Recent posts have reviewed some fairly expensive Zuikos (expensive for old MF lenses anyway). This post is about the very humble 135 f3.5 – available for around £30 in the UK for a clean copy. Surely even I can’t expect such a basic lens to produce results anywhere near the 36Mp A7R’s sensors potential?
Nice colour (with a quick auto levels), default DXO sharpening and little else – looks good.
135mm is at the long end of my usual working focal lengths so assembling enough shots for this test was good fun. All shot in RAW and converted using DXO Optics.
The lens is small and light as you would expect for a slow Zuiko (325g/11.4 oz in weight and around 7 1/2 cm or 3 inches long). The adaptor adds some length to the combination but it’s strikingly small on the A7R for a telephoto lens and balances well on the small body.
There isn’t enough telephoto ‘oomph’ to really isolate features in a landscape but taking a wider angle approach produces pleasing results – well to me anyway!
The angle of view is 18 degrees, minimum focus is a disappointing 1.5 m/4 feet, it accepts 49mm filters and the apertures run from f3.5 to f22. There is a built-in lens hood, and 5 elements in four groups make up the optical formula. The aperture is made up of eight blades giving a more or less circular aperture.
With the lens hood extended this looks like a larger’ lens than it is. In reality it’s pretty small and easy to carry.
Trying to squeeze the most resolution out of a lens means using it at f5.6 to f11, so the slow maximum aperture isn’t that much of a problem and cuts down the weight. It’s not terribly easy to focus at these apertures, so for the first time I resorted to focussing at f3.5 then stopping down when I couldn’t see things in critical focus. Using the focus magnify feature of the A7R is quite difficult as the image jumps around much more than shorter focal lengths. As always, the depth of field scale is optimistic – so don’t trust it!
At 135mm there’s some moderate telephoto compression, evident in the landscape shot below.
The lens hood does a good job or preventing flare and I saw no vignetting at any aperture. I have noticed a blueish cast to some shots though that’s correctable with a white balance tweak – auto white balance isn’t a strength of the A7R. As always the A7R’s exposures (with the help of the zebra over exposure warning) were spot on.
The minimum focus distance of 1.5m/4 feet isn’t going to win any macro awards, but it can still get moderately close and produce some pleasant if slightly busy bokeh. f5.6.
Wide open at close focussing distances at f3.5 the bokeh becomes better.
Not bad for f3.5
To avoid camera shake use shutter priority of 1/250th or 1/500th of a second and auto ISO but keep an eye out for under exposure at smaller apertures as you hit your max ISO limit – mine is set at ISO 1600 – and all will be fine.
F3.5 isn’t ever going to produce blurred away backgrounds at moderate to longer focussing distances. The shot below is an example of this – perfectly sharp, in focus and pretty detailed, just not much subject isolation. Having said that f3.5 is around what you’ll achieve on a consumer grade 70-300mm lens at 135mm and this is probably sharper!
A 2/3 crop and not bad at f3.5
The ‘scientific’ test then at the mill. The subject fills the frame here in stark contrast to the last time I took test shots with the 18mm f3.5!
The full test frame
f3.5 centre
f3.5 edge
f8 centre
f8 edge
f16 centre
f16 edge
At f3.5 there’s some chromatic aberration and the edges are a bit vague – no surprises there then. What is a surprise is how good things are at f8 (and f5.6) – sharp to the edge of the frame, softening slightly by f16. The slight (4-5 pixels) of chromatic aberration at f3.5 disappears by f5.6.
In conclusion then this is a solid and sensible (if unspectacular) lens on the A7R at mid apertures. It’s a huge bargain, especially given it’s cost, light weigh and portability. Just don’t expect miracles when it comes to bokeh, contrast or subject isolation using it’s maximum aperture. It’s earned the small place in the camera bag it takes up for when I next need it. It’s not resolving 36Mp – maybe 20? – but it’s good enough for my occasional use of this focal length. If your needs are different it may be best to look elsewhere – and spend a lot more!
Thanks for looking – hope you find this useful.
If you’re interested in using other MF lenses have a look at the other reviews on the film, camera and lens review index tab.
28mmf2 
Hi Rob,
Thank you for giving deserved attention also to these more “humble” lenses. Availability is not a bad thing. As you say, it has it’s value for the occational tele shooter. But your last statement – that you have to look much further and more expensive for better performance – I don’t agree. The Zuiko 135/2.8 is one of the best I have tried for bokeh and subject isolation. Very good wide open and less CA, which sometimes bothers me with Zuikos. If you have a chance to try this faster brother, I think you would like it too.
Regards
Elvira
Hi Elvira,
That’s interesting – I was never that impressed by the 2.8 version – at least on a Canon 60D. Your comments here make me think I just had a bad copy of the lens. Either that or I’m just not that good at using telephoto lenses as I seldom do!
My 135 f2.8 is now long gone – wish I could try it on the A7R now.
What is generally surprising is how good some of these cheap lenses are on such a demanding sensor.
Thanks for the comment.
Rob
Or maybe we just have different tastes… My judgement is purely subjective. I just like it. It would however be interesting to see it on full frame. I use it on my Fuji X crop sensor, and that seems to me a good match.
Elvira
Hello Robert and Elvira,
having two of the 2,8/135 Zuikos at hand comparisons are made easily.
This lens is much more prone to fail if internal lenses are just a little hazy than the little 3,5 sister. My better copy had been used by a professional photographer before and every lens inside was absolutely clean as it had been professionally maintained. The other “untouched” one must have been lying in a bag for decades setling dust and haze which I even didn’t notice at first glance.
These “beaten-up” lenses sell for for next to nothing but quite often work like a charme.
Apart from that, they do achieve some remakable differences on different sensors!
If you could borrow a trusted copy of the 2,8 version I would be very interested in a comparison.
Thanks for the nice test,
Nick
I’ll keep an eye out for one Nick.