DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D or AF-S 24-120mm f/4.0 VR for D800E portraits?

<p>Another quandry . . . I've been wanting the DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D for portraits ever since I converted to FX. But, since I already own the AF-S 24-120mm f/4.0G VR for event work, it just recently occurred to me that I ought to maybe consider this "Nikon-recommended" lens for D800E portraits instead (of course, I would be shooting at the long end of the lens for portraiture, 120mm at a minimum of f/4.0). Wouter Willemse made some good points in my "35mm lens choice" thread, but I wandered so far off-topic, I thought I talk about this here.</p>

<p>To repeat my earlier post, <em>" . . . It seems I'm again serving too many masters. I want super-sharp, incredibly technically perfect optics for my [D800E] portfolio pieces [e.g., 24-120mm f/4.0F VR]. Then I want dreamy arsty lenses for my personal work [e.g., DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D]. Then I need super-fast primes for my ridiculously high-ISO available light stuff [e.g., AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G]."</em></p>

<p>Now, the photo below would fall under category three: "super-fast primes for my ridiculously high-ISO available light stuff."</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/xr2023-700.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D3s @ ISO 8,000 + AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4</p>

<p>Category two: "dreamy-artsy"</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/alyssaDC105.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikon D800E @ ISO 200 + AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D @ f/2.8</p>

<p>I've barely shot with my 24-120mm f/4.0 VR yet, so I don't have a portraiture example for category one: "super-sharp, incredibly technically perfect optics." In lieu of that, I have this D800E still life shot using the super-sharp AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G:</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/studio460/tomato-700.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Nikon D800E @ ISO 100 + AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G @ f/11</p>

<p>Anyone here have any D800/E portraiture examples taken with either the 24-120mm f/4.0G VR at 120mm, or the DC-Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D they're willing to post?</p>

<p>I don't have a 24-120. The 135 f/2 DC was one lens that made me switch from Canon to Nikon (when I got my D700 instead of a 5D2)... but I've not been very impressed, at least with larger apertures (it's okay as a vastly over-sized f/5.6, or f/4 at a push, lens, but so is my 135 f/2.8 AI-S). I believe my experiences may be unusually bad, though Nikon UK have checked out my lens and claim it's normal, but there are mixed reports.<br />

<br />

Obviously it's not very sharp; it also tends to be bad at autofocus accuracy, which is a pain for candids. It <i>does</i> blur the background beautifully, but only if your definition of "beautiful" includes a lot of LoCA (if you're lucky, or if your background includes foliage, this may not matter). I <i>did</i> post a wedding shot that I once took of some friends with a 135 DC on a D700 (in a forum), but Photo.net's search doesn't seem to be finding it for me - you may do better. There's a thread <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZIso">here</a> where I show how bad the LoCA can get if you provoke it. I've been meaning to sell mine ever since an incident with purple jewelry and green hair - and some of it was beyond fixing with even the latest Photoshop (except manually smudging the chroma channels in LAB). If you shoot in black and white, it may bother you less. I was hoping that it would behave like the Sony STF lens, but faster; it doesn't.<br />

<br />

I gave up on 135mm (except for my fixed-focus) and went with the 150mm f/2.8 Sigma macro and 200mm f/2 Nikkor for LoCA-free but still smooth bokeh, and much greater sharpness (I'd rather smooth pimples than try to recover eyelashes). They're both a little longer than I'd like, admittedly. Supposedly, Zeiss have a 135 f/2 APO coming which might be an interesting alternative, if you don't mind manual focus.<br />

<br />

I hope that helps. Note: If you're happy with f/4, you may be happy with the 135mm prime - my glowing review is based on the expectation that I could actually use it to blur a background away...</p>

<p>Don't have the 24-120 f/4 but according to dxomarks resolution measurements on a D3X it's just a so-so lens, especially in the tele range. The 85mm 1.4G shows higher resolution at <strong>f/1.4</strong> than the 24-120mm at 85mm and f/4.</p>

<p>Why not use the 70-200/2.8 VR II for headshots?</p>

<p>Ok so I do not have a D800 or D800 E but I have had a 135 f/2.DC since I bought my F5 way back when. I use the 135 on my D4 for low light sports and portraiture.</p>

<p>I do not have any of the problems that Andrew does. I am able to track fast moving targets easily the lens is more then acceptably sharp at f/2 and LoCA is not a huge issue with my sample. On my D300 I had to adjust the DC control to have maximum sharpness wide open but that was not a big deal. On the D4 it is not an issue.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>in my opinion,the only reason to buy the 24-120 is for convenience, not for any extraordinary optical properties ...</p>

<p>Well, my experience is that the DC lenses are soft until stopped down. I had the 105 DC lens and it simply wasn't useable until f/4. And I preferred f/5.6. And Michael Bradtke is the only photographer I have heard of that had a DC lens that was sharp wide open! Once stopped down it was a great lens. So I can't really recommend the lens for low light, wide aperture work. I would think the 85mm lens would be the go to lens for that. The 24-120 is a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none type lens. Certainly convenient, but I think you really need to define what you want the lens to do before you can choose a different lens. There will be advantages to the 85mm or the 70-200 f/2.8, or now even the 70-200 f/4. Between the two 70-200's it's an easy question: do you need f/2.8?</p>

