{"id":25492,"date":"2020-10-06T16:39:23","date_gmt":"2020-10-06T15:39:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/?p=25492"},"modified":"2026-01-14T09:04:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T08:04:00","slug":"olympus-e-zuiko-135mm-f-3-5-a-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/olympus-e-zuiko-135mm-f-3-5-a-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5: A review"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

The Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 is a very small but rather slow tele lens which can be found quite cheap nowadays. Is it still good value for money in these days when used on high megapixel cameras?<\/p>\n

\"\"
Sony A7RIII | Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 | f\/3.5<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Sony A7RIII | Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 | f\/5.6<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Sony A7RIII | Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 | f\/3.5<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

<\/p>\n\n

Versions and history<\/h2>\n

There are only two versions of this lens. The Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 which is reviewed here, and the Olympus Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5. As far as I know they are optically the same, the main difference can be found in the better coating of the latter one.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Specifications<\/h2>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Category<\/b><\/td>\nSpecification<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Diameter<\/td>\n60 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Length<\/td>\n73 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Filter diameter<\/td>\n49 mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Weight (excl. Adapter)<\/td>\n290 g<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Aperture<\/td>\nf\/3.5-22<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Minimal focus distance<\/td>\n1.5 m<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Elements\/groups<\/td>\n5\/4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Aperture blades<\/td>\n8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The lens can be found in decent condition for under \u20ac50,- $50 at ebay.de*<\/a> and ebay.com*<\/a>
\n*Affiliate links (If you purchase the lens through one of these affiliate-links we get a small compensation with no additional cost to you.)<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/h2>\n

Build quality and handling<\/h2>\n

The lens is almost entirely made from metal and glass, the rubber grip of the focus ring is the only exception. All markings are engraved and filled with paint. Despite being small, the lens has quite some heft to it.
\nThe lens features a built-in sun shade which is something I usually like a lot. However, the shade on this sample is somewhat wobbly.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

The aperture ring sits in front of the lens and has developed a little bit of play. I don’t know whether this is a common thing or the result of other factors (the play was already there when I bought the lens). The aperture ring has nice full stop clicks and it is very easy to set the aperture between those clicks. One thing I don’t like too much is that the aperture ring is a bit too close to the focus ring, I happened to change focus accidentally a few time when changing the aperture.<\/p>\n

The broad rubberized focus ring feels very nice and has a very nice resistance to my linking. Resistance is quite high though but this makes precise focusing easy. The focus ring travels +\/- 120 degrees from 1.5 meter to 3 meters and another 90\u00a0 degrees from 3 meters to infinity.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Handling on the my Sony A7II and A7rIII is great, the lens balances very well on these bodies.<\/p>\n

Vignetting<\/h2>\n

At infinity vignetting is very low, wide open it is 1.2EV, stopped down to f\/5.6 it is 0.3EV and 0.2EV at f\/8.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Sharpness<\/h2>\n

Infinity<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 clearly was not optimized for infinity sharpness.<\/p>\n

f\/3.5 The center and midframe look quite OK already although there is some glow, contrast isn’t very high either. The corners are noticeably softer with very low contrast.<\/p>\n

f\/5.6 The glow in the center and midframe is gone and contrast increased a bit, both look very good now. The corners are still a bit soft with lowered contrast.<\/p>\n

f\/8 The center and midframe are excellent now, the corners improved a lot and are now very good. Contrast is still a bit dampend though.<\/p>\n

f\/11 The whole image is visibly softer due to diffraction.<\/p>\n

Portrait distance (3.25m)<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

This is the distance this lens was optimized for. Sharpness is the center is great at every aperture. The midframe is good enough at f\/3.5 but seems to suffer from a slight midzone dip and looks slightly worse than the corner. The midframe improves significantly from stopping down to f\/5.6.
\nCorner resolution is good enough from wide open as well but also here stopping down improves image quality significantly.<\/p>\n

*I refocused the lens for every position<\/em><\/p>\n

Close up (1.5m)<\/h3>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The center looks excellent from wide open and peaks at f\/5.6, same story for the midframe, at f\/8 diffraction becomes visible.
\nThe corners look best at f\/8 though.<\/p>\n

*I refocused the lens for every position<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"
Sony A7RIII | Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 | f\/3.5<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Bokeh<\/h2>\n

In general the Olympus E. Zuiko has very nice and smooth bokeh without onion rings, or strong cat’s eyes. Especially at closer distances bokeh is gorgeous. At longer distances bokeh can be a bit harsh though depending on the background.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Sony A7RIII | Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 | f\/3.5<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Sony A7RIII | Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 | f\/3.5<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
Sony A7RIII | Olympus E. Zuiko 135mm f\/3.5 | f\/3.5<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Close up<\/h3>\n

Near MFD the Olympus has very nice and smooth bokeh. Contrast is quite high but because spherical aberrations are undercorrected bokeh looks very pleasing. I like the bokeh in these kind of scenarios more than the bokeh of the Canon 3.5\/135 which has lower contrast but less SA.<\/p>\n