AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D ?

[tirediron]

...It’s an online world when it comes to used gear.

I'm a dinosaur... I prefer person-to-person sales... not likely to throw it on flea-Bay or such.

That is such a specialized lens, probably right up a pro portrait photogs alley. I think the lens is pretty unique but have a feeling it would take a great deal of practice dialing it in to garner the look you want. The guy I used (he passed away) to hang with when I was starting out had one. He kept a laminated index card in the lens pouch with it, had all kinds of notes on it in different color writing. He did a lot of Veteran stuff too and it was his preferred lens, along with the af 180 2.8, and the AF 300 f4. I remember him saying the only time he used anything shorter than 135 was for group shots. I know he raved about those 3 lenses for his portrait work.

Maybe @Derrel will chime in, he has a great deal of Nikkor knowledge.

Interesting...

Had one for a decade...great in low light. The defocus control feature is not that great. I would LOVE the 104/1.4 E....I dunno...it's got more CA than the Canon 135/2 which is a great lens.It's a nice portraiture lens, yeah. Not as "sharp" as newer 135 like the Sigma 1.8, but plenty good still. I really am not "that" sold on the lens, but it is super in low-light...the T-stop is very close to 2...not a lot of light lost. It's your call. If you want it, buy it. 135mm is a nice length, for sure, esp. for sports and events...long, but not "too long" esp. with today's croppability from 36 to 40+ MP. I see this as a tough call.

Good points; if I want a 135, I don't need to spend >$1000, so a big part would be the defocusing ability...

that's f/1.4.

Bite me!

Has beautiful rendering and bokeh. Thing is pretty damn sharp at 1.4 if you can nail the focus. And I'm not getting any CA with my limited amount of test shots.

Hmmmmm.....

Just a couple thoughts:

1. Rent one for a week. Maybe you'll find out fairly quickly whether or not it's a good match for you.
2. Buy one anyway. If you're not pressed to get one in short order, bide your time and wait for a good deal to come along. Then, if it isn't a good fit, you could probably resell it for what you have in it.

Sage advice as always my friend!

 

[Designer]

As I continually strive to increase my collection of choice lenses, that and the 105 is on my list "to acquire" (someday).

If you've got the scratch, grab it, as who knows how soon another one will come along?

Or you will be sorry.

Better broke than sorry, I always say.

 

[tirediron]

As I continually strive to increase my collection of choice lenses, that and the 105 is on my list "to acquire" (someday).

If you've got the scratch, grab it, as who knows how soon another one will come along?

Or you will be sorry.

Better broke than sorry, I always say.

Good point!

 

[Derrel]

The defocusing ability is NOT what most people think it is. The thing the lens does the best is it makes a very spherical aberration-filled soft-focus lens. The ability to throw the backdrop more out-of-focus behind the subject...pretty limited. This lens, and the 105mm AF-D D.C. are both OTOH, very pretty "hazy soft-focus all-over" type lenses if you want them to be that.

One thing I noticed is that the color rendering of this lens is 1990's-like; it did NOT match up with the 70-200 AF-S G VR lens of the 2002-era...the 105 DC and 135 D.C. lenses have a color rendering that I found to be "different" from newer lenses. Shooting with electronic flash and the same softbox or umbrella, I could see the change when this lens was introduced in the middle of any session shot with the 70-200.

Is it a good lens? Yes. But the defocus control is _not_ that powerful as far as backdrop blurring...it's much more soft-overall and ethereal; something that fashion and Japanese photographers might have really liked in the early 1990's, when this lens was new. I shot this lens side-by-side for a week with the Canon 135/2-L, all day long, mixing the two lenses up on the Canon 5D Classic, so I could not "remember" which lens was which, and then threw the images into batch processing software, three different applications, and then did slide shows of the two lenses. I had split-coverage with the Nikkor and the Canon L-lens on many family shoots...it's close sharpness-wise, at least it WAS on 12.8 megapixels, but the Nikkor has a lot of color fringing at wide f/stops on the edges of things and when back-lighted. If you do not mind green edges from longitudinal CA, which is tough to correct, unlike lateral CA, then the lens is fine. On "some" subjects, the CA is objectionable if you like a crisp,clean,not-green-edged and not-purple-fringed subject shot against the light; this is the difference between the Canon 135-2-L series, and the new Sigma 135/1.8, which is almost totally corrected for chromatic aberration.

Some people claim that the CA is "not an issue"...it might not be to them, but it's there, and it's a part of the way the lens renders certain scenes; there are newer lens designs that are crisper, and CA-free, but this lens does have a certain lensy look--and it pairs well with the 85/1.4 AF-D and the 105/2.5 AF-D DC, which were its contemporary stable mates...but this is now going on three decades old. it's one thing to say the CA is "not an issue", and another thing to ignore it, because, at times, this lens shows CA on the edges of things...

Honestly...the 135/2.8 Ai-S is an option if all you want is a 135mm prime...

This lens DOES however handle well, focuses well, and has beautiful mechanical feel,and has good focus distance markings that are actually useful in the Japanese way, where you set the focusing distance, then move the camera to that distance, to frame things up the right way; the 105/D.C. has this even more so, with tight closeup,closeup,head and shoulders,bust,half body,three-quarter body,and full-length standing focusing distances right on the lens, so you can work the old-school way: set the focus, then set the camera up to get the above types of framings. This is the difference between the 105 and 135 lenses compared to modern zooms which have very sketchy distance markings.

 

[tirediron]

Thanks Derrel; I was not aware that the CA was quite such a problem with this lens, and it is a BIG concern for me! I'm also a bug for sharpness; I can always soften in post, but if you don't have the sharpness to begin with....

 

[Derrel]

On DropBox I have a bokeh sample of the 135 DC on the _worst-ever_ background subject--- sprayed and dead,brown,ugly, Himalaya Blackberry vines! With a lovely 35 year-old woman in front of the vines. As you can see, at f/5.6, it does "okay".

85/105/135 AF series screwdriver focusing lenses
To me, the 135/2 AF Defocus Control lens was good for low-light, and was used by the Statesman-Journal's Ron Cowan for a number of years, before he retired. He literally wore the paint off the lens shade, from where he carried this lens on a second body... (see attached photo). This is the AF, pre-D model.

stage lighting, hand-held from balcony,100 feet away or so, f/2.0 at 1/400 at ISO 1,000,D3x

I don't want to imply that this lens is not sharp; it is sharp. But today, in 2018, there are newer lenses that are more crisp, and almost "perfect" in the way they render; Destin sent me some high-megapixel .NEF files from the new Sigma 13mm f/1.8, Christmas lights at night, backlighting a lady's portraits...the new Sigma 135/1.8 is uber-sharp.

The last time I used the 135 D.C. was a school play some years ago...I have a few frames still on my DropBox but this computer has had prtetty much all 135 DC stuff cleared off years ago..Here's one shot from about 100 feet away, hand-held at 1/400 second, ISO 1000, Nikon D3x 24MP camera, at f/2.0. As you can see, the plane of focus is at a slight angle to the stage, but where the young actors are aligned with the focus plane, they're pretty well-recorded and sharp. Note the people at the left edge,and the lower right corner, right at the frame edge,quite sharp. .

 

[tirediron]

Well.. I think we're starting to lean toward 'Don't spend $1100'...

 

[Derrel]

Yeah...I kind of agree...I sold the lens off after owning it for a long time, and finding the early 2000's 70-200 AF-S VR-G and the late-1990's 80-200/2.8 AF-S zooms to be handier, more-flexible,more-versatile, and...as good for most things. Your Mileage May Vary, however.

I really prefer the flexibility of a good zoom lens to the limitations of a prime lens in the 135mm length; at 135mm, almost any modern Nikon zoom lens is quite good at f/4 to f/7.1, where I shoot 90% of my pictures.

If you NEED f/2.0 or f/2.2 or f/2.5 or f/2.8--then the prime is very good at those f/stops. But I like the focal length flexibility, and the ability to have 70,80,85,90,100,105,120,135,145,180,200 settings all in one lens. I find that I use 120mm and 145mm a LOT. Not sure why, but those two EXIF lengths pop up a lot.

For me, the 180mm length was a big lens in the 1980's,and I recently started using one again after a hiatus of 12 years or so.

 

[Destin]

@tirediron I know that it’s been mentioned already here, but before I sold my Nikon kit my Sigma 135 ART was by FAR my favorite lens.

Insanely sharp when you nailed focus (which can be tough with razor thin DOF) and it’s background rendering is incredible. I replaced with with the 90 f/2 on Fuji with is technically equivalent.. but I still can tell I’m really going to miss that sigma. I sort of wish I’d have kept it and a single Nikon body just for it. I would highly recommend this lens if the 135 range appeals to you.

Here are two photos I took with it last winter to test its sharpness and background rendering.

Brianna by Destin Danser, on Flickr

Brianna by Destin Danser, on Flickr

 

[tirediron]

That Sigma is definitely something to look into!

 

[Destin]

That Sigma is definitely something to look into!

And I sold mine for $1100 haha

 

[mrca]

Tirediron, I have used the 135 2.0 dc for 10 years as my go to headshot lens. It DUSTS the nikon 105 1.4. If you do b&w, it's micro contrast is stellar compared to crap from the 1.4 and is half the price. 7 elements instead of 14 in the 1.4 It is plenty sharp, don't listen to the crap about not sharp or CA. I don't shoot brick walls or test patterns, I shoot in the real world. I showed a 70 yr old client the monitor with shot with the zeiss 100 2.0 that is so sharp it will make your eyes bleed and all she saw was wrinkes she doesn't see on her cell phone photos. Duh. Combine that with a 46 mp d850 and the detail is stunning. For a head shot at 8-10 feet with nose off camera axis, I cannot get both eyes in focus below 3.2 on the 135 so you are right on going to f/4. Stopped down that far, even in pure white high contrast bg's, the CA is nearly gone and is removable in LR with a click. That's shooting in realville. The color is different in that they engineered in better skin tones by adjusting the reds. They have made this lens unchanged for 24 years. Wonder why? The bokeh blows away nearly every other lens except perhaps the 105 dc. The other crap you hear is there is a learning curve. How hard is it to match the dc ring to your aperture? Google photos taken with this lens. The quality of the bokeh is fantastic. I use it in studio as well including on white bg's for headshots. I also use a 100 Zeiss if I don't have the room. Again, a low element lens. Low element lenses can give excellent depth. The oof of say a zoom will give a flat appearence to the image, little subject bg separation. Low element lenses give that separation for example the term zeiss pop. I use my zeiss lenses for subject/bg separation when I want the bg in focus for say, environmental portraits. The subject still pops from the image, almost 3d. When I want to eliminate a bg, say a busy bg, then I reach for the 135 and get creamy bokeh, not geometric or cats eye crap as well as depth/separation from bg. For me a minimum of 6 feet subj to bg plus 7-10 feet camera to subject. In small rooms, shoot through the door way. If you are shoot much b&w, forget those 14 element over priced pieces of crap. It is auto focus while my Zeiss 100, 85 and 35 are not. No big whoop in studio, I tend to shoot on a rolling camera stand. With focus peaking and the 2 arrows in the lower L of the view finder w meatball appearing with focus, manual focus with those lenses is totally doable. Again, if you are shooting much b&w, micro contrast is critical and the modern lenses traded that for sharpness and controlling ca and other issues. And buying a lens on sharpness is like buying wine based on alcohol content. T bird would rate high for those testers. Imagine if T bird cost twice a fine wine? If you are a pro, the 135 will set you apart from others. It works from my preferred distance for compression but with 46 mp, I may go to the zeiss 100 if I want crazy sharp detail and just step back one step. I have plenty of mp to crop. I use the 135 or the 85 g when I need AF but the zeiss 85 and 100 when I don't. I can use the 100 zeiss a macro lens for detail shots at weddings and for product. It's a multi tasker for me and although the 105 may have one less element and a tad better bokeh, this arrangement works for me. For me, lenses are like golf clubs, I could play a whole round with a putter, but I don't. I have never seen a pro on tour that does. Sometimes not a huge difference between my lenses, but none the less a difference and as a pro, those differences matter to me. If you don't want muddy b&w consider the 135 or the older low element lenses. B&w is taken to a new level with the micro contrast you get with these lenses. I promise you, once you try them, you won't go back.

 

[tirediron]

I'm not on the hunt for a 135; it was more that the 135 DC came up, and it's a relatively uncommon lens, so it triggered my GAS. I would like a 135, but I don't "need" one ATM. If a good deal comes up, I will grab one though.

 

[tirediron]

Tirediron, I have used the 135 2.0 dc for 10 years as my go to headshot lens. It DUSTS the nikon 105 1.4....

Thanks for that! It's good to get an opposing viewpoint. It's moot right now as the seller is out of town 'til at least Monday, so I still have another >24hrs to think on it.

 

[mrca]

The 135 was not GAS for me, it is a lens they will have to pry from my cold dead fingers of one hand. In the other hand would be the zeiss 100 2.0, 85 1.4 or 35 2.0. If you haven't tried one of those, rent one and see for yourself. You will see the difference and it is significant especially in b&w. Enough for me to go back 18 years to manual focus. Your photo is b&w so I expect you shoot it a bunch. If image quality is a premium for you and your clients, it is small price to pay...and they are less expensive than the nikors. The are stunningly better than the 24-70/ 70-200 but they have their place in run and gun situations. Like I said, I don't play a round with just a putter or only irons. Think of the 135 as pulling out the Big Dog. Now that I am shooting 46 mp, the 850 lets me go to crop and shoot in crop so that 135 becomes 200 mil. I don't have to lug the 70-200 beast as much.