Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
p.1 #1Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
For years I've hoped that somebody would make a small, high quality, 135mm ƒ3.5-ish lens for mirrorless. I've shot Nikkor, Canon FD and Leica Elmar variations in the film days, and found them very handy. But nobody seems interested in making one any more.
This got me wondering...maybe some of those older lenses might actually good enough for my needs (ie a bit more reach, that doesn't take up much space in the bag).
So I dug out some adapters I had left over from the days when there were almost no e-mount lenses, and headed over to eBay to see what I could find.
Fast forward a few days...I'm now the proud owner of a 70s-era Canon FD 135mm ƒ3.5 and a 1960s-vintage Leica Elmar 135mm ƒ4; total cost, less than $140. I have low expectations, but the Canon already impressed me after a short walk around the block. The great viewfinder on the a7RV makes focusing so much easier than the old days!
Just for fun, I think I'll set up some simple test of these two against my Tamron 70-180mm, to see how things stack up. However it turns out, it looks to be quite a bit of fun for not much money.
To paraphrase Yoda...'judge me not by my size'
This got me wondering...maybe some of those older lenses might actually good enough for my needs (ie a bit more reach, that doesn't take up much space in the bag).
So I dug out some adapters I had left over from the days when there were almost no e-mount lenses, and headed over to eBay to see what I could find.
Fast forward a few days...I'm now the proud owner of a 70s-era Canon FD 135mm ƒ3.5 and a 1960s-vintage Leica Elmar 135mm ƒ4; total cost, less than $140. I have low expectations, but the Canon already impressed me after a short walk around the block. The great viewfinder on the a7RV makes focusing so much easier than the old days!
Just for fun, I think I'll set up some simple test of these two against my Tamron 70-180mm, to see how things stack up. However it turns out, it looks to be quite a bit of fun for not much money.
To paraphrase Yoda...'judge me not by my size'
ILCE-7RM5 Canon FD 135mm f3.5 lens 135mm f/3.5 1/1250s 100 ISO 0.0 EV
Mar 24, 2026 at 05:35 PM
p.1 #2Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
Hi Mike, congrats with the new lens! Did you check out the EF 135/2 L---or is that still too big for you? Nice pic btw.
Mar 24, 2026 at 07:48 PM
p.1 #3Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
jojib wrote:
Did you check out the EF 135/2 L---or is that still too big for you? Nice pic btw.
I had one of those in the past. Nice lens, but too big and too expensive for this sort of experiment.
Did you check out the EF 135/2 L---or is that still too big for you? Nice pic btw.
I had one of those in the past. Nice lens, but too big and too expensive for this sort of experiment.
Mar 24, 2026 at 07:53 PM
p.1 #4Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
There is Minolta af 135mm 2.8 A mount that is 65mm×82.5mm at 365g. $99 at MPB...
More samples: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/minolta-af-135mm-f2-8_topic11370_page6.html
More samples: https://www.dyxum.com/dforum/minolta-af-135mm-f2-8_topic11370_page6.html
Mar 24, 2026 at 08:31 PM
p.1 #5Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
Looking good, Mike. The look of that Canon FD lens takes me back to when I was all Canon in the 80’s.
Did you switch back to Sony?
Did you switch back to Sony?
Mar 24, 2026 at 09:28 PM
AmbientMike
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #6Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
OM film zuiko 75-150 can be good imo I find it better than the 135/3.5 or 135/2.8 OM. Nikkor is good, Minolta the best, I've heard, haven't tried the Minolta though
Mar 24, 2026 at 09:58 PM
p.1 #7Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
AmbientMike wrote:
OM film zuiko 75-150 can be good imo I find it better than the 135/3.5 or 135/2.8 OM. Nikkor is good, Minolta the best, I've heard, haven't tried the Minolta though
Eh, the Minolta's good, but it has stronger CA issues than the Nikkor at closer distances. It's not bad, and I'm happily using my MD, but I wouldn't put it ahead of the Nikkor. It's more a tie.
One lens to consider, if 135 never feels long enough, is the SMC Pentax-A 150/3.5. Very well corrected, no bigger or heavier than the average 135 from the time, and nicely inexpensive on the used market.
OM film zuiko 75-150 can be good imo I find it better than the 135/3.5 or 135/2.8 OM. Nikkor is good, Minolta the best, I've heard, haven't tried the Minolta though
Eh, the Minolta's good, but it has stronger CA issues than the Nikkor at closer distances. It's not bad, and I'm happily using my MD, but I wouldn't put it ahead of the Nikkor. It's more a tie.
