Nikon 135/2 DC vs Nikon 135/2D DC ?

[WM]

<p>Hi folks, <br>

Please excuse my simpleton question, but what is the difference between the 135/2 DC and 135/2D DC ? <br>

Will there be any difference in using it on a D700 with SB-600/SB-900 ? <br>

Will it work on the D700 and SB600/900 combo ? Using TTL ? Is there a special setting if the non-D lenses are used ?<br>

Thanks for your help. <br>

Cheers, </p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>If there is any difference, I have yet to see this. "D" technology is highly overrated, besides, can only possibly work with the flash on the camera. Use the flash off-camera, and "D" is worthless anyway.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>The distance information provided from lens to camera is used in the latest Nikon DSLR at least in 3 ways:</p>

<p>1. Support for best iTTL/BL balanced flash mode.<br />2. Matrix metering.<br />3. 3D auto focus tracking.</p>

<p>Once you learn how to take advantage of the D information and camera modes, your flash in daylight, your sport auto focus activity, as well as the metering that takes advantage of most of many sensors provided by the camera, will improve your photos.<br />Of course you do not have to use any of the advanced features provided by the latest technology.<br />I am surprised by statements expressed by Bjorn.</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>I may be wrong again, but I think this lens only has a D version. If you saw "135/2 DC" somewhere, they probably did not write the "D" there because they thought it was obvious they were talking about the 135/2D DC. I usually refer to this lens and its shorter sister as 135 DC and 105 DC for the sake of brevity, because even that makes it clear which specific lens I am referring to. I imagine it is possible it had a "non-D" early version, but I have never seen one.</p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>No reason to be surprised. In my field experience, "D" lenses have caused more [exposure] issues than those purportedly solved by that feature.</p>

[john_stockdale2]

<p>There is definitely a non-D version of this lens. I have one. The only flash i use is mild fill flash, TTL, -1.3 stops: no apparent problems.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Don't some newer DSLRs only function in their full matrix metering mode with D lenses? I thought, for instance, that my D90 would only meter center-weighted with non-D lenses. But I don't own any, so I've never tried it.</p>

[christoph_sensen]

<p>There is definitely a non-D version of this lens. I have it and I use it on my D200 and F6 without problems. Now, I rarely use it with flash, I call it my rodeo lens.<br>

Christoph</p><div></div>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>I'm with Bjorn, I've never seen the D feature help a single exposure. I even tried some experiments switching between D and non-D versions of two lenses.</p>

<p>The big difference between a D and non-D is that a non-D is guaranteed to be at least 15 years old, and could be up to 20 years old. A D will be less than 15 years old, and if it's got a serial number starting in 4 or 5, less than 5 years old. It's a pretty rugged, dependable lens, but it is known for thickening lubricants in the focus system so a non-D is likely to be more in need of a CLA (a relatively cheap service procedure: clean, lubricate, adjust). And the M/A ring is more likely to be about to snap.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p><em>"and "D" is worthless anyway</em>" - is highly biased statement without any attribute, and not reflecting the truth.<br>

" <em>I've never seen the D feature help a single exposure" </em>- but others could possibly see it? - ask Nikon<em>.</em><br>

for experienced or expert photographers, even a pin hole camera is good enough, and nothing else could matter.<br>

If a person does not see something, or one man's opinion that something is worthless, should not stop you from getting the latest lens. <br>

One cannot stop technologicasl progress.</p>

<p> </p>

[bjørn rørslett]

<p>What can we report, if not our own experiences? Otherwise we would be agents relaying the latest rumours. Truth has always a subjective component.</p>

<p>When you have to work against a feature to circumvent its short-comings then that feature, in my opinion, is flawed. Clever as the engineerings team might be, they still manage to up up stumbling blocks you have to circumvent. Nikon history ise full of examples. Their implementation of Liveview is a recent example. It is simply naive to applaud any new feature in the name of "progress". At the very least the advantages, or drawbacks, need to be evaluated in a practical setting.</p>

<p>The main problem with "D" is that, unlike AF/AFS or VR, you can't switch it off when deemed necessary. Had that possibily existed I wouldn't have complained. I fully understand that other users have different requirements of their gear.</p>

<p>While we're on the topic of the 135 DC, note it has the same AF/M collar as the 105 DC, and the same tendency to break. My 105DC broke and split into two separate parts after 10 years of use. Repair would be very expensive and one of the critical parts was no longer available anyway so would have to be custom-made from scratch. So I just throw the lens away.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>The non-D version of the lens was only built from 1990-1995. The "D" lens sends distance information to the camera and works with all of Nikon's Matrix Metering Systems. I have the 105mm f/2 DC "D" version and have had no issues using it with any of my cameras over the past few years.</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>"D" info is recorded in the file, leading to the possibility of automated distortion and vignetting correction taking the distance into account, which is nice in macro lenses, but for the 135 this is not much of a point.</p>

<p>It's easy to turn "D" off. You tilt the flash head by an ever so slight amount or take it off camera like it should be. For ambient metering you switch away from matrix, and there, no effect due to "D". </p>