Why isn't there more 100-150mm primes

[TNcasual]

I was wondering about this. There seems to be few lenses in this range, where 135mm used to be a very common lens. And 100mm seems to be mostly relegated to macro lenses. While I like 100mm macros, I think it might be interesting to see a 100mm portrait lens. As for 135mm, most of the big brands have one, but they seem to all be very fast f/1.8 lenses. I can't find any major manufacturer selling a 135mm f/2.5-2.8 lens. To me that seems like a really great option. It could be smaller and lighter. Then there is the odd ball lenses that used to be made. Focal lengths like 120mm and 150mm. These aren't options at all any longer.

Why is it that these are not options any longer?

I would love to see Pentax tackle a 120mm f/2.5 Limited lens. It would be a wonderful portrait or landscape option. Of course, I am a sucker for weird cameras and lenses, so maybe it's just me.

It's just me, I know. No one is going to R&D and manufacture something that that weird guy in Tennessee thinks is neat.

 

[gryphon1911]

I think the same. I would love to have a 135/2.8 or even f/4 in z mount.

All we get right now is the Plena and I’m not the target audience for that.

 

[Brian]

Improvements in Zoom lenses. Modern Autofocus lenses tend to be bigger due to motors and electronics. With modern digital cameras with High-ISO, lots of megapixels- large aperture, distortion-free lenses are not required. Firmware can take care of distortion, and Auto-ISO makes up for large apertures.

Personally- I've found that the 3.6MDot EVF of the Nikon Z5 with focus peaking makes use of manual focus lenses incredibly easy. Pick-up a used Nikkor 135/2.8 Ai or Ais. Around $100. Adapt to just about any mirrorless.

 

[TNcasual]

Using legacy is all well and good, and in Pentax it’s just a matter of mounting the lens.

But I would love to see a modern designed lens, even if it used an old lens formula.

I get that modern zooms are probably what displaced these focal lengths. But then you consider the Olympus 75mm (150mm eq). That is a highly regarded short telephoto prime.

 

[Brian]

A modern design lens will use aspheric optics, special glass, telecentric design, and will be big and costly. The Zeiss 135/2.8 is in the $1,700 range.
The closest you will get to something affordable are the Chinese lenses from DJ Optical, 7artisans has revived some old designs.

 

[agentlossing]

For me, primes in this area are very difficult to use, since the framing is so unforgiving. I had the Sigma 60mm f2.8 on M4/3 for a few years, and while it put out really great images, I couldn't find enough of a use case for it.

 

[TNcasual]

For me, primes in this area are very difficult to use, since the framing is so unforgiving. I had the Sigma 60mm f2.8 on M4/3 for a few years, and while it put out really great images, I couldn't find enough of a use case for it.

I have had some good luck using the Oly 60mm for landscape shots:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

But what I have also found is that these focal lengths are pretty great for stitching wide panos:

Oly 60:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

SuperTakumar 105 on the K1:

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I get that the FL can be a bit more constricting, but I sometimes prefer working with constraints. It helps me in creativity.

 

[CountingGx85Gx8G9s]

I have had some good luck using the Oly 60mm for landscape shots:

View attachment 428856

View attachment 428862

But what I have also found is that these focal lengths are pretty great for stitching wide panos:

Oly 60:
View attachment 428858

SuperTakumar 105 on the K1:
View attachment 428859

I get that the FL can be a bit more constricting, but I sometimes prefer working with constraints. It helps me in creativity.

As of now my Gh6/G9II (here Wednesday) lens lineup is: PL: 100-400, 12-60, & 8-18. and Oly 60mm. I find the Oly lens an extremely fine macro as well as EQV. 120mm lens. Its size and optical performance are a "forever" lens for me. Nice images.

 

[Brian]

I have the sharpest Zoom lens in F-Mount that Nikon ever made, 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom. I grab the 135/2.8 more often.

 

[fredlong]

With today's obsession with very shallow depth of field and the high quality of f/2.8 zooms there's not much incentive to build a 135/2.8. Even back in the 80's when I worked in camera stores we sold 70ish-200ish zooms to almost all new camera owners. They weren't nearly as good as they are today. I rarely sold a 135mm to anyone other than a Leica user. During my brief time with a Sony full frame system I looked around for a modern 135 that wasn't a monster sized large aperture beast and there was nothing.

 

[Brian]

In the 70s, working through college at a camera store- The Nikkor 80~200/4.5 was ~$700 and the Nikkor 135/3.5 was about $80. I sold a lot of the latter. It's small and light. The 135/2.8 is not much bigger. Much Smaller than my 135/2.8 Tele-Elmarit.

 

[ShipleyNW]

I'm having trouble trying to grok the need for a new type of 135 prime.

