If you handle any amount of film-era camera gear you will almost always find a 135mm when buying somebody's old kit. It seems to me like it was the second most popular focal length after 50mm. So why is it that almost nobody cares about 135mm today?

I don't know.

>>4429230 (OP)
>So why is it that almost nobody cares about 135mm today?
Because they aren't pros.
All pros i've met have a 135mm or use its range in a zoom. Some prefer a fast 105mm to work a bit easier in terms of distance but the ones i've met have a 125mm or 135mm, particularly f2.8 or f2.
Nikon's meme lens right now is a 135mm f1.8
>second most popular focal length after 50mm
That would be a 28mm or 70-85mm.

>>4429230 (OP)

old 135 often are five element design modern 135 tend to be multielement and weighty also 70-200 2.8

>>4429230 (OP)
Because they got 10x bigger and are all f1.8s because of soulless corporate headshots and makeup ads demands

>>4429233
>Nikon's meme lens right now is a 135mm f1.8
I saw Canon's version for sale in the local classifieds here in yurop selling for even less than ebay prices in mint condition with warranty and everything.. no takers for ages, but these are high end and over the top for the average consumer obviously, but it puts it into perspective just how little the focal length is cared for. I speculate that increased sales of fast zooms since the end of the film era makes them somewhat redundant in the eyes of consumers and manufacturers.
>That would be a 28mm or 70-85mm.
You are right about the 28mm. Looking through what I have actually handled over the years it seems I have had about twice as many 28mm than 135mm. I probably had that impression from the lots I come across where if there are more than one lens the second one is usually a 135mm for whatever reason. 85mm for instance I rarely ever find. I would estimate that I am more than ten times as likely to get a 135mm when buying "grandpas old camera bag" on the market place.

>>4429230 (OP)
It’s too fucking long most of the time. Great if you’re in a huge studio & you can be a mile away from your subject but 99% of the time an 85mm bootstomps its ass bc you can be in the same continent as your subject while still getting a nice flat even image + w great bokeh. 135mm says I wuz a hot shooter in the Kodachrome age. 85 says I am as versatile w my rig as op is in bed.

>>4429255
85 says you are poor, 135 says you know what you are doing
>>4429248
>no takers for ages
That's bizarre considering many like to collect lenses but i am more inclined to believe newfags don't know how to use it, which is like using a 105mm with more compression.

I have a screw mount cosina 135/2.8 but rarely use it because the field of view is very narrow and the image quality is poor

>>4429290
85 says you are a purist, 135 says you are a tasteless gear snob, are using the same gear you did on film, or are a rockwell tier professional stuck in 2007 because every 135 is the size of a 70-200 or bigger now

99% of the time its tasteless gear snob
>but bro primes have that quality (<- pixel peeps resolution charts shot with flash)
>i need bokeh
>what about equivalence if i dont shoot at f1.8 in theory micro four thirds could take a somewhat similar picture

>>4429230 (OP)
Too much face. 85mm gives a better perspective

>>4429290
>one nostril in focus
>entire focal point of the image and the first thing that catches your eye is an asian womans nostrils rendered in 45k ultra HDR
do bokeh people really

>>4429232
fpbp
/thread

>>4429355
You just aren't cut out for this photography thing buddy. Maybe try chess or doing math problems for fun.

>>4429437
imagine you made a painting. and the only well defined thing in that painting were a nostril.

>>4429438
this is not the own you think it is...

>>4429441
it is

maybe try imitating liberal talking points and complaining about "antivaxxers" on reddit because art might be too hard for you to de-abstract

>>4429437
>>4429438
>>4429441
>>4429443
Both of you are degenerates

>>4429336
>85 says you are a purist
>135 says you are using the same gear you did on film
...so both are purists?
Take a nap, kiddo

>>4429438
>and the only well defined thing in that painting were a nostril.
Happens, you just don't know art, pal

>>4430335
the eyes are well defined there though

>>4429246
This.
Sigma had the right idea with its cute i series 90mm f2.8. I always have it with me because it packs up so nicely.
Sigma-dono, plz expand the i series with a 115 or 135mm f2.8, or f4 for all I care. Just make it nice to pack.

>>4429230 (OP)
Cold war esque spy shit photographing military installments on the Berlin border isnt needed anymore. 135mm coul'd be built small enough to be concealable. Going above that focal length made it easier to detect on your person.

Maybe because zooms back in the day were awkward garbage.

>>4429230 (OP)
In film times a 135mm was the "long" lense a person had, not just a "portrait" lense.
You're forgetting how limited most kits were, and how bonkers expensive all of this shit was, relatively. Doctors and lawyers had SLR cameras in the 70's, not normies; and for the most part nobody was shelling out for exotic longer lenses that cost as much as their 3-lense kit did to start with and could only be used with a tripod.
A 135mm was the longest lense that could be made in a hand-holdable speed in standard 49-52mm filter sizes.
With modern kits with digitals and zooms, longer focal lengths are easily covered in ordinary quality, and the relative cheapness of modern kits means a specialised fast portrait lense can be justified by many, and an 85mm really is a better length for that, for all the reasons above.

>>4435621
>Doctors and lawyers had SLR cameras in the 70's, not normies
what nooo but i was told by the redditors that back in the day every family had 3 kids, a golden retriever, two cars, a mansion like in home alone and twice a year international flight vacations all on one dish washer salary

>>4435621
135s weren't that big anon you talk about then needing a tripod like shitty old beercan zooms, but 135primes were actually decently handholdable. I mean call me crazy but picrel doesn't look that bad
>nikkor 135/2.8

>>4436215
>every family had 3 kids, a golden retriever, two cars, a mansion like in home alone and twice a year international flight vacations all on one dish washer salary
only white people

>>4436233
I don't mean too big to carry, I mean too long to get sharp handheld results with, on 64-100ISO film in normal light.
Once 400 speed colour film became somewhat normal, zooms started to proliferate, because the film gives you the 2 extra stops of shutter speed that going from 135/3.5 to 200/5.6 necessitates.

>>4429290
>85 says you are poor, 135 says you know what you are doing
Bullshit. I had to literally sell sex to afford my 85mm f/1.2L

>>4436323

>mfw have both Nikkor 85/1.4D and Nikkor 135/2 DC

>>4435621
its crazy how much photography changed just because the ISO numbers at which things in photos were still recognizable got bigger and mass production made it so a mcwagie could buy something that is very close to modern equipment and costs anywhere from 20%-50% less

>>4436344
>still no f/1.2
>and have to pay more again to have women let you photograph them

>>4435621
its "lens", not "lense". you fucking twat