Nikon 135 f/2... Good deal?

[barfastic]

Ive found this lens for 1000euros, used, but in mint condition. It is in its orignal box and is sold from a reputable shop here in greece.

Do you think i should bite the bullet? Ive seen the crea
of a bokeh it creates and ive fallen in love!

If i dont purchase this im gonna go for the new sigma 70-200 f/2.8 with the os built in.


Thoughts? Ideas?

 

[djacobox372]

Have you considered a used 80-200mm f2.8? They're selling for peanuts used these days as everybody upgrades to the 70-200mm. Optically the 80-200 is just as good, it's only lacking VR and has a slightly slower autofocus due to it being an AF lens instead of AF-S.

If you want a good prime I'd opt for a 180mm f2.8 over the 135mm.

 

[JimmyO]

Dont know the conversion to dollars, or the used price for the 135's. If you shoot portraits im sure you will love it.

I can afford one of those but I bought the tokina 50-135 2.8 new for just around $500 and love it. IMO feels better on a crop sensor then a 80/70-200 does (to long)

 

[barfastic]

im really interested in it for the bokeh it produces. From what i hear, you dont lose resale value as well, (until nikon announces a newer version that is)

i have a 150mm 2.8 (macro), that i sometimes use for portraits, but no portrait specific lens. hence why i am interested in it.

I was also wondering what people think about it for sue as a concert lens. (i sometimes cant use my 50mm as im too far away and i dont have adequate reach...)

 

[JimmyO]

Bokeh isnt gonna be much better then the 150 2.8
Might also wanna consider the 85mm 1.8

 

[barfastic]

i thought the 135 f/2 DC was the king of bokeh... :er:

 

[JimmyO]

Pretty sure that would be the 200mm f/2

 

[barfastic]

hmm... i think im going to go try it and see for myself... ive seen pictures taken with it, and they are very drool worthy!

If i dont end up buying it, im gonna get the 70-200.

 

[Derrel]

The 135/2 is a *superb* lens for low-light work, and unlike a macro lens, it is designed with an adequately long focusing throw to actually NAIL focus in the 75 to 4 foot range in autofocus mode, shot after shot--that is something most macro lenses can not do nearly as well as a field telephoto. The 135/2 is also a slight bit lower in contrast than most modern macro lenses, so it renders human skin tones in a nice,pleasing manner, plus it has defocus control, which can throw the background somewhat more out of focus at wide apertures, OR which can be used as an in-camera soft focus lens. it works pretty well in manual focusing, mode too. In terms of its T-stop, or actual transmission, my 135/2 AF (a pre-D model) is the 'fastest' lens I own.

The 135/2 is a pretty good lens for lower-light action shooting, like nightime football and things like that. The 1235/2 is very,very hand-holdable, unlike the 200/2 which is a monster after more than about five minutes, and really is a monopod or tripod-only lens for any length of time. 1,000 Euros is not exactly small change, but the lens design is very,very robust; I got my lens used and it had been carried and used *exceptionally* hard and for many seasons, with the entire crinkle finish worn off to smooth on one side of the lens hood, so the lens design itself is very sturdy,and it should be a "lifetime" lens in normal use.

The 105 DC and 135 DC have a cooler white balance than more-modern lenses,and a much cooler,more neutral rendition of color than any Sigma I have ever owned. If you can spare 1,000 Euros you will be buying a very nice 135mm f/2 lens. It's not a decision to make lightly though.