105mm 2.5 ais vs 135mm 2.8 ais ?

[robert_le_merle]

I am about to buy a short telephoto lens and have narrowed my choice

down to these two:

 

105mm F2.5 ais

&

135mm F2.8 ais

 

Does anyone have experience of both these lenses?

 

Any preferences or pearls of wisdom out there?

 

Cheers.

[david_chananie]

I had both, got rid of the 135 because I didn't use it much. The 105 is wonderfully sharp and an excellent lens for portraits, particularly headshots.

[cham_saranasuriya]

105/2.5 is a well regarded portrait lens.

 

Cheers

[richard_milner2]

I bought the 135mm as a compromise between a 105mm portrait lens and a 180mm telephoto. I found it a bad compromise rather than a good one. That said, many people like it so personal preference enters into the consideration.

 

I then got a 105mm and got rid of the 135mm. Its extra size and weight was not justified given the relatively small increase in 'reach' over the 105. (I also got a 200mm, which took care of the longer shots.)

 

The 105 has a legendary reputation going back decades. It is a nice, handy little lens on the camera.

[albert_smith]

I have both a 105mm f/2.5 and 135mm f/2.0 Nikkor, both AIS. There is not enough information in your question to offer a choice from these two. I would offer the following... consider what your other lenses are, the ones on either side of 105 / 135.

 

With priimes, the thing is to have spacing that allows for some true reward for the effort of changing lenses, and yet not so far that you would miss a focal length. If you have a 50mm, then 105mm is a nice jump. If you already have say an 85mm, then going to the 135mm would make more sence than the 105mm.

 

Work on the space between the lenses, and your next focal length should be clear.

 

Optically, the 105mm f/2.5 is hard to beat.

[kelly_flanigan1]

In the preconsumer zoom era of the 1960's and mid 1970's; the 135mm F2.8 was the standard "2nd lens" usually a slr person would get. Many wished for a 105mm F2.5 Nikkor; but settled for a NON-Nikon 135mm F2.8. I got auto Vivitar T4 mount 135mm F2.8 from Cambridge for 55 bucks; and used it on my Exakta and Nikon stuff. The T4 mount allowed it to me used on several different brand of cameras. With Exakta; there was a auto diaphram external gizmo; this required one of Cambridges oddball 135mm lens cases; with the non circular shape; a bump for the Exakta lenses.<BR><BR>Later I got a 105mm F2.5 Nikkor PC; and was much surprised by its performance. This is the newer Gauss optical formula; with muliticoating; but no AI mount. I got it converted to AI later by Nikon. <BR><BR>Later I bough a 135mm F3.5 Nikkor for 35 dollars; one of the orphaned lenses that could not be modified by Nikon. These went cheap in the late 1970's; there was abit of a ruckus that a small portion of Nikon lenses could not be modified; these lenses dropped in price alot. <BR><BR>The 105mm F2.5 is a good choice; the 135mm gets alot less respect. It is not clear what you want the lens for.

[kelly_flanigan1]

When I got my Vivitar 135mm F2.8 T4 auto lens from Cambridge in the late 1960's; The 105mm Nikkor lens was very expensive. Some people at that time bought Vivitar; Soligor; etc 135mm PRESET lenses; that were only about 25 to 35 bucks; instead of about 55 to 60 for an auto diaphram lens. The preset lenses required one to stop down the lens manually for each shot.

[Robert_Lai]

I've played around with 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, 180mm, and 200mm. Do I have NAS or what? I found:<p>

85 and 105 are VERY similar. 85 is similar to taking a few steps back with the 105. I got rid of my 85 for that reason, but it was so sharp I still wonder about getting another 85 again (There's that NAS creeping in).<p>

105 and 135 are kind of the same. Rather like moving in with the 105.<p>The 180 and 200 are almost identical. Both the 180 f/2.8 and 200 f/4 are equally sharp. The 200 is more compact to boot. However, I decided that I liked the shallower depth of field of the 180, so I gave up the 200.<p>What worked for me is the 105 f/2.5 and 180 f/2.8ED, both AIS.<p>Albert's idea of an 85 and 135 is also a valid one.

