Jump to content

How often do people use 135mm?


Recommended Posts

So I'm looking to buy a new lens and am curious how often people use the 135mm focal length.

Current Camera/Lenses -

  • Canon C100 (mki)
  • Rokinon 16mm T2.2
  • Rokinon 35mm T1.5
  • Rokinon 85mm T1.5
  • Canon 50mm f/1.8 (that I hate)

The Problem -  I do a mix of corporate, music videos, and weddings. I shoot most of my corporate stuff on a Sigma 24-105 f/4 (owned by the company I shoot corporate work for) or a 35mm prime (that I own). I'm more interested in expanding my lens set for my creative work in music videos and weddings. I need something with some reach (for my second camera when shooting weddings) as now I'm shooting with a 35mm on my B camera and 85mm on my A camera. I would like to either match or exceed 85mm. Also, when I did have a 24mm rokinon, I hated it and when I had a 50mm rokinon I just never really used it. I mention these because they would fill the more obvious gaps in the focal lengths I already have. Just for reach, I'm considering buying a 135mm. I had the Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus lens but the CA on that lens rendered it unusable so it never came out of my bag after I tested it around the house so I have no idea if I would actually use a 135mm on a music video shoot for aesthetic reasons. 

So, I need a longer lens than 35mm for my second camera at weddings. I have three options in this regard. I can buy another 85mm (Samyang is $250 new), try the 100mm t3.1 macro ($550 new/couldn't find one used on any of my usual sites) or get 135mm ($400 used/$440 new). I could roll the dice with the 100mm but I don't need a macro (I had one and never used it) and I'm not in love with a minimum of T3.1. I know I love the 85 and it would mostly solve my reach problem. It would be nice to have a little more reach, but I know I can live without it. If I get another 85 I know it'll sit in my bag until I'm shooting a wedding that needs it. I'm hoping that if I buy a 135mm I'll find it useful for aesthetic reasons and not just for it's reach. If I can justify it aesthetically, I think it's worth the extra $150-200, but if it just sits in my bag till I need a second cam with some reach, then I might as well just buy a cheaper lens I already know I love, right? I'm not trying to be stingy, but I'm sure I could use that money elsewhere if reach is the only benefit.

 

TL;DR - If I'm boiling it down, I want to know how often people use a 135mm focal length that for aesthetic reasons. Or is this focal length more about reach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I suspect everyone will have a different answer, depending on the type of work that they do. There are two main reasons to use long lenses - you need the magnification and can’t move closer, or you want the compression aesthetics. 

For documentaries, live events, and multi-cam shooting, you definitely need the reach. 

For narrative and commercial work, you have more control and aesthetics are more important. I don’t find a 135mm further away to be that aesthetically different from an 85mm up close, but it depends on the situation. If you really need a long lens for a shot, then chances are it will be more in the 300mm+ range. 

If I need a longer lens than an 85mm, then I’m more likely to be reaching for a zoom lens for versatility. Something in the range of 70-200mm or 85-300mm is more useful to me than a 135mm prime. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I rarely find myself using anything longer than an 85mm these days. On the rare occasion we need something longer, I prefer the 100mm focal length. I’ve always felt that the 135mm is a holdover from FF stills, and not that useful in movie work. Of course, that may well all change with the move to larger sensors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's a rare one for me too. But when you need it, you need it.

Though often when I need more reach than I can get with an 85mm, I'm popping the 135mm on to a 2x teleconverter for distinctly long-lens effect.

For the sort of work you're doing, I think a 70-200mm would fit the bill better. It's a very versatile telephoto range, and paired with teleconverters you can cover 99% of long-lens situations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I would find a tele zoom more useful especially if it does not breathe much and focuses close. the 70-200 is very useful like others mentioned and for most work it is much faster to use than a tele prime because you can fine tune the framing without moving the camera...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

A few exceptions might be if you were shooting with: 

1. A full frame (~24x36mm sensor) camera, in which case 135mm gives you roughly the same field-of-view as an 85mm on Super 35. 

2. Shooting with anamorphic lenses. Was operating B Camera (Sony F55) a few weeks ago on a movie where the longest lens in the set was 100mm, and it would have been nice to have something longer. With a taller sensor (A Cam was Sony Venice), this would be an even bigger issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its quite good for product photography and pack shots. Sometimes I find myself hitting the minimum object distance on the 85mm. Then the 135mm is great for those tighter shots. Its more about  getting tighter then a specific long lens "look" 

                                

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A somewhat random thing to point out, but 135mm is just about where I can't handhold a lens acceptably steadily anymore (on Super 35, at 24fps) and when I begin to need IS. 85mm is already tentative. I don't have the most stable hands, nor do I work with larger cameras.

For music videos, I have seen longer and wider lenses used well and creatively, as wide as 9mm equivalent and as long as 200mm+. I can imagine a 70-200mm f2.8 II IS L is enormously helpful for events. But I think the 100mm f2.8 IS L macro is pretty good, too, so tastes vary. But frankly the rendering on the 70-200mm is much closer to the 100mm f2.8 IS L and to other L zooms (very limited green/magenta bokeh fringing, more blue/red and more color neutral but less smooth bokeh) than it is to some of the primes you're shooting with, so I'm not sure it would be the best complement aesthetically, but it's wonderful if you like sharper more clinical imagery. Not really my preference, but it's an amazing lens. Cuts okay with the Sigma 18-35mm, also incredible, also not really my thing.

I love, for instance, the 135mm f2 Nikkor but on full frame. It's not so sharp at all. Sharp at infinity then smoother as you focus closer with really smooth bokeh with more soft fringing. But I don't find the focal length terribly useful on Super 35, to answer your original question, but for events and if it had IS I might.