<p>Just an idea and I don't know if it'll work but perhaps a TC14 teleconverter on the 85mm 1.4G? Teleconverters are not usually used for short telelenses like 85s but it would turn your 85mm f/1.4 into a 120mm f/2.</p>

<p>John<br>

There is a difference between acceptably sharp and sharp.Nobody makes a super speed prime (faster then f/2.8) that is sharp wide open. I can think of two exceptions to that rule One the Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 and the other is the Canon 85mm f/1.2. Even with those two lenses you do not reach optimum sharpness till around f/5.6. If you are buying a super speed lens to shoot at f/5.6 you are wasting your time.<br>

Also I have to ask did you actually test your 105? or are you just basing it on average photographing? There are many factors that contribute to an image being soft besides the lens. Mostly having to do with the monkey behind the camera.</p>

<p>This was done with the 135mm f/2 DC @f/2 on a D4 and a PN-11 Focus is on the far side of the bloom<br>

Acceptably sharp</p>

 

<p>Nobody makes a prime faster than f/2.8 that's sharp wide open except for one Nikon and one Canon? I can think of plenty of exceptions to that, unless we're using an unreasonable definition of sharp. I have a few here in my home office - Nikon 50mm and 85mm 1.8G versions, Fuji XF 35mm and 60mm, Minolta MD 50mm 1.7, all more than sharp enough wide open for anything I'd ever use them for.</p>

<p>Michael - your image appears to have a green halo around the bits of petal farthest from the camera and an orange halo around the bits nearest to the camera. Other than that I tend to see more purple than orange (depending on the subject), that seems to be the colour fringing that I see with my lens. It's not especially distracting in this image, but nor is in anomalously free of LoCA.<br />

<br />

I've always considered that the 85 f/1.2 is merely "sharper than you'd think", though I appreciate the engineering that went into it. I've never owned one, but Photozone aren't all that complimentary about its behaviour away from the centre (at the centre, the 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor is very sharp wide open too). Photozone's image <a href="http://www.photozone.de/active/magic/get.jsp?id=821555684_N5CR2">here</a> really makes the f/1.2 look iffy. As for the Noct-Nikkor, it's a remarkable piece of design designed to correct coma, but one could certainly argue against whether it's as sharp as a conventional lens. I'm very keen to see what the new 50mm and 135mm Zeisses can do, though. Sharp wide open? Well, I'd call the 85mm f/1.8 and 200 f/2 acceptable under most conditions at full aperture (probably, in the case of the latter, more true of the new one than the version I've got).<br />

<br />

All this doesn't mean that a 135 f/2 DC can't produce acceptably sharp images at f/2, just that you have to be rather careful/lucky about it; it's the LoCA that bothers me more. More so than I was expecting when I bought the thing. Which will teach me to trust the reviews of another well-known photography blogger who claims the 135 f/2 is sharp wide open (and also that the 85 f/1.4's spherochromatism isn't a problem and the 150-500 is sharp at 500mm). Not that I'm bitter. As I said, mine may be particularly bad, and I <i>have</i> produced images with it that I find acceptable - more after a lot of editing.<br />

<br />

Pete: I don't believe a TC14 will mate to the 85mm AF-S lenses. (Nikon certainly don't claim it does, and I think the elements will clash.) A third-party teleconverter might work, but since the 85 f/1.4 already has LoCA that bothers me, I can't think that the result will be all that nice. Unless the extra stop vs the reduced focal length is enough to make a difference, I'd still say the 150mm Sigma macro is the way to go here, barring a manual-focus Zeiss. Plus you get optical stabilisation (which is like VR only spelled differently).<br />

<br />

Aside: While checking compatibility, I was amused by the <a href="http://answers.nikonusa.com/answers/7022/product/2201/nikon-inc-af-s-nikkor-85mm-f-1-8g-questions-answers/questions.htm">following exchange</a> on the Nikon support page for the new 85mm f/1.4:<br />

<br />

Q: How do the Brokeh[sic] and Barrel Distortion with the 85mm f/1.8G lens compare to the same in the 85m[sic] f/1.4G lens?<br />

<br />

A: Excellent! We suggest that you purchase both to determing[sic] for yourself which one is ideal for your intended application.<br />

<br />

Thanks, Nikon. :-)</p>

<p>Andy - you got in first, though I'm not sure I agree about the 50mm f/1.8 G (again, it's sharper than you'd expect, especially if you've used the AF-D version, but it's not <i>that</i> good in the corners).<br />

<br />

I'd meant to say that I've not heard amazing things about the 24-120 f/4 either, but it's at least "not bad", which is more than can be said for the variable aperture version. I don't think it'll be troubling the 60mm macro or the big supertele primes for performance any time soon (or, in the middle, the 85 f/1.4G, for that matter).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just an idea and I don't know if it'll work but perhaps a TC14 teleconverter on the 85mm 1.4G?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Take care and check before trying this combination.<br>

