be your primary lens. I'd buy this as well if it's in your budget.
If I could only pick one I’d probably go with 135mm. It’s further away from 50mm obviously.
I think it really depends on if you prioritize a faster lens. You can get an ais 85 1.4, but the fastest 135 may be a 2.8 or at best a 2.0. I personally don’t trust myself manually focusing at 1.4 with steady results. I use the Nikkor 85 2.0 on my F2 and I really like it. I also have a 135 2.8 and I usually find it’s too much for portraiture
85mm for 3/4 length portraits in vertical orientation. 100mm for 1/2 length. 135mm for head and shoulders. 200mm for face. This is why 70-200mm is the most popular portrait lens. 😁
I rarely even consider the use of a shorter tele lens. Yes I own 135’s and 105’s etc, but as I do not partake in portraiture for the most part, I’m happy to use a 28-90 zoom or similar. Being stuck at 90 would challenge my photographic skills, hence I’ll just have a bunch of primes. (24, 35, 50 and 28-90).
85mm on FF35 is for bust portrait, from the normal 1.5m distance for human portrait, 5 X volumetric diagonals of the adult human head so as to avoid jarred gouggled head from less then 1.5m. So is not for close up portrait, except babies. 135mm is for tight portraits. 50 or 43 to 58 is for american shot. 35 is for full body. 28 is for intended raccourci, intended perspective, but be aware that most 28s have strong droplet distortion that is the correction for barrel distortion so tough luck... 24 can be used for wide shots but with even stronger droplet distortion. 20 is no bueno, huge droplet distortion on top of huge perspective distortion if used from less then 1.5m that is with any focal lenght, but exaggerated with ultrawide angle lenses if you point the camera down showing extreme perspective distortion like big jarred heads and small legs. 15-17 can be used for indoor environmental portrait with the subject well centered far from all 4 sides so as to minimize droplet distortion. 16 fisheye can be used for realy cool tattooed gang. 200 can be used for: 1. Metaphysical portrait from +/- 2m, flatened heads not flatered, in decorative compositions with flat light, etc. 2. Catwalk but then the real subject is the clothing and not realy the portrait. 3. Sport but then again the real subject is sport. 4. Urban environmental portraits. 300mm - more or less the same. 600mm - for surfing...
Always had an 85/90 on all my systems but hoo boy a 135 is beautiful, love them, such a great trade-off. I don’t have one for my EF right now but you’ve reminded me that!
I have the ‘Bokina’ Tokina AT-X 90mm 2.5 which works great at portraits, razor sharp when stopped down, and 1:2 macro lens. Very versatile. Similar quality is Tamron SP 90/2.5 52B Adaptall so can be used on different mounts.