Nikon 135 f2 DC and D800 -- Good Combo?

[D-B-J]

I love my 85 for portraits, but often want something longer. The 80-200 works well enough, but think I'd rather have a 135 lens... but the only one available is quite old. Assuming Nikon doesn't release a replacement at Photokina (highly doubt they will), what are your thoughts? Other good portrait lenses in the 1k range and longer than 110mm or so?


Jake

 

[D-B-J]

Bump? Somebody has to have some weight on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tirediron]

An outstanding lens, but to be honest, over priced. Unless you're actually going to use the defocusing aspect, you can save a lot of money and get some very nice relatively fast 135s for <$200.

 

[D-B-J]

An outstanding lens, but to be honest, over priced. Unless you're actually going to use the defocusing aspect, you can save a lot of money and get some very nice relatively fast 135s for <$200.

Point me towards any? I'm always drooling over canons 135's on portraiture shots... And would love to try that out on my D800. And 135 on the 80-200 2.8 isn't that strong..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tirediron]

Like this. The prices on eBay seem rather high to me; this exact lens just sold on my local Craig's List for $125 a few weeks back.

 

[D-B-J]

Like this. The prices on eBay seem rather high to me; this exact lens just sold on my local Craig's List for $125 a few weeks back.

And that's strong enough optically to put on a D800?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tirediron]

Like this. The prices on eBay seem rather high to me; this exact lens just sold on my local Craig's List for $125 a few weeks back.

And that's strong enough optically to put on a D800?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't see why not; I haven't tried one on my D800, but now that you mention it, I'm going to pick one up. Hopefully Derrel will chime in, he's got a D3x, and IIRC, at least one of those in his cupboard. That old Nikon glass is GOOD!!!

 

[D-B-J]

Like this. The prices on eBay seem rather high to me; this exact lens just sold on my local Craig's List for $125 a few weeks back.

And that's strong enough optically to put on a D800?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't see why not; I haven't tried one on my D800, but now that you mention it, I'm going to pick one up. Hopefully Derrel will chime in, he's got a D3x, and IIRC, at least one of those in his cupboard. That old Nikon glass is GOOD!!!

And for around $200 it's not a hefty investment either. If only Nikon would produce a modern 135 f2 VR with nano coating...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

I remember Derrel posting, not too long ago, about how he didn't think the 135mm DC was a great portrait lens; especially when compared to the 70-200.

 

[D-B-J]

I remember Derrel posting, not too long ago, about how he didn't think the 135mm DC was a great portrait lens; especially when compared to the 70-200.

I want something smaller and lighter than the 70/80-200..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braineack]

i added the link to the thread.

 

[Derrel]

Honestly, I think the 135 DC is getting a bit long in the tooth on 24 MP FX. On 12 MP it was about as good as the Canon 135/2. I still have the Canon 135/2. One summer I mixed and matched the Nikon and the Canon for a day on the 5D classic, and the two are hard to tell apart when the shots are randomly moving back and forth between the two lenses on the SAME, exact scenes! But, I dunno, the 135 DCV has a lot of longitudinal CA at wide apertures. I think a really modern zoom might be better at f/3.2.

I don't have a D800, or I would try my 135 DC on it and let you know. I've recently begun growing more and more critical of lens performance, not just optically, but focus-wise, and handling wise. On the AF-D lenses, you don't have either focus lock buttons on the lens, or full-time override, so shooting critically-focused portraits means you need to either use a back-button AF method, or hold the AF-lock button, or go to single-servo focusing and...I dunno...AF-S focusing is just easier, overall. The 80-200 AF-S has three focus lock buttons at the mid-point of the lens, which makes it a fabulous-handling lens; much better than the VR-1 where the buttons are wayyyyyy out near the front filter.

I have a 135/2.8 Ai-S, similar or identical to the one mentioned above. I have not shot it in years, but it is very small, light, and affordable. I think the 105 Defocus is actually the better lens. I used it this Sunday for 300 frames or more, out of 1,055 frames, and it did "okay" until the light got low, around 7:00 PM in a shady area, and then it was very sketchy, focus-wise. I ditched the 80-200 AF-S/2.8 because it was sooooo slow to focus in that craptastic light. I probably should have turned on the flash and went to AF-Single focus and used the AF assist beam, bvut didn't really think of that.

Are you aware of the new Zeiss 135/2? Perhaps one of the finest lenses in the world available in F-mount for still cameras? ANd almost totally free on ANY chromatic aberration, even wide-open. It is a simply glorious optic. Look into it. Yes, it is manual focus. But wow...you want a lifetime 135? That's it.

At f/5.6, the needed f/stop for most close-distance portraiture a LOT of lenses are plenty good. Focusing critically is probably as important as sharpness and resolving power of the lens. I think the AF-S lenses actually focus more-accurately, more-often, than the screw-driven ones do. Page 3 of this set has a lot of 135 DC at f/5.6. DaisyPusher Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

Focus microadjustment tests I did on my 135 DC this Sunday morning. It was front-focusing a tiny bit on me, Here's the wide-open Lo-Ca look.