People tend to shoot primes because they're faster and sharper than zooms. You're asking for a slower, presumably less-sharp and cheaper version of the 135 primes that already exist. Those slower versions of the 135 are already included in the 70-200 or 70-300 zooms that pretty much every serious photographer already owns. If you were a manufacturer, who would you think would be the target market for such a lens?

And why 135? It's been a long time since I shot primes exclusively, but I did that for a very long time and I never owned a 135. It's kind of an in-between focal length. Too long for portrait-type work, not really long enough to be much use as a telephoto. Right or wrong, I always thought of 135mm as an amateur focal length. One lens that would do 2 jobs poorly.

Courtside basketball is the only thing I could think of where a 135 might be ideal. And even then, I'd want the fastest one I could get.

 

[TNcasual]

I'm having trouble trying to grok the need for a new type of 135 prime.

People tend to shoot primes because they're faster and sharper than zooms. You're asking for a slower, presumably less-sharp and cheaper version of the 135 primes that already exist. Those slower versions of the 135 are already included in the 70-200 or 70-300 zooms that pretty much every serious photographer already owns. If you were a manufacturer, who would you think would be the target market for such a lens?

And why 135? It's been a long time since I shot primes exclusively, but I did that for a very long time and I never owned a 135. It's kind of an in-between focal length. Too long for portrait-type work, not really long enough to be much use as a telephoto. Right or wrong, I always thought of 135mm as an amateur focal length. One lens that would do 2 jobs poorly.

Courtside basketball is the only thing I could think of where a 135 might be ideal. And even then, I'd want the fastest one I could get.

As the title says, I am thinking of anything in the 100-150 prime range. One of my favorite lenses in a Super Tak 105. Pentax historically sold 100, 105, 120, 135 and 150mm prime lenses.

I simply prefer primes. Zooms have the same issue as the really fast primes that are available - they are big, sometimes really big.

I know I am an outlier. I like shooting landscapes with telephoto primes. It would just be nice to have a modern option.

 

[Brian]

The diagonal of a 35mm frame is "about" 45mm, 135mm is 3x that. Much like an 85mm or 90mm is about 2x.
When my Daughter was little, I often carries a 135 to mitigate the "Daddy Factor"- meaning being far enough away as not to change her expression. Kind of like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. I think he used a 135/4 Sonnar to take pictures of his kids. I converted one from 1937 to Leica Mount.

135 is an easy to work with focal length, up to F2.8 do not need to do much in the way of exotic. After that- floating elements for close-in, as per the Vivitar 135/2.3 Series 1. Exotic- the Nikkor 135/2 AF with defocus control. I should get one for my Df.

 

[Iron]

I know I am an outlier. I like shooting landscapes with telephoto primes. It would just be nice to have a modern option.

I also like shooting landscapes with the telephoto end. I like that compressed image with so much tension on the sides.

I use the D-FA 100mm WR on the K-3 to give me an exact 152.4468093 mm EFL. I also treat that lens as the sole lightweight weather-sealed prime for the K-1. It's just like putting a 50mm lens on MFT.

 

[TNcasual]

I also like shooting landscapes with the telephoto end. I like that compressed image with so much tension on the sides.

I use the D-FA 100mm WR on the K-3 to give me an exact 152.4468093 mm EFL. I also treat that lens as the sole lightweight weather-sealed prime for the K-1. It's just like putting a 50mm lens on MFT.

I use the same lens for more than just macro on my K1.

 

[Iron]

I use the same lens for more than just macro on my K1.

It's a really good rather lightweight lens. It's got a modern representation of Pentax lenses, which is different to the extremely Satobi-like, all-natural, high-resolution Takumars with contrast that's just enough. Takumars do really good in prints, especially in the shadows where the details are greatly presented.

I am not sure if a modern version of the Takumar 105mm will render somewhat like the 100mm WR macro, but they've proven that they can do wonders with lenses, just like that 50mm F1.4 Classic. Who knows, probably, if they release a telephoto prime, they would add in an SMC Classic version but with a signature character.

I will be online on the 26 November 2023 stream even though I don't know what announcement they will make. They said that they would stop making hypes anymore and announce a product just a few months before its release. They promised, though, that they will be releasing weird focal length lenses in the future.

 

[MountainMan79]

I have to agree with Fred above. I have both 105’s and 135’s in my collection, in several different mounts. They were certainly popular lengths back in the day. However, they’re all either f/3.5 or f/4. With prevalent and mostly affordable 70-200mm f/2.8’s, why would anyone bother to make a prime, outside of the occasional 100mm f/2.8 macro, which they’re only doing because it’s a macro (otherwise why if it’s already covered by a zoom?). The f/1.8 in this focal range is a rare and expensive beast, a la the Plena or Canon 135mm, and targeted to a niche market of professionals, it probably just doesn’t make much sense any longer to go down this road.