Nikon 135mm f/2 DC

Hello All,

Has anyone used the above mentioned lens with a D800 and if so what are your thoughts?

Is it worth buying?

Thanks for your time...

Pascal

<p>Pascal.<br>

Do a search of the forum. There are a few recent threads talking about this lens. I am very happy with my copy of this lens. But then I have only used it on my D4 and D300, D300s, Kodak Pro 14NX and F5.</p>

<p><img src="https://home.comcast.net/~wizkidz/temp/1z.jpg" alt="" width="1415" height="875" /><img src="https://home.comcast.net/~wizkidz/temp/2z.jpg" alt="" width="1617" height="870" /><br />I hated it...<br /> The CAs were off the chart...<br /><br />I tried it as a replacement for my 150mm Sigma and read it had bad CAs but ever test shot I took outdoors had crazy purple/green fringing.. I'll wait for the new version like the 85mm G</p>

<p>So in counter point. This is the work I do with mine. Shot on a hot bright sunny day. f/3.2<br>

First link is the full image.<br>

Second link is the crop<br>

<p>Like I have said more then a few times. I like mine and it makes money for me on a regular basis.</p>

<p>Johnny<br>

What are you using to process your files?</p>

<p>And one more extreme crop of the same image<br>

<p>Michael's lens works just fine !</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lightroom 4.4<br /> Nikon D-800 RAW no presets 100% preview<br /> Every photo had like a cartoon purple or green fringe..<br /> What I didn't expect is the Sigma to have almost zero CAs<br />I think I read the 85mm G has much better CAs<br /> I would either wait for the 135G and buy it or wait for the 135G release and buy a 135D after the release if price looked good..<br /> It did have much better contrast than the Sigma 150mm and the CAs of the 135D are shown at a 36MP 100% Preview but I felt it wasn't worth a upgrading for me..<br>

Images where taken at F2.0 vs F2.8 for the Sigma</p>

<p>Ok here is an image shot at f/2.0. It still looks much better then what Johnny is showing.<br>

Full image<br>

Crop<br>

<p>Head shot crop.<br>

Nothing was done to correct for CA.<br>

For tracking a moving target and at f/2.0 I find these images to be more then acceptable. </p>

<p>MM Seems Michael "stole "the topic somewath... :-)</p>

<p>Michael, 1 question : Is there some kind of UV filter on that 135mm F2.0 AF DC ?<br>

This looks like the first (and only) time i put an UV on mine , that's why i am asking...</p>

<p>My 135DC works just fine on my D800. By f/3.2, I get pixel-level sharpness across the frame. The bokeh is absolutely top notch. I love its character as a portrait lens. </p>

<p>Nikon has a patent out on a 135 f/1.8. If ever released, it's likely to be a G lens, but expect it to cost twice the price. My own judgment does not always side with the clinical performance of the newer lenses. For example, I like the 28/2AI as much as the 28/1.8G, and use both for different things. On the other hand, I never did like the 85/1.8D and prefer the 85/1.8G. </p>

<p>I do not use UV filters on my lenses unless in extreme conditions like blowing sand or salt spray.</p>

<p>I have both the 105DC and the 135DC and use them with my D800. Both have great results.</p>

<p>I've occasionally wondered how the 85mm 1.8G* mounted on the DX D7100 compares with the 135mm DC on FX...say both @ f4?</p>

<p>Anyone got both (ie all 4!) to do the test?</p>

<p>* I guess the f1.4G would be a better aperture comparison, but it's really not great wide open, and way too expensive.</p>

<p>Mike I would be happy to do the test but I don't have a 85mm f/1.8 G and a D300 is the highest resolution DX camera that I have. If you would be kind enough to send me one of each I will make sure to test them thoroughly.</p>

<p>Michael B....;-) I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not when my main work lens cost me more than I paid for my present car.<br>

<br>

I've shot with a 85mm 1.4D on my D300, but i gotta say using a prime is a bit risky with the more wayward jumpers.... They can get a bit big in the frame, real quick!<br>

