135 f/2 DC for FX landscapes?

<p>My 70-200 is weak for FX-format landscapes. I plan to use rented primes until Nikon releases an updated version.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any experience shooting <i>landscapes</i> with the Nikkor 135 f/2 DC? The aperture range would be f/5.6 to f/16, so DC would not be used. I'm looking for corner to corner sharpness, contrast, color rendition, and to a lesser extent, flare control.</p>

<p>Thank you for sharing your experiences.</p>

 

<p>you might be renting for a very long time, the 70-200 is fairly new (2003?) and as far as I know, Nikon doesnt have an update on the calander yet.</p>

<p>Personally I would BUY a 135 2.8 AIS and a 180 2.8 AIS. Ive never owned either of these lenses, but I have tried the 135 and it was great to use and the 180 is supposed to be as nice if not better. The 135 was sharp bit I cant tell you about color as I only shot B&W through it. Since you dont need AF for landscapes and you dont need the 2.0 speed, you would save a lot and get two nice lenses for the price of one.</p>

<p>Kuryan,<br>

I don't have experience with either of those primes although I imagine they will perform extremely well. About a year ago I dumped my 70-200mm and had to buy the still current 80-200mm f2.8 AFD for the second time (the first one I sold to fund the 70-200mm). Problem solved for landscape work on FX and 35mm film. I give it a brief write-up in the 'Technical' section of my website.<br>

Look at this thread http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00Oq4J and compare the first picture taken on the 70-200mm with the very last taken with the 80-200m. Don't bother reading anything in the middle as you already understand what's wrong and a lot of people on that thread didn't (and still some don't).<br>

Stopped down to f5.6/f8 the 80-200mm performance is top notch to the extent that I personally wouldn't consider going down the telephoto prime route.<br>

All the best,<br>

James</p>

<p>Since there doesn't seem to be that many people with first hand experience, I'll add my 2 cents. I've been using a 135/2.8 AI for years and I'm currently using it on a D300. It's a good lend, optimized for stopped down usage rather than wide open performance, although the performance at larger apertures is totally ok. The contrast is lower than in the best lenses, but I don't worry that much about it. It has a propensity to flare, far more than my 85/2.8 PC, but I don't remember ever running into ghosting. It performs well with a close up diopter. I don't remember ever having any issues with it when I used film. It's a small lens and it's cheap on the 2nd hand market, so you can consider it for trying with little financial impact.<br>

I saw some FX (D3) shots yesterday taken on the 135/2 DC, but they were event photography. The lens is excellent for that, but it's hard to extrapolate for landscapes since the conditions and requirements are quite different. However, the challenging light was handled very well. I would be surprised if the lens wasn't very good for landscapes, but whether it's top notch is much harder to say.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your comments so far.</p>

<p>James: I went through the same lens progression as you. Started with the 80-200 AF-D 2-ring in 1997 for film, traded to a 70-200 when I got a D2x, and am now considering the switch back.</p>

<p>The corner softness of the AF-S 70-200mm VR is as you mention present at 200mm focal length, focused at infitinty. However, if you zoom the lens to 135mm you get excellent corner to corner sharpness. Colour rendition and contrast are top notch at all focal lengths. </p>

<p>Anybody know at which focal length the corner softness dissappears?</p>

<p>On my 70-200, I get unacceptable (to me) results at 135mm on my D3x. The softness is barely visible at a "normal" viewing magnification, but clearly visible at 100%. Granted, I used an unrealistic target - the side of a building.</p>

<p>Jonas - from memory it was from about 120mm onwards that it became incurably bad. You don't have to focus at infinity either but it's just easier to see when the subject is at infinity because you remove DOF as a factor. Shooting a nearby wall you get it too.</p>

<p>Any prime tele Nikkor is likely to have better corner sharpness than the 70-200, which shows some softness on the edges even on DX (D200). The 70-200 is prone to flare and ghosting, the tele primes are simpler lenses that do well in this respect. The 135 DC has a relatively short hood and this makes it more flare prone than the 105 DC (just about any lens is), but I've shot night cityscapes with the 135 and it performed very well, no problems at all.</p>

<p>I haven't used my 135 DC for landscapes much but it's a good lens, sharper than the 105 AF-S at long distances, not quite as good as the 180/2.8D AF Nikkor or the 100mm f/2 Zeiss. For portraits and events the 135 is a great lens. If you don't have a strong focal length preference, I would pick the 100mm ZF and the 180mm for your D3X for landscape work (with the 100 doubling as a great lens for close-ups). The 135 does its job well enough, just that if you carry it to backcountry you're paying a weight penalty for features that you're not likely to use (DC control, wide apertures).</p>

<p>The primes mentioned do produce a bit cleaner images than the 80-200 but obviously if you carry all of them the backpack is going to be heavy.</p>

<p>If we have a common reference lens then maybe I can shoot a few test images for your reference.</p>

<p>Hi Thomas,<br>

Although the 135 is a superior lens with an outstanding sharpness, I still would not use any tele-photo lens for landscapes ( or just in some ocasions with very specific needs..) . I always stay on the wide angle side, not for getting in a "wide area" but for the superior depth of field. With any telephoto lens you still loose this DOF ( from front to back sharpnes) no matter wath lens you choose so, for FX my choise of lenses starts at 16 mm up to 50mm max and for DX it ranges from around 10 up to 35 mm max...<br>

just my 2 cents....</p>

 

<p>Telephoto lenses are great for what I call "landscape portraits". They're great for isolating details in the landscape. I use a 135/2 AIS and 200/2 AI for these purposes. I do admit that most of my landscapes are in the 14mm to 28mm range. I have not had the 135/2 long enough to comment on it's quality, but it is a totally different lens than the 135/2 DC anyway.</p>

<p>Ilkka, thank you for your offer to shoot some test images. I've rented the lens from LensRentals.com and will be taking it on a photo vacation. I hope to compare it directly against alternatives then.</p>

<p>I have owned the legendary 105 f2.0 DC since it was introduced and must say - it is absolutely incredible. Sharp as the original 105 f2.5 - best bokeh of any lens - and adjustable DOF. Best portrait lens ever made. I'm sure if you're shooting landscapes with that focal length style - either the 135DC or 105DC will amaze you.</p>