1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Olympus Telephoto Zuiko 135mm f/3.5 Manual Focus Lens for OM-Series Cameras

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by bigboysdad, Oct 3, 2014.

  1. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    Anyone used this with an adaptor? Prima facie, this seems to be a good idea for my E-P5.
     
  2. mr_botak

    mr_botak Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    Dec 4, 2011
    Reading, UK
    David
    It works well, and is cheap, but is a long lens so gives a very narrow field of view. This may, or may not be a problem depending on what you are shooting.
     
  3. MajorMagee

    MajorMagee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 24, 2011
    Dayton, OH
  4. peter124

    peter124 Mu-43 Regular

    I have one. It's OK, but frankly I think the 40-150 is better.
     
  5. bigboysdad

    bigboysdad Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 25, 2013
    Sydney/ London
    I have noted what you've all said. I only asked because it's so cheap at B&H at the moment and it's a prime (using an adapted zoom doesn't sound fun with the camera's IS). Thanks for the responses.
     
  6. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    919
    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    While I've never owned an OM 135, I've no complaints about the performance of the 135's I own, even though some of them were dirt cheap. Can't go wrong with a Zuiko, and they still look good in the 21st century from an industrial design perspective.

    With all due respect to BH, maybe you can save some money at KEH.com. They are well regarded for used gear and many people think the BGN rating is quite conservative.

    EDIT: I just noted you're in London where nothing photographic is cheap.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Glenn S

    Glenn S Mu-43 Top Veteran

    788
    Feb 1, 2010
    I have the OM Zuiko 135mm f2.8 and have used it with the EM-5 and EM-1 and find it an excellent little lens, beautifully made and sharp.

    P7260073.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Kalifornier

    Kalifornier Mu-43 Veteran

    429
    Apr 29, 2014
    California
    I don't have the OM 135/3.5 but found a cheap OM mount Vivitar 135/2.8 and it takes fantastic pics.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. ckrueger

    ckrueger Mu-43 Veteran

    304
    Jul 16, 2011
    I've had an OM 135/3.5 for years. I bought a BGN lens on KEH. I've always been really happy with KEH. My 135/3.5 had a couple nicks and dings on the body, but no more than one of my own lenses would have after 30 years. :)

    It was OK on my 5D... it didn't handle sunlight well, reducing contrast considerably whenever the sun was anywhere near the frame. Its resolution was OK for its price, but couldn't compare with my Sigma 70-300 (about the same as the Panasonic 100-300 for M43). I didn't use it much.

    On my M43 cameras it seems a bit better, but that might just be because it was easier to focus accurately with magnification. In any case, I still didn't use it much, because my other teles are better. To get resolution that matches my 100-300 (or even my 14-140) I have to stop it down to f/5.6, and if I do that, why bother using it at all when I could get better performance in a zoom?

    I finally get along with this lens now with my A7. Sony's focus peaking is spectacular (I wish my EM1 was as usable), and the look of the lens is nicer on FF, to me. At f/3.5 it mushes out the corners and looks nice for short DOF portraits, and at f/5.6 or f/8 it gets decently sharp. It's still not very sharp, but you can make nice photos with it.

    Oh, one more thing about this lens: you aren't going to take any kind of close-ups with it. Its MFD is very long.

    From what I understand the 135/2.8 is better, but it's more expensive. The OM 135/3.5 is really cheap, and OM is a nice mount. I might also suggest a cheap OM 50/1.8 if you're hitting up KEH and don't already have a 45/1.8. The 28/3.5 is a really nice lens too, although it's not a great lens on M43 (any 14-42 is better).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. mr_botak

    mr_botak Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    Dec 4, 2011
    Reading, UK
    David
    Having tried both the 3.5 and 2.8, I found the 3.5 consistently better - sharper with more contrast. Also lighter.

    There's always a lot of these for sale on Ebay, you should be able to snag one of the 3.5s in an auction for less than £20.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. dweller

    dweller Mu-43 Veteran

    378
    Sep 14, 2012
    London, UK
    I agree that the 3.5 is a better buy, it is sharper and more compact.
    However I still like the 2.8 for the extra stop and smoother bokeh and with a focal reducer the centre sharpens up a tad.
     
    • Like Like x 1