Fast short teles - 105 F1.8 / 135 F2 AI-S ?

[leo_tam1]

<p>You don't hear about these two often, especially when the 105 2.5 is taken into consideration. How are these wide open and stopped down? </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Look at Bjørn Rørslett's general review (<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html"><strong>link</strong></a>) for these lenses. I haven't used the 105, but had the 135 f/2 AIS some years ago. It is a very sturdy lens--mine performed as Bjørn described, and focused smoothly, even though I bought it with a big dent in the metal lens hood, so that it had to have once taken a big hit.</p>

[lisa_b4]

<p>I had the 105 1.8 It was a nice lens, but it was big and bulky compared to the 105 2.5 and I felt like I had to stop it down to 2.5 or beyond to get good corner to corner sharpness--whereas the 105 2.5 is pretty darned sharp at 2.5, much more compact, and less expensive. I sold the 1.8, and I now own three 2.5's (I de-clicked one for use as a cine lens) and the three 2.5's cost me about the same as I sold the 1.8 for.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I have the 105 f/1.8 and the 105 f/2.5 as well as the 105 f/2.8. Of the three the one I go to the most is the f/1.8. It is larger then the others but I find it to be sharp enough wide open and to have very nice OOF backgrounds. The one I use the least is the 105 f/2.5 it comes out when I am packing for a hike and want to save weight. It is a good lens with good sharpness but I personally don't hold it in awe as some folks do.</p>

<p>I bought my 105 f/1.8 to shoot night time sports in very dark venues and it worked very well. The f/2.5 was not fast enough to give me the exposure I needed to stop the motion of the horses</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>I had the 135/2 AIS and it was quite good. Unfortunately I owned it at the same time that I owned a 200/2 AI which was vastly superior in sharpness and bokeh, so as a result I did not use the 135 much. </p>

<p>I have never minded heavy lenses so I now have the 105/1.8 AIS. I have not had it long but so far I find the bokeh to be very good at 1.8 but sharpness does improve significantly by f2.8. I do like the availability of the shallow depth of field at f1.8. </p>

<p>Once I test it I should be able to compare it to the 135/2. I'll try to return with some results in the spring.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I have the 105mm f/1.8 and like it very much. True, as Lisa B says, that at maximum aperture it's a bit softer in the corners than the f/2.5 lens, but that's only to be expected of a lens that's one whole stop faster. At like-for-like apertures it's just as sharp as, if not sharper than, the f/2.5 version.</p>

<p>I especially like the way this lens handles backlighting at wide apertures. The character of its flare is such that it reduces contrast and effectively adds some "fill" to backlit subjects. However the flare isn't objectionable in any way.</p>

<p>It is quite a heavy lens, but I find it balances well on the D800. The focusing ring on mine is super-smooth. I also fitted the lens with a Dandelion chip, which makes it even more useful than in its purely manual state. There's no fiddling with the "Non-CPU Lens" camera menu, and you can use focus-trap with it.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<p>I have had both of them in old days on my F3, the 105/1.8 is a very sharp lense in the center and for me its not important for a tele edge to edge, at least its much better than the 85/1.4.<br>

My 135/2 was not that sharp but I used it as a "special effect" lense, bring the sun into the frame and you get a firework I havent seen on other lenses. Some years later I bought a new 135/2 DC but it doesnt have that crazy flare, so I am a little disappointed in it. Maybe its overall the better lense, but its not that unique.</p>

[leo_tam1]

<p>Hmm, if the 105 1.8 is as sharp as the 105 2.5 at the same apertures, I might spring for one- shot a few shows on film where an extra stop would have helped a lot</p>