One lens to consider, if 135 never feels long enough, is the SMC Pentax-A 150/3.5. Very well corrected, no bigger or heavier than the average 135 from the time, and nicely inexpensive on the used market.
Mar 24, 2026 at 11:09 PM
p.1 #8Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
Other mf favorite was Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar M42... I was using it with speedbooster on Nex 6 (2012):
Mar 25, 2026 at 06:46 AM
p.1 #9Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
I used to have the Canon FD 135mm ƒ2.8 when I first got my camera. Super fun lens that actually had a really nice rendering, but the CA was absolutely out of control 
Mar 25, 2026 at 07:01 AM
p.1 #10Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
I gave up waiting for a small 135mm prime a few years ago and eventually settled like you on the Canon FD 135 f3.5. It's a nice, small lens, easily adaptable. It's already at its best wide open and doesn't improve by stopping it down.
Compared e.g. to the EF 135L on a R5 the FD is clearly not as sharp in the center, but as sharp in the corners and edges @f3.5. Stopped further down, the 135L wins also in the edges. At f11 they are similar across the whole frame. The FD has a bit more lCA and flares easier.
I don't use the FD 135 often (although it's also nice to have on my trusty film T70), but when I use it, it delivers what I want from it.
Compared e.g. to the EF 135L on a R5 the FD is clearly not as sharp in the center, but as sharp in the corners and edges @f3.5. Stopped further down, the 135L wins also in the edges. At f11 they are similar across the whole frame. The FD has a bit more lCA and flares easier.
I don't use the FD 135 often (although it's also nice to have on my trusty film T70), but when I use it, it delivers what I want from it.
Mar 25, 2026 at 07:04 AM
|
p.1 #11Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
freaklikeme wrote:
One lens to consider, if 135 never feels long enough, is the SMC Pentax-A 150/3.5. Very well corrected, no bigger or heavier than the average 135 from the time, and nicely inexpensive on the used market.
Hmmm...never encountered that one before. Looks interesting.
One lens to consider, if 135 never feels long enough, is the SMC Pentax-A 150/3.5. Very well corrected, no bigger or heavier than the average 135 from the time, and nicely inexpensive on the used market.
Hmmm...never encountered that one before. Looks interesting.
Mar 25, 2026 at 07:08 AM
p.1 #12Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
Ulff wrote:
I gave up waiting for a small 135mm prime a few years ago and eventually settled like you on the Canon FD 135 f3.5. It's a nice, small lens, easily adaptable. It's already at its best wide open and doesn't improve by stopping it down.
Compared e.g. to the EF 135L on a R5 the FD is clearly not as sharp in the center, but as sharp in the corners and edges @f3.5. Stopped further down, the 135L wins also in the edges. At f11 they are similar across the whole frame. The FD has a bit more lCA and...Show more →
The EF 135/2 L is indeed sharp. It's my first L lens (with the 20D) and it works seamlessly with the Canon EF-RF adapter on the R6MKII. And the bokeh is gorgeous. I don't find the lens big but of course it is bigger with the adapter.
I gave up waiting for a small 135mm prime a few years ago and eventually settled like you on the Canon FD 135 f3.5. It's a nice, small lens, easily adaptable. It's already at its best wide open and doesn't improve by stopping it down.
Compared e.g. to the EF 135L on a R5 the FD is clearly not as sharp in the center, but as sharp in the corners and edges @f3.5. Stopped further down, the 135L wins also in the edges. At f11 they are similar across the whole frame. The FD has a bit more lCA and...Show more →
The EF 135/2 L is indeed sharp. It's my first L lens (with the 20D) and it works seamlessly with the Canon EF-RF adapter on the R6MKII. And the bokeh is gorgeous. I don't find the lens big but of course it is bigger with the adapter.
Mar 25, 2026 at 07:34 AM
p.1 #13Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
There's no question, that the EF 135L is the better lens and I strongly prefer it for portraits or when I need AF. But adapted it's almost 500g heavier than the FD 135mm (which weights only 390g including adapter) and for static motives I'm happy for saving the extra weight and bulk.
jojib wrote:
Compared e.g. to the EF 135L on a R5 the FD is clearly not as sharp in the center, but as sharp in the corners and edges @f3.5. Stopped further down, the 135L wins also in the edges. At f11 they are similar across the whole frame. The FD has a bit more lCA and flares easier.