[here it is a 1400-pixels wide D3X_7749_135DC f2.0-all.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

Here is the above frame,a center crop, shot wide-open on the D3x at ISO 500 at 1/1000 second:

[ see it best here: D3X_7749_135DC f2.0-CENTER.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

Now, by f/4.5, where I actually SHOOT a lot of portraits with my 80-200 AF-S or other lenses, the 135 DC still exhibits longitudinal CA. I often stop down to f/5.6, where it is pretty much mostly gone. This Lo-Ca issue is why I think the 105 DC is a stronger lens-it has less of a problem with Lo-Ca,,and why the 80-200 AF-S, with multiple ED-glass elements, is actually a stronger lens at wider f/stops than 5.6. Here's the 135 DC at f/4.5 at 1/500 second at ISO 500.

[ ]D3X_7753_135DC at f4.5.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

 

[D-B-J]

Honestly, I think the 135 DC is getting a bit long in the tooth on 24 MP FX. On 12 MP it was about as good as the Canon 135/2. I still have the Canon 135/2. One summer I mixed and matched the Nikon and the Canon for a day on the 5D classic, and the two are hard to tell apart when the shots are randomly moving back and forth between the two lenses on the SAME, exact scenes! But, I dunno, the 135 DCV has a lot of longitudinal CA at wide apertures. I think a really modern zoom might be better at f/3.2.

I don't have a D800, or I would try my 135 DC on it and let you know. I've recently begun growing more and more critical of lens performance, not just optically, but focus-wise, and handling wise. On the AF-D lenses, you don't have either focus lock buttons on the lens, or full-time override, so shooting critically-focused portraits means you need to either use a back-button AF method, or hold the AF-lock button, or go to single-servo focusing and...I dunno...AF-S focusing is just easier, overall. The 80-200 AF-S has three focus lock buttons at the mid-point of the lens, which makes it a fabulous-handling lens; much better than the VR-1 where the buttons are wayyyyyy out near the front filter.

I have a 135/2.8 Ai-S, similar or identical to the one mentioned above. I have not shot it in years, but it is very small, light, and affordable. I think the 105 Defocus is actually the better lens. I used it this Sunday for 300 frames or more, out of 1,055 frames, and it did "okay" until the light got low, around 7:00 PM in a shady area, and then it was very sketchy, focus-wise. I ditched the 80-200 AF-S/2.8 because it was sooooo slow to focus in that craptastic light. I probably should have turned on the flash and went to AF-Single focus and used the AF assist beam, bvut didn't really think of that.

Are you aware of the new Zeiss 135/2? Perhaps one of the finest lenses in the world available in F-mount for still cameras? ANd almost totally free on ANY chromatic aberration, even wide-open. It is a simply glorious optic. Look into it. Yes, it is manual focus. But wow...you want a lifetime 135? That's it.

At f/5.6, the needed f/stop for most close-distance portraiture a LOT of lenses are plenty good. Focusing critically is probably as important as sharpness and resolving power of the lens. I think the AF-S lenses actually focus more-accurately, more-often, than the screw-driven ones do. Page 3 of this set has a lot of 135 DC at f/5.6. DaisyPusher Photo Gallery by Derrel at pbase.com

Focus microadjustment tests I did on my 135 DC this Sunday morning. It was front-focusing a tiny bit on me, Here's the wide-open Lo-Ca look.

[here it is a 1400-pixels wide D3X_7749_135DC f2.0-all.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

Here is the above frame,a center crop, shot wide-open on the D3x at ISO 500 at 1/1000 second:

[ see it best here: D3X_7749_135DC f2.0-CENTER.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

Now, by f/4.5, where I actually SHOOT a lot of portraits with my 80-200 AF-S or other lenses, the 135 DC still exhibits longitudinal CA. I often stop down to f/5.6, where it is pretty much mostly gone. This Lo-Ca issue is why I think the 105 DC is a stronger lens-it has less of a problem with Lo-Ca,,and why the 80-200 AF-S, with multiple ED-glass elements, is actually a stronger lens at wider f/stops than 5.6. Here's the 135 DC at f/4.5 at 1/500 second at ISO 500.
View attachment 83497
[ ]D3X_7753_135DC at f4.5.JPG photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com

I think the Zeiss is more than id want to spend on such a lens. Maybe I'll just not do anything and keep thinking. I don't use my 80-200 that much, as I feel it's really not that strong of a lens. Lots of CA, soft wide open, and not a fast focuser. I really want a 70-200 2.8 VRII but I also want a 24-70.... Hmmm.... Options...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Designer]

If only Nikon would produce a modern 135 f2 VR with nano coating...

Bumpity-bump-bump for that!

Are you reading this, Nikon?

 

[D-B-J]

If only Nikon would produce a modern 135 f2 VR with nano coating...

Bumpity-bump-bump for that!

Are you reading this, Nikon?

Oh my opinions on what lenses they should produce don't matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk