135mm or 105mm DC lenses.

[ebogaerts]

Hello All. I am seriously considering the purchase of one of the

defocus control Nikkor lenses. I have done a little checking on the

prices, but I haven't been able to find a whole lot of information

about these two lenses.

 

I don't know which of these lenses would be a better choice. Is one

known to be a little sharper than the other? Is the 135mm more

costly than the 105mm, simply due to the longer focal length?

 

Bjorn Rorslett gives high, high marks to the 105. He doesn't seem to

be quite as impressed with the 135.

 

Any opinons? Thanks in advance.

[peter_ho1]

135 F/2 has slightly higher rating....but if you are using DSLR, 105 F/2 already offered you 150mm focal length....remember both lens don't have VR....

[ilkka_nissila]

The 105/2 is maybe the finest lens I've ever used. I haven't used the 135. I suspect that the 105 sells better and is thus cheaper; the price of the 105 when it first came out was higher.

 

VR? I bought my 105/2 precisely because VR doesn't stop subject motion and isn't as useful as a fast aperture in many situations. The 105/2 handles backlight and stage light extremily well.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"135 F/2 has slightly higher rating...." --peter

ho<br>

</em><br>

That all depends on who is rating it. <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>Bjørn Rørslett</u></a>

rates the AF 135/2.0D DC well but lower than the AF 105/2.0D DC...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html"

target="_new"><u>Medium Long Lenses For Nikon 'F' Mount</u></a>

By Bjørn Rørslett<br>

<br>

Here is <a href="http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html"

target="_new"><u>David Ruethers rating</u></a> of the 135/20

DC...<br>

<br>

<em>"heavy and large, very sharp center to corner at f2 at

mid to long distances but with some very slight field curvature

barely detectable at wide stops near infinity; performance is

poor near minimum focus at wide stops (both conditions together),

otherwise this lens is excellent even wide open" --DR<br>

</em><br>

David has not tried the 105/2.0 DC.<br>

<br>

I'm curious where Peter found his rating. I'm open to new sources

but very pleased with the information from the sites above. I

personally dont trust any website that allows the great

unwashed to rate their own cameras. I've seen a number of

mediocre lenses rated well simply because they are expensive.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

David Hartman

[ShunCheung]

Why spend so much time concerning about ratings on these lenses? A 135mm is very different from a 105. A 135mm is a very long portrait lens for any film body. If you mainly shoot pretty much "head only" type portraits, a 135mm may be ok, but IMO it is too long. A 105 is much better and actually in these days, a lot of people prefer the even shorter 85mm for portraits. If your lens is too short, you can always crop a bit. If it is too long, you can be stuck if you are in a smaller room, and even though you can move farther away, the portrait may not look right because you are too far away from your subject such that the face will look "compressed."

 

If you shoot Nikon digital, IMO neither one would be a good portrait lens.

[gv]

I think that relying on these websites that test lenses is a big mistake. In my experience

the differences found when bench testing optics and the results in the Real World can be

like Night and Day. Sure, there may be measurable differences, but will they make a

significant, or even a slight difference, in most situations? I haven't found it to always be

true... Some of the circumstances where a particular lens may fall short of expectations are

either rarely experienced by the average shooter, or can be avoided simply by selecting a

more appropriate lens for a critical situation. The lens ratings might be a good place to

start, but accepting them as gospel and rejecting a lens outright because of a reviewer's

opinion is a mistake, IMO. There are no "perfect" optics out there; some are just "more

perfect" than others.

 

As far as the 135mm DC lens goes, I have used one for around ten years. Unlike David

Reuther I find the lens to be relatively small and nicely balanced, quick and easy to focus

manually and automatically and a real pleasure to use, producing excellent images. In

fact, the 135mm has replaced my 80-200mm 2.8 many times because it is smaller and

lighter. If I need a larger image in the viewfinder I simply (gasp!) move a bit closer to the

subject.

 

I sold my 105 2.5 lens many years ago. I found that I seldom used that particular focal

length, regardless of its reputation as a fine lens and that many photographers carried it at

one time. And I never actually thought that I would own a 135mm, much less like it. But I

found myself needing that f2 speed and focal length at one point in my career, and I

surprised myself by coming to appreciate the capabilities of the lens.

[davidfink_photography]

I own the 105 DC, but not the 135. Like David H., I've seen the 105 consistently rated higher in reviews, although both get extremely favorable opinions.

 

The 105 DC is a fine lens, no question. (BTW, I do not consider it too long for portrait work with a dSLR....all depends on how much room you have in the studio.) However, at the 105 focal length, I prefer to work with the venerable AI-s 105/2.5. The DC's color tends to be a bit cooler, and images for my taste are a bit "clinical" compared to the AI-s. Furthermore, the AI-s is much more compact, and of course is far smoother when manually focused.

 

Not trying to talk you out of a DC lens. But one more consideration you should keep in mind.....the defocus control takes a good bit of experience to use effectively. For starters, you should NOT assume that the "true" neutral position of the defocus ring is at the marked mid-position. It's not uncommon for samples of these lenses to deviate in optimal sharpness from that mid position. With mine, for example, sharpest image rendition is achieved wide open with the defocus control at the Front 2 ("F 2") position, not the neutral position. And this varies at other apertures. So....if you buy a DC lens, you should test it at all apertures and defocus settings to determine how your sample behaves.

[ebogaerts]

G.V.: It's never my intention to follow internet reviewers, and to have them be my sole (or near-sole) criteria for making lens purchase decisions. That's kind of why I came here, because I always trust that people will give me their 'real world' experiences with whatever product they have or still use.

 

I get the impression that either version is a great piece of glass, and would produce terrific images. But my real intention here is to go beyond the internet reviewers, however well-respected they may be.

 

Shun: Still shooting film, at least for the forseeable future.

[ShunCheung]

Eric, as long as you are shooting film, again, pick the right focal length for yourself and I would ignore lens reviews; a 105 is simply very different from a 135 for portraits. However, IMO Nikon is sticking with the small sensor and if you switch to Nikon digital, neither your 105 nor 135 will be a portrait lens any more. That is the problem with investing in these lenses nowadays.

[Jerry_]

Both lenses are very, very good.

 

 

 

You have to make the decision: a 135mm lens at f2 (no background or foreground de-focus use) is good for sports. The 105mm lens will not get you there without you moving up closer for the same image on film (or with your digital body.) The construction and glass in both lenses are great.

[todd_phillips1]

I used to have the 135DF and it was a beautiful lens. Razor sharp and easy to handle. I only sold it because I had to "have" a 80-200 (AFS) lens for various reasons. I hardly ever used the DF function and never used it in my studio. You can't "see" the difference through the eyepiece of the camera...only through lots of testing can you get some idea of what will happen when you use it.

 

Now I don't shoot that many headshots on 35mm and in the past, I've used everything from 85mm to 200 mm and all have looked just fine (my studio has LOTS of room). But if I didn't "have" to have a 80-200, then I'd probably have just a 180 or, perhaps, a 85 1.4AF (with 1.4 converter, though maybe not).

 

No bad words to say about the 135DF...other than it's REALLY sharp. Others have great things to say about the 105DF and I'd be hard pressed to pick a 105DF or 85 1.4 (then many say the 85 1.8 is very good). I guess you, me or anybody just has to try the lenses to see what he likes! BTW, the 80-200AFS is first rate!

[david_h._hartman]

If you are going to buy the sharpest lens go buy a 50/1.8 AI or 55/2.8 AIS. That�s my experience based on my lens test. The big question is which focal length do you need? This could be a matter of preference or compromise. I happen to like the 105 best. The 105 also makes a good compromise between the 85 and 135mm focal length. I hedged my bets and bought a couple of each, (that�s of all three). That happened over a period of quite a few years.

 

Given the price of the 105/2.5 and 135/2.8 AI and AIS in bargain grade it might be wise to try these before committing to the more expensive lenses especially if you are buying new. You should find the105/2.5 for about $105.00~$115.00 and the 135/2.8 for about $90.00~$100.00, maybe less on the SleazeBay.