_____<br>

The other idle curiosity is the D7100 + Sigma 50-150mm 2.8 OS, as it's the DX (focal-length) equivalent of my D700 + 70-200mm VRII combo. OK for dressage maybe but not for cross-country....no real fps/buffer. The team chase/pairs really eat frames.</p>

<p>I know what you mean about wayward jumpers, stadium jumping is always with the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. But out on the X country with the 135 on my D4 I am a safe distance from the obstacle as well as being able to fill the frame acceptably. And you know as well as I do if they are not over the jump its not what they want to see, unless it is a crash.<br>

I might get a little uncomfortable with an 85 on the D4 shooting X country. I think it would be usable on a D300. I have wanted to try my 180f/2.8 but I am not so sure I am up to manual focusing a moving target any more. Been spoiled by AF for to long.</p>

<p>Mine behaves like Johnny's, and the LoCA is often beyond correction even with recent software tools. AFAICT this is part of the design (it's <i>supposed</i> to have undercorrected spherochromatism to get the smooth bokeh), so I'm unsure how others manage to have samples that behave better - but I'm happy for everyone! (For what it's worth, the samples I've seen of the 85 f/1.4 AF-S also have pretty bad LoCA). Others have persuaded me to give it another go at smaller apertures (in my last attempt I was still unconvinced, and I didn't buy it as an overweight f/4...), but at least on my sample, f/2 is for desperation only so far - I spent far too long trying to de-green a bride's hair. I was hoping for something that behaved like a faster version of Sony's STF lens, but it really doesn't. I'll also try again, in case, with the (expensive) UV filter removed, though why the filter should have this effect when it's fine with other lenses I don't know.<br />

<br />

I went the other way - I got a 150mm Sigma (OS macro) as a replacement for the 135 DC. And I knew the 150mm was pretty much apochromatic, which is why I wanted it! (My other solution, which is as effective and better at losing the background, is a 200mm f/2.) If you want the shorter length, the new 135mm f/2 Zeiss is much better behaved - and scarily sharp - but it's not absolutely perfect and it's hellaciously expensive. And manual focus, obviously.</p>

<p>Andrew, What I am guessing is subjects farther from the lens have smaller CAs.. <br>

Images I took of landscapes were not as bad as the close ups..</p>

<p>That would certainly be true - the CA comes from out-of-focus zones, which is also why it gets better as you stop down. But why would you be taking landscape photos with an f/2 defocus control lens? (For what it's worth, the 150mm Sigma is not as stellar at long range as it is up close, but the same is true for some far more exotic glass - allegedly the 200-400, for example.) My "bride with green hair" was, I guess, about 4m away, and I still had green hair fringes and purple jewelry. Much farther than that and I'm not sure a 135mm fast lens is the obvious choice.</p>

<p>I was taking a test shot from my deck of our neighbors deck it had some pink azalea plants in the shot.. I guess a "neighbors deck" opposed to landscape would have been better title :) You can kind of see the full size images in the thumbnail view of the screen shots I posted..</p>

<p>I realised I over-stated my point when I said "why would you be taking landscape photos with an f/2 defocus control lens" - I really meant "why would you <i>buy</i> an f/2 defocus control lens to take landscapes". I'm not against using a portrait lens for a landscape photo if that happens to be on your camera at the time!<br />

<br />

At that distance, assuming you could get the focus to hit, I'd hope it was okay - anything far enough from the focal plane to be pretty colours would have to be a long way from the deck. And maybe it really does get better anyway - I'm no optical physicist. Still, as portrait lenses go, the LoCA is annoying. (Although, as I said, others seem to have had much better luck than I do, and not using f/2 helps.)<br />

<br />

Oh, and disclaimer: it <i>does</i> have a beautiful effect on the bokeh. You just need not to pixel peep enough to see the colour fringes. Alas, I'm a peeper, and I tend to take photos of things with black/white transitions near the focal plane.</p>