Nikon DC lenses

[paul_hagan]

<p>I have decided that it may not be long before Nikon discontinue either one or both of their DC lenses, Either the 105mm f2.0 or the 135mm f2.0. So I am going to buy a new one before they disappear.<br>

Which one do you recommend as producing the highest IQ?<br>

For my intended uses the focal length is immaterial. Simply which lens yields the highest IQ and how far do you have to stop down to achieve this? Also would be good to know where diffraction problems kick in and at which point is further stopping down degrading the performance? </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 105/2 DC is a bit sharper and much more resistant to flare in backlit situations. However, I currently only own the 135 because my 105 had some issues with AF accuracy (with my D3 & D700) when shooting at f/2 whereas my 135 doesn't (at DC neutral setting). I do miss the 105 for its delicately beautiful rendition.</p>

<p>The best sharpness with the 105 is obtained at approximately f/5.6; however I'd say it's already excellent at f/3.5. With 12 MP FX I've obtained good results even wide open where contrast is reduced (this is a good thing for indoor available light photography).</p>

<p><em>Also would be good to know where diffraction problems kick in and at which point is further stopping down degrading the performance?</em></p>

<p>Hmm. This would depend on which body you use it with. Generally speaking f/8 is noticeably worse than f/5.6 with this type of lenses and the most natural explanation for that is diffraction. </p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Both lenses produce clean images. Bear in mind that the defocus-control only works from f2 to f5.6. If the defocus-control is not a player in just wanting a sharp lens, the AF 105mm Micro-Nikkor line might be a better choice.</p>

<p>Shooting at f2 with DC set for the background effect, does not give you a lot of depth with either lens. Going to f4 or f5.6, both lenses work fairly well.</p>

<p> </p>

[hugo_laporte]

<p>I had the 135mm f/2 DC, which I found amazingly good. Talking about comparing both, I've been told the 105mm is slightly sharper wider than the 135mm. I found mine to be best at around f/4 to f/5.6 but was still very sharp at f/ 2.8. A bit soft at f/2.0, though. For focal lenght, I find 135mm a bit long for general portrait use, while a very interesting lenght for more special shots, 105mm would be more adequate.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>I have had the MF 135/2 and now have the AF with DC. I use the lens a lot, not the DC-feature, which is more for studio use, and my studio isnt that big to use the 135mm lens on D300 for portrait work. Its a great lens for eg street or sports or reportage, but also for landscape, trees, good for all. Its a very fast lens, so care for flare, get one , satisfaction guarenteed.^^<br>

Regards<br>

Martin</p>

[acarodp]

<p>I have the 135, not the 105. Consensus seems to be that the 105 is slightly sharper, but for sure the 135 is plenty sharp, and couples that sharpness with a greatly pleasing rendering and a extraordinary out-of-focus, both being things that one cannot say of all its peers, even when sharpness is there. I'm pretty sure, to what I hear, that the 105 has the same characteristics. So, if really the focal length it makes no difference for you, I would probably go for the 105: it is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and at least as sharp as the 135.<br>

On the specific, I would say that the 135 is tack sharp f4 to f8. It is not very far at f2.8 and it is still very good at f2, but if you really want to squeeze all that is there, also as contrast and DOF is concerned, I would say f5.6 is likely the best aperture. Diffraction might start appearing at f11, but frankly I'm not sure if I ever used my 135 at f11.<br>

On the other hand, I have troubles understanding which kind of application you might need a DC lens for, but NOT care for the focal length. 105 and 135 are not the same for any purpose except perhaps some form of technical photography. Perspective changes, DOF changes even if you move back and forth to frame the same. Or on the other hand, for a given subject type your working distance changes significantly and one of the two will for sure be more convenient than the other. And DC lenses are not conceived for technical applications, they can do it, but is not what they are made for. Their best qualities shine in portrait and reportage type photography: if you want, say, to reproduce documents, a macro lens would serve you as well if not better, since the DCs are purposedly not the most contrasted lenses.</p>

<p>Hope it helps!</p>

<p>L.</p>