 

Once you buy one of the DC lenses then you could sell the duplicate in AI or AIS or not. If you have to have the sharpest it�s quite likely the 105/2.0 DC but I�ve never seen the 135/2.0 DC reviewed as a dog.

 

Regards,

 

Dave Hartman.

[ilkka_nissila]

Just my comment on the Ai(-S) vs AF decision: I think it is unwise to invest any money on manual focus lenses at this time as the DX viewfinders make manual focusing a chore, and some of the bodies don't even meter with older lenses. Yes, the 105/2 and 135/2 DC are expensive, but they work with all bodies.

 

David H, David Ruether's comments you quoted on the 135/2 are about the manual focus lens; he hasn't used either of the DC lenses.

[joseph_wisniewski]

Both lenses are amazing, the optical quality of either will not disappoint. Either will make you drool, who cares if one makes you drool just a little faster.

 

If you only have one portrait lens, I'd say go with the 105mm. Personally, I find that length a bit more versatile than 135mm. If you're planning on an 85mm in the near future (I'm getting my own 85mm f1.4 next month, I can finally stop borrowing them from friends) then a 135mm complements it nicely. A 105mm might seem a little close to the 85mm. A 135 makes you feel like you've "shifted gears".

[todd peach seattle, washi]

I enjoy my 135/2 DC for available light sports. I find the image quality is still quite good wide open, and that's typically where I use it (if I can 'afford' f/2.8, I'm usually using the zoom instead). An F100 AF's pretty quickly with this lens, a D100 does not.

 

I played with the DC feature a bit when I first got the lens, but I haven't touched that control in several years. As somebody alluded to above, you really need to learn how this lens works to get the most out of it. This is not a feature I use enough to 'master'.

[michael_benveniste]

I know a photographer who swears by her 135mm f/2DC for use with her Fuji S2. But she uses it for nature photography, not portraits.

 

After a fair amount of dithering, I decided to skip both lenses and purchase a 6x4.5cm body and portrait lens instead.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"Just my comment on the Ai(-S) vs AF decision: I

think it is unwise to invest any money on manual focus lenses at

this time as the DX viewfinders make manual focusing a chore, and

some of the bodies don't even meter with older lenses." --Ilkka

Nissila<br>

</em><br>

One does not often "invest" in photographic equipment.

With few exceptions its an expense. Speeding $200.00 on a

pair of lenses is hardly a large outlay.<br>

<br>

If Eric is planing to buy a DSLR in the next year or two then the

best purchase would be an AF 85/1.4D IF or AF 85/1.8D as these

will yield an effective 128mm on current Nikon DSLR(s). If not it

makes good sense to loose at worst the price of a filter and

probably less on a pair of AI or AIS lenses than to spend $919.95

or $1069.95 (B&H, USD) when one is not sure which focal

length they really want. Buying the one that is reputed to be

sharper doesnt make sense to me. Buy the one you need.<br>

<br>

Perspective is based on the distance from the subject too the

lens. Angle of view is based on the focal length provided that

the format stays the same. For formal portraits an 85mm is

commonly used for 3/4 portraits, 105mm for head and shoulders and

135mm for a tight head shot. For indoor portraits a shorter focal

length might be use for lack of space to back up. Its often

said "Zoom with your feet." You cant zoom with

your feet; you zoom with a zoom. You dolly with your feet, that

is you change perspective. <br>

<br>

<em>"David H, David Ruether's comments you quoted on the 135/2

are about the manual focus lens; he hasn't used either of the DC

lenses." --Ilkka Nissila<br>

</em><br>

Sorry about that, I did post the wrong comment.

[ebogaerts]

Thanks everyone for your help here. I think I may take up David's recommendation of considering other lenses, such as the 85mm.

 

It is true to say that it's likely within 2-3 years that I will end up with a digital SLR (when they come out of the stratosphere in price) so that is something to take into consideration.

[farhad]

I've been using the 135 with my F100 for a few months now and am VERY impressed with it's quality. Tack sharp, beautiful colour rendition, and lovely controllable bokeh are it's strong features. The example photograph was taken with a DC (rear) setting lower than the aperture in use (around f8 and R 2.8 but I can't remember exactly).<div></div>