[charles_miller]

I use an 85mm lens 70% of the time, a 105mm lens 20% of the time, and a 200mm lens 10% of the time. The weight of the 135mm lens is there merely to hold the camera bag down during strong wind gusts. The 135mm f2.8 AI/AIS lens is nearly as good optically as the 105mm f2.5. I simply just don't care for the perspective of a 135mm lens in most cases.

[Sanford]

I have the 105mm AIS and it is possibly Nikon's best ever lens. Years ago I bought one of those cheap 135mm F3.5 AIS Nikkors and it may be Nikon's worst ever lens. The 2.8 version is probably better.

[EricM]

I have the 105 f2.5 and the 135 f2, the 105 gets used ten times more then the 135. The 135 weighs probably three times as much, looks really intimidating, and out in the street, looks more expensive. The 105 is indiscrete and small, optically perfect. I say go with the 105.

[david_h._hartman]

I started two Nikon systems, one single-coated and one multi-coated.

Both times my first lens was a 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. Both times my

second lens was a 105/2.5. <br>

<br>

The 135/3.5 AI and AIS is a better lens than most people know but

its not a 105/2.5. Both the 135/3.5 and 2.8 are good lenses.

Not surprisingly the multi-coated versions outperform the single-coated

ones.<br>

<br>

Here is an article you might like to read...<br>

<br>

Tale Five: Best-selling Mid-range Telescopic Lens <a

href="http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/n05_e.htm"

target="_new"><u>AI Nikkor 105 mm f/2.5 by SATO, Haruo</u></a><br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave.

[robert_vanlane]

For me the 105mm is a long standard lens and the 135mm is a short tele lens. I mostly used the 135mm for photographing race cars. But using a 135mm shooting indoor events is a little tight.

[roland_vink]

Hi, I have used both lenses. Here's a comparison:

<ul>

<li>They weigh the same.

<li>The 135/2.8 has a slightly longer barrel, but both are compact compared to the tele-zooms most people use these days.

<li>Both accept 52mm filters.

<li>Both have a built-in hood.

<li>The 135/2.8 is only 1/3 stop slower than the 105/2.5.

<li>They are sharp, high resolution lenses. Performance is best at middle distances but very good at infinity and at close range.

<li>Both have good resistance to flare and ghosting.

<li>Both have smooth rendition of background objects (smooth bokeh).

<li>Both have 7 aperture blades.

</ul>

In terms of focal length the 135/2.8 offers more reach with only a slight penalty in speed and size, other factors such as weight, cost and optical qualities are similar. In that respect the 135/2.8 gives more bang for the buck.

<p>

The 135/2.8 is the longest lens which comfortably fits my travel bag so I often use it when travelling. I feel 105mm is too short, and I don't want to carry a bigger lens. I found 135 is great for outdoor shooting, it's a nice focal length for picking out details in a scene and it's an excellent portrait lens. I don't use if for indoor work as it usually requires more space than is available inside. The fast speed makes this lens handy for handheld work and in low light, I've used it sucessfully for photographing stage performances.

<p>

The 105/2.5 may be a better lens if your primary focus is portraiture. The shorter working distance makes it more useful for indoor work and it is equally suitable for outdoor photography. It has a slight speed advantage, combined with the shorter focal length makes it better for handheld work in low light.

<p>

Your choice will depend on what you have already and what type of photohgraphy you do. If lens speed is less important, you could also consider the series-E 75-150/3.5. It nicely covers the short-tele range and delivers very good results. You gain the advantages of a zoom with a slight penalty in size, weight and speed, although it is still a fast and compact lens. Best wishes!

[stephen_bartlett1]

I own both the 105mm 2.5 AIS and the 135mm 2.8 AIS. I have owned two copies of the 135mm. I was disappointed in the first sample so I sold it. I picked up another at a good price and I am much happier with the second sample. Both lenses are sharp but the 105mm is slightly sharper. Both lenses are at their best at middle distances. Both are weakest at their close focusing distance.

 

IMHO the 105 is the definitive portrait lens of it's time. If I were taking a portrait that is the lens I would choose. At portrait distances it is superb and I prefer it's bokeh over the 135mm. I tend to use the 135mm when traveling to pick out details. When using extension tubes I also prefer using the 135mm over the 105mm.