I don't use the FD 135 often (although it's also nice to have on my trusty film T70), but when I use it, it delivers what I want from it.The EF 135/2 L is indeed sharp. It's my first L lens (with the 20D) and it works seamlessly with the Canon EF-RF adapter on the R6MKII. And the bokeh is gorgeous. I don't find the lens big but of course it is bigger with the adapter.
jojib wrote:
Ulff wrote
I gave up waiting for a small 135mm prime a few years ago and eventually settled like you on the Canon FD 135 f3.5. It's a nice, small lens, easily adaptable. It's already at its best wide open and doesn't improve by stopping it down.Compared e.g. to the EF 135L on a R5 the FD is clearly not as sharp in the center, but as sharp in the corners and edges @f3.5. Stopped further down, the 135L wins also in the edges. At f11 they are similar across the whole frame. The FD has a bit more lCA and flares easier.
I don't use the FD 135 often (although it's also nice to have on my trusty film T70), but when I use it, it delivers what I want from it.
Mar 25, 2026 at 07:50 AM
p.1 #14Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
I tried the Olympus OM 135/2.8 adapted to an A7iii. These are fine lenses, but manual focus is a challenge for moving subjects and indoors. I eventually settled on the Batis 135/2.8. It is much bigger than the lenses above, but so easy to work with. Weighs 614 grams, about $800 used.
Mar 25, 2026 at 08:17 AM
p.1 #15Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
serhan_ wrote:
Other mf favorite was Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar M42... I was using it with speedbooster on Nex 6 (2012):
https://a4.pbase.com/o9/37/578237/1/157592280.3fQwWJhz.8442804591_8317d54609_o.jpg
Another thumbs up for the Jena 135/3.5. Nice lens and smooth bokeh!
Other mf favorite was Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 Sonnar M42... I was using it with speedbooster on Nex 6 (2012):
https://a4.pbase.com/o9/37/578237/1/157592280.3fQwWJhz.8442804591_8317d54609_o.jpg
Another thumbs up for the Jena 135/3.5. Nice lens and smooth bokeh!
Mar 25, 2026 at 08:26 AM
p.1 #16Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
Just bought myself a Pentax M42 120mm f2.8 SMC to play with. Haven't had a chance to try it out much but it's nice in hand.
Mar 25, 2026 at 11:21 AM
p.1 #17Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
The Olympus OM 135/3.5 is no slouch and quite small
NEX-6 ---- lens 1/4000s 200 ISO 0.0 EV
NEX-6 ---- lens 1/400s 400 ISO 0.0 EV
Mar 25, 2026 at 11:42 AM
p.1 #18Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
MikeEvangelist wrote:
Fast forward a few days...I'm now the proud owner of a 70s-era Canon FD 135mm ƒ3.5 and a 1960s-vintage Leica Elmar 135mm ƒ4; total cost, less than $140.
Looks like you're queued for some lightweight fun! My contender is a Leitz Tele-Elmar v1 which has the detachable head for Visoflex activities. It's relatively heavy being sold metal, and the color correction is not as good as its reputation. Too much pixel peeping, I know. Sample image when mounted on Canon 1Ds (no joke):
The Batis seems a real contender, has AF, but weighs 615g. The only lightweight performer is really expensive, namely the Apo-Telyt-M 135/3.4 at 450g. We're talking $2K+ for a used copy.
Fast forward a few days...I'm now the proud owner of a 70s-era Canon FD 135mm ƒ3.5 and a 1960s-vintage Leica Elmar 135mm ƒ4; total cost, less than $140.
Looks like you're queued for some lightweight fun! My contender is a Leitz Tele-Elmar v1 which has the detachable head for Visoflex activities. It's relatively heavy being sold metal, and the color correction is not as good as its reputation. Too much pixel peeping, I know. Sample image when mounted on Canon 1Ds (no joke):
The Batis seems a real contender, has AF, but weighs 615g. The only lightweight performer is really expensive, namely the Apo-Telyt-M 135/3.4 at 450g. We're talking $2K+ for a used copy.
Mar 25, 2026 at 08:46 PM
p.1 #19Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
BeOS! A great idea, not fully realized.
EBH
EBH
Mar 25, 2026 at 09:00 PM
p.1 #20Got tired of waiting for a small 135mm lens
EB-1 wrote:
BeOS! A great idea, not fully realized.
It was a pretty sweet OS if I say so myself, and ahead of its time. I was a software engineer at Be for five years. The machine above is called the BeBox, and was the first consumer PC with two CPUs (single core of course). I haven't booted mine in ages: would need a new AT P/S at the least.
BeOS! A great idea, not fully realized.
It was a pretty sweet OS if I say so myself, and ahead of its time. I was a software engineer at Be for five years. The machine above is called the BeBox, and was the first consumer PC with two CPUs (single core of course). I haven't booted mine in ages: would need a new AT P/S at the least.
Mar 25, 2026 at 11:34 PM