p.1 #1 · Should I wait for Nikon 70-200/4 VR or go for AF-D 135/2 DC?
Recently got the D600 & found that missing the 105-150mm for portraiture.
I was considering to buy the 135/2 DC but the 70-200/4 VR announced....
Should I wait for the 70-200/4VR or go for 135/2 DC? Or should I even wait for the updated 135/2?
Any recommendation from D600 users? Is it 135/2 DC too old now?
I'm a bit worried about the CA & slowish focus from 135/2 DC just...
p.1 #7 · Should I wait for Nikon 70-200/4 VR or go for AF-D 135/2 DC?
The 105/2.5 is indeed a great lens -- though not so great if you want/need AF.
The 135/2 and the new 70-200/4 are a long way apart -- I wouldn't consider them really competitive with one another in any meaningful way. Two stop difference, VR zoom vs. prime, etc.
I think the most significant competition for the 135/2DC actually comes not from a zoom, but from the Sigma 150/2.8. Yes, it's a stop slower, but it's fantastic wide open (better than the 135 and any of the 70-200 zooms), and makes a great portrait lens. Both the OS and non-OS versions are amazing optically -- the former is lighter and cheaper, the latter adds decent stabilization and much faster autofocus.
p.1 #8 · Should I wait for Nikon 70-200/4 VR or go for AF-D 135/2 DC?
It's all a matter of taste and obviously, there are differences. I own both of the DC lenses and the 70-200vr, 85 f/1.4d, and Sigma 150. I like the 70-200 and 85 for portraits, but I can't imagine not using a DC lens when appropriate, over those or any of the other lenses mentioned. The DC lenses are designed specifically for portraits and do a wonderful job of it, in spite of their age and other alleged failings. The 85 is the only thing really close to them, IMO.
That's my opinion, worth every penny you paid for it.
Kerry
p.1 #9 · Should I wait for Nikon 70-200/4 VR or go for AF-D 135/2 DC?
lexdiamonnyc wrote:
i think the 70-200/4 should be available soon.........if you can't wait just pony up the $$$ and get the 70-200VR2.
the 135/2DC is great but not better than any of the 70-200's....
+1
I used to own the 135/2DC and found it to be just OK and no better than my 135/2 AIS. Even the AF was quirky and unreliable and I had to resort to MF. Closed down is was no better than my 80-200AFS or 70-200VRII . . .
I would wait. There will be many more reviews in the coming couple of weeks and it will be available for direct purchase soon as well.
p.1 #10 · Should I wait for Nikon 70-200/4 VR or go for AF-D 135/2 DC?
jsbeith wrote:
Looking at Andy's results in the other thread - you might want to wait and see how the 70-200 f/4 VR compares. A few more weeks might be worth it...
Scott
After a busy working day, I'm very appreciated & enjoyed what Andy shared the new lens of 70-200/4 VR. (I opened the larger files & checked! I never did it b4! lol) Really thank you to Andy. I think I may wait for it. But not 100% really. Still dream about the 135/2 DC since I tried my friend's 105/2 DC. And it's really really good quality pictures it produced....
p.1 #11 · Should I wait for Nikon 70-200/4 VR or go for AF-D 135/2 DC?
lexdiamonnyc wrote:
i think the 70-200/4 should be available soon.........if you can't wait just pony up the $$$ and get the 70-200VR2.
the 135/2DC is great but not better than any of the 70-200's....
Thank you for your suggestion. But I won't consider the 70-200/2.8 VRII since it's too big but my palm is not big enough.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
The 105/2.5 is indeed a great lens -- though not so great if you want/need AF.
......
I think the most significant competition for the 135/2DC actually comes not from a zoom, but from the Sigma 150/2.8. Yes, it's a stop slower, but it's fantastic wide open.....
Also thank you for your suggestion. I had the Sigma 150/2.8 macro few years ago. But I sold it since of my small hand also. It's a really really sharp & good macro lens. But I even can't hold half of the lens barrel... So, I finally sold it online after used about a year. :P
jhinkey wrote:
+1
I used to own the 135/2DC and found it to be just OK and no better than my 135/2 AIS. Even the AF was quirky and unreliable and I had to resort to MF. Closed down is was no better than my 80-200AFS or 70-200VRII . . .
I would wait. There will be many more reviews in the coming couple of weeks and it will be available for direct purchase soon as well.
I think you might got a bad copy of the 135/2DC. As I said above, I tried the 105/2DC. I believed the 135/2DC won't be too big difference from it's little brother. But I know the focusing speed is weakness point on 135/2DC... Hope Nikon will update the 135/2 as soon as possible. And with DC function also!
p.1 #12 · Should I wait for Nikon 70-200/4 VR or go for AF-D 135/2 DC?
If Nikon updates the 135/2, I doubt it will include DC. Instead, I would expect it to be VR, heavier and larger than the 150/2.8 Sigma, and over $2000 USD.
p.1 #14 · Should I wait for Nikon 70-200/