AIS 135 f/2.8

[shuo_zhao]

Hi everyone, I currently don't have a "longer" portrait lens, and usually had to use either

the 24-70 2.8 or the 50 1.8 or the 55-200 VR for portraits. Obviously despite being 3

useful lenses, these lenses won't really provide my portraits the effects of a fast

telephoto lens. I just found out that the AIS 135 f/2.8 lens costs only $170, and since it

meters with my D300, it could be a good choice for portraits.

 

So what you think? Is there any other "cheap" alternatives?

 

*I don't have the money for the 70-200 2.8 VR.

[leicaglow]

I think you'll find 135mm a bit long for portraits. Another great lens, if you can get it, is the 105mm f/2.5 AIS, or maybe an 85mm f/1.8 or f/2 AIS of some flavor.

[shuo_zhao]

I couldn't find neither the 105 2.5 AIS nor the 85 2 AIS.

 

I actually thought about getting the 85 1.8, because it's very fast and gets good reviews. But I felt that the 85 1.8 is too similar (not much longer) to the 50 1.8, which gets a lot of use. The 85 1.8 also costs $200 more than the 135 2.8 AIS. Relatively, the 135 2.8 AIS seems more like a minimal investment.

 

Obviously if I upgrade to FX, the 135 2.8 AIS will be a more ideal portrait lens.

[lilly_w]

It's difficult to say 'yeah' or 'nay' re: the 135 as I don't know what you envision to be a preferred portrait (tight head, head, head/shoulders, etc.) but would venture to say you would be absolutely delighted with the results from a 105/2.5 if you're inclined to go with a longer focal length as opposed to a 50 or 85.

 

I find the 135 to be too long on DX format and quite arguably even the 105...but the 105 results keep me reaching for this highly esteemed and long-lived lens. Hard to go wrong as they go for a relative pittance on the used market.

[mark_punch]

Absolutely get the Nikon 105 2.5 AIS...superb lens! There are several nice ones on ebay, and at KEH.

[craig_shearman1]

I have the 85/2, 105/2.5 and 135/2.8, (my lens collection is mostly about 20 years old and almost entirely primes rather than zooms). The 105 is the classic Nikon portrait/headshot lens. The 135 is definitely way too long on a DX body. As for the cost, if you already have a D300 and can afford upgrading to a full frame body, it doesn't sound like money is an object so go with the 70-200 and be done with it. :)

[shuo_zhao]

I probably won't upgrade to FX 'til 2009/2010, when it's available in a more accessible and economical form than the D3. By that, I meant that I will have the money in the long run. As of now the cost (if not also the size) of the 70-200 remain somewhat of a issue.

 

The 70-200 is said to perform badly in FX, it is known to have soft corners. I don't think I should get it until that issue has been addressed.

 

Afterall the 135 2.8's main appeal to me is its low cost.

[johnw63]

Both Bjorn and Ken Rockwell gave this lens, or is close cousin, the f2 or f2.8 non AI lens good marks. If it fits the length you need, I'd go for it.

[a_padma]

Here's my nickel - I'd get a micro nikkor 105mm/2.8 or 105mm/4 AIS lens. I have the f/4 version and love - use it for macro and portrait shots or my dogs. Its great. These lenses will focus much closer than the 105mm/2.5 AIS lens. They would have more applications then the 105mm/2.5. I sold my 105mm/2.5 since I did not use it anymore after getting the 105mm/4 AIS. Also another option is to get a used 35-70mm/2.8 AF nikkor that on a d300 will be a nice length for portrait work.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "I'd get a micro nikkor 105mm/2.8 or 105mm/4 AIS lens."

 

I been trying not to get any primes slower than f/2.8.

 

>> "Also another option is to get a used 35-70mm/2.8 AF nikkor that on a d300 will be a nice length for portrait work."

 

I already have the new 24-70 2.8, which is great, though is not long enough for my taste sometimes.

[christiaan_phleger___honol]

If you shoot Nikon and don't own a Nikkor 105 2.5, you should, its that good.

Classic, classy lens. Cheap prices, abundant supply, hey, can even get a P.C

version for the 'old school' look, it should not be very hard to find one Someplace for

a good price, and whatever you pay for it, you'll still laugh at what you got it for when

you see the images it is capable of. Distance landscapes at F16 or wide open close

for a portrait, and everything in between, seriously one of the finest all around lens

that Nikon has (or will ever) make.

 

The 135mm f2.8 is a fine lens as well, its usually not seen as a great lens but my

take is that it is always in comparison to the Epic 180mm that Nikon has made. In

the earliest versions, the Q and Q.C. were good but not fantastic, the .C version is a

bit snappier in color but both are good in general. But in comparison to the 180mm

P.C. ,which is larger, heavier, (longer) and basically a high performance low light

lens (hey its the 70's man) the 135mm 2.8 seems pretty tepid.

 

The Ais version is the one to get. The Ai version has a very funky internal build,

giving the lens a high potential for a number of faults to arise, such as very stiff

focus and/or oil on the blades. Its excessively fiddly assembly makes regular CLA's

an expense, and self-repair is a drag, seriously the worst lens to try to fix.

 

The Ais version build changes fixes this, and coupled with the improved optical

formula of the Ai makes a robust, small, sharp, fast and handy lens. If you find one

for a good price give it a try.

[lex_jenkins]

I love it when folks make "neither fish nor fowl" comments about the 135mm focal length. Drives the market value down, which is great for buyers.

 

One of my favorite portrait lenses is an old 135mm f/3.5 Lentar preset T-mount. Sharp, even wide open, with pleasant bokeh and it's not excessively contrasty due to the single coating and, possibly, internal flare.

 

Y'know how I solve the focal length "problem" with the 135mm on my D2H? I step back. Wow. That was easy. And cheap too.

[shuo_zhao]

>> "Y'know how I solve the focal length "problem" with the 135mm on my D2H? I step back. Wow. That was easy. And cheap too."

 

That's exactly what I thought.

 

To be honest, this lens is essentially only more expensive than the 50 1.8.

[wj_lee]

This is a Terrific lens. Very contrasty and sharp. Most of the well known reviewer rate the lens as good as 105mm 2.5. Get it while it is cheap.

[douglas_greenberg]

I don't see that the 85mm. f1.8 is all that similar to a 50mm f1.8. There's quite a difference, actually, If your interest is portraits, the 85mm. is a great choice to complement a 50mm., I think.

[gary_watson]

A true sleeper in the "portrait" focal length range is the 100/2.8 E lens. It's pin-sharp, cheap, and gives very little away to the pricier 105/2.5.

[juanjo_viagran]

if it wasn't for the "cheap" part this could be a good choice..

<img src="http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/BS/_DSC1105-1.jpg">

it could be yours for $450 ;)

[jeff_rauch]

I own a 35-70 f/2.8. It's a great lens! But if you want a portrait lens, stick to a fixed focal.

[henryp]

I own both a 105/2.5 and a 135/.28. The 105 is <b>quite a bit</b> the better lens in terms of sharpness, contrast and color fidelity. <p><a href="mailto:henryp@bhphotovideo.com">Henry Posner</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com"><b>B&H Photo-Video</b></a>

[walterh]

Shuo the 135 f2.8 AI is a nice lens; it is very slim and light yet of good solid mechanics. It feels much smaller than a 200mm lens. The image quality is good and often underrated. The resolution is all you need for portrait, the image "microcontrast" is is between the more modern extreme high contrast and legendary 105mm AIS f2.5. Given the choice I would go for the 105 f2.5 over the 135mm. However the "legend" is sometimes hard to get and the 135mm f2.8 is extremely cheap and sometimes easy to get in good condition. The 135mm is a good lens it just sits in the shadow of the even better 105mm f2.5.

[oskar_ojala]

I have a 135/2.8 AI, quite useful in FX. Probably very useful in DX, but I don't get around using it that much, have been staying more in the wide-normal area lately. Anyway, it's a good lens. I could try to find the time to take some test pics on a D300 and report back. If you want to really kick ass in sharpness, contrast, resolution, distortion, etc., then the 85/1.8 is a solid performer.

[pge]

The 105mm f2.5 is a great headshot lens, and that sounds like what you are looking for. You should be able to find one for under 175, or even under 150. I agree that the 135mm is a bit long for portraits now with the digital crop. My 135mm has taken over from my 200mm for sports shooting since switching to digital.

[jose_angel]

Looking for the same as you, I finally bought the 105 VR. My first requisite was to have AF, better if an AFS-G. My other options were the Sigma 50-150/2.8 and the 105/2 DC. The 105 VR is really half the size and price of the 70-200, althought obviously less versatile. Wide open, for a head shot you will have apertures between f2.8 and f3 that is wide enough to have a very shallow DoF for a "normal" portrait. Translated to distance, this lens is f2.8 from infinity to 1.5 meters, f3 to f3.3 from 1.5 to... 50cm? ( I don`t remember this data).

 

The 105VR has surprised me in several aspects. The first one is that this lens performs better than I expected, is slightly sharper than the 105/2.5 AiS (I tested it from 3 to 9 feets) and also sharper than the Micro-Nikkor 105/4 AiS (I tested it from 1:2 to 9 feets). Images are contrastier, and exposure metering on the D300 is far more accurate than with the AiS lenses. At "portrait" distances the 105/2.5 AiS is sharper that my 105/4 Micro. At a first glance the only drawback in this lens could be longitudinal chromatic aberration that looks higher that I`m used to, I`m already checking if it is only noticeable under pixel peeping or at the real life prints.

 

The AFS works great, is astoundingly dead on at any distance, with some reasonable issues (absolutely reasonable IMO), at closer distances. The VR really helps under the conditions where this system works, even at close distances (1:1 and 1:2 are very-very close distances). If you want to have a portrait VR lens and a macro lens in one, the 105 VR is the choice.

 

On the AiS side, my choice would be the 105/2.5 or better for a DX camera, the 85/1.4.

 

If you don`t care about AF lenses, the AF 85/1.8 could be another choice (I never used to use this one).

[juanjo_viagran]

Agreed with Jose about the 105mm VR, Awesome lens for pretty much ANYTHING in its range..

IMO is even better than the "old" 85mm 1.4D (which I had for long time)

[jose_angel]

I was wrong, I have already checked that is f2.8 from infinity to slightly less than 3 meters and f3 from 3 to 0.7 meters.

 

Here it is a fast shot with the 105VR at f3 (distance 5 feet). The subject is exactly the high and width of my face.<div></div>