The only teleconverter I've is the TC 1-7E II and it is not compatible with the AF 85 F:1.4D. I don't know if the lens design is that different but if not it may be a problem either for the lens rear element of for the front glass of the converter (I don't know which one but I recall reading something about it concerning my lens).</p>

<p>Ralph, it seems like a lot depends on how you work, in what kind of light, etc. along with your sense of aesthetics.</p>

<p>ralph, the first shot you posted looks more dreamy/artsy than the second. but in any event, i dont know that the 24-120 falls into the category of super sharp or technically-perfect. i would recommend the 70-200 II for portraiture on FX if you need telephoto. OTOH, since you already have the 24-120, why not use it and see if it produces acceptable results before considering a new lens?</p>

<p>Since the suggestions are all over the map...here are some of my fav portrait lenses: Zeiss 100/2, Tamron 90/2.8, Nikkor 105/2.8 or even reasonably priced classic 105/2.5. </p>

<p>Les</p>

<p>It's kind of unfair to compare the 24-120 f/4VR to the 85mm f/1.4 - exactly the 85mm length is the weakest spot of that lens - it's visibly softer at 85mm than it is at 120mm. If you're going to use 120mm or 70mm, it's a pretty good lens, also wide open. Maybe not the best choice, but it sure can get the job done. I see a lot of people talking down on the 24-120VR that actually do not seem to have one - I happen to use one, and I can imagine this lens easily as a dependable work-horse lens. It's better than "not bad".</p>

<p>Yes, it is a 5x zoom, and that does limit it in the sense that it will not stack up against a Zeiss 100mm f/2 (but what lens does?) or the 85 f/1.4. It's unreasonable to expect that. But can you shoot portraits with it with sufficient quality to call it professional work? Yes, for sure you can. Or at least, I managed, and I'm a total hack when it comes to portraits.<br>

My only point with this lens is, like many modern lenses, it's very contrasty with quite satured colours. Most people love it, I'm ambiguous about it. Sometimes it's totally right, but sometimes it's just a bit too much. There are gentler lenses for portraiture, I think (<em>which is my queue line to pitch my favourite portrait lens for little $$... the 105 f/2.5 - the fact that it's not on the D800E-lens-list is just an error on Nikon's behalf</em>).</p>

<p>I really appreciate everyone's input on this! Yes, the 24-120mm may not be the ultra-sharp, "optically perfect" lens (it just happens that I already own it, and it's also among the list of "Nikon-recommended" lenses for the D800E); arguably, the 200mm f/2.0 is, but I don't have the funds for that kind of glass. I haven't performed any tests, but I'm betting that my 24-120mm "out-shoots" my DC-Nikkor 105mm by a noticeable margin. I'll respond in more detail to everyone's posts a bit later. Thanks again, guys!</p>

<p>For portraiture, I think only two lenses are champs "super-fast primes for my ridiculously high-ISO available light stuff". They are Nikkor 85/1.8G dan Canon 135/2.0L (For longer focal length). Both of them are ridiculously sharp wide open across the frame. Bokeh is superb. I am a nikon user but for that specific lens (135/2.0L) I have 5d3 constantly attached to it. For portraiture work, my combo is either D800E + 85/1.8G or 5d3 + 135/2.0L depending on how much room I have.</p>

<p>I used to have a 135mm dc that I regret selling. The rendering is so beautiful. And it was sharp enough for me for portraits. It's not 105mm VR sharp but I don't want that sharpness for my portraits anyway. I think it's a great lens for portrait and it renders skin beautifully. It always made me smile when I saw the results. Too bad financial needs forced me to sell it. One note, mine had no front or back focus problem that I often heard from other people. Other lenses that I have or have had may be sharper but nothing renders like the 135mm dc (and I have or have had had a lot including 85mm 1.8g, 85mm 1.4d, 105mm vr, tamron 90mm, 100mm zf, 180mm 2.8, 70-200mm vr, etc.). Probably the 200mm F2 but I sold it because it was too big and heavy and not too practical for me to carry. I'm again looking for one now :)</p>

<p>Ok here are two shots from tonight with the 135 DC on my D4<br>

First one is at f/2 second is at f/5.6.</p>

<p>

Like I said acceptable sharpness at f/2</p>

<p>Now f/5.6 and it is as expected better<br>

 

<p>I like my 135 f2DC lens. It does give a nice rendering and is quite sharp, although the depth of field is narrow at close range so can be hard to hit. It is one of my favorites for portraits. I use it on my D800 frequently. Go to my page and look at the 'Contributions" folder and I have several images using this lens, including some crops (D700).</p>

<p>Andrew said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Obviously it's not very sharp; it also tends to be bad at autofocus accuracy, which is a pain for candids. It <em>does</em> blur the background beautifully, but only if your definition of "beautiful" includes a lot of LoCA (if you're lucky, or if your background includes foliage, this may not matter).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah . . . that tends to be my feelings as well. I think I'll perform some side-by-side tests to confirm. Sometimes my 105mm DC looks great (recall, I'm thinking of getting the longer 135mm instead), and at others, it appears soft and mis-focused. Thanks for your detailed report!</p>