For even work with enough light, don't discount the 55mm-250mm STM. Unremarkably rendering, slow, but tack sharp and $99 refurbished from time to time and easy to handhold. For daylight work it's quite useful.

Edited by M Joel W
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I really appreciate the input here. From what I understand, there is little reason to get a 135 if you don't need the distance. I understand that a lot of wedding videographers use lenses like 70-200, but I avoid zooms like this if I can. The reason I do is because of the photographer I work with in weddings uses Leica rangefinder cameras with all prime lenses. If I'm not mistaken, his longest lens is a 90mm. I've been borrowing the 24-105 from the company I shoot corporate work for when I need it (since we rarely shoot anything on the weekends) so maybe I'll stick with that for now. If the only benefit of a 135mm is increased reach, it isn't worth it for me. I'm trying to pivot out of wedding videos anyway so whatever lens I get has to be worth more than a little reach.

That said, I think everyone here has changed my mind about the 135mm and I think I'll take some time to rent and reconsider some shorter primes, maybe 20, 24, or 50. Or I'll put the money I had allocated for a lens towards some other part of my kit that could use attention.

I really appreciate all the insight here. I think I need to think a LOT more about this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

What is your reasoning with that wedding photographer who uses Leica rangefinder cameras? Is it sharpness that you are worried about with zoom lenses?

Wedding photographers, or really any photographer, need their photos to be tack sharp. For event photos, I use 3 lenses with an A7RIII: a 25mm, 40mm, and 135mm. I don't use zoom lenses because they just don't have that crispness at 100% zoom. So, I get that.

But, for video, how important is a sharp image to you and how often will you need that image to be sharp as if done with a prime lens? Each video frame isn't a 47-megapixel photo. Most corporate and music video content is 1080p. Is there a noticeable difference for that kind of work to you? For work when sharpness matters, could you rent what works?

If you really want that 135mm focal length without spending much money (more to see if it is worth spending money on one), you could go vintage with an adapter. Find a 135mm prime, Contax, Nikon, or Canon FD. Those vintage lenses will be very sharp and have a very nice aesthetic.

If sharpness and good color rendition are important and money isn't much of an issue, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II with image stabilization is shockingly sharp (if kept at f/4 or above). It's big and heavy, but it competes with prime lenses at f/4. That will give you reach all the way to 200mm if you need it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as far as the photographer who shoots Leica- and I don't want to speak for him but, I believe it is an aesthetic choice. He shot Canon 5D mkii and mkiii with the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for a while and got bored creatively with it. He is far more interested in the art of photography than the commercial of it so he wanted a system that got him excited about the art he was creating. One of his Leica cameras is a black and white CCD sensor camera, so he definitely isn't trying to make his job easier. He shoots only primes as well.

I shoot primes only because wedding video is not my primary line of work. I make more money shooting music videos than I do weddings, and far more from the corporate jobs than wedding and music videos combined. I won't buy a zoom for weddings because I won't use it outside of weddings and a zoom that is "good enough" is too expensive to justify for the 2-4 weddings I shoot per year. The only time I use a photo lens is when I absolutely have to because I absolutely hate the focus ring on most photo lenses. I manually focus everything myself, or when budget makes it available, I have a 1st AC to pull for me. Either way though, I find the short distance of the focus rings on photo lenses to be irritating. I like the distance on the Rokinon cine lenses which is primarily why I use them (and because I can't afford Canon or Zeiss cinema lenses.) They are also much flatter than the Canon L series lenses or the Sigma Art lenses (specifically the 24-105 that I have most of my Sigma experience with). So basically I just prefer cinema housing and I find that I rarely justify needing a zoom, but I have often chosen to shoot at T1.4/T1.8/T2.0/etc often enough to justify buying fast prime lenses over a 2.8 zoom (which I admit is fast, just not as fast as I sometimes like.)

As for sharpness, I don't really pay much attention to sharpness (unless it is unbearably soft). Most lenses meet my sharpness requirements these days. The only lens I ever got rid of for sharpness reasons was the 24mm Rokinon I previously owned which must have been a from a bad batch because it was atrocious.

I prefer to buy a certain focal length for aesthetic reasons, with the exception of my 16mm lens, I've always done that. The 16mm is only in my kit because sometimes you just can't back up anymore. I don't really care for having a 135mm if it isn't aesthetically useful. It seems most people don't use them and so I think I'll just avoid buying one and maybe fill in my current kit with a 50mm or 24mm (though I'm still undecided on that) or put the money to use elsewhere.

So to sum up, I'm only interested in the 135mm focal length if it has some aesthetic that it both unique and useful. It seems most people don't shoot 135mm unless reach is the issue, which isn't a good enough reason for me at the moment. I love the 85mm aesthetic so I originally thought I may also love a 135mm aesthetic. I may still rent a 135 to see for myself, but I trust that it isn't popular for a reason. It's quite hard to find opinions on it online that aren't photography focused (which is why I originally started this thread). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

A 135mm absolutely has it’s own aesthetic. It’s a fast (generally), telephoto prime that significantly compresses the background elements of the frame, and offers significant subject isolation (assuming you have the working distance to use it - which usually requires you to be outside, or in a large space).

So there are plenty of uses for one. They’re just less commonly needed than more “conventional” focal lengths.

If you can’t see one commonly being needed day-in-day-out on the work you shoot. Then it probably doesn’t make sense to spend the money on one. You’d be better to rent as needed (the same goes for anything you don’t need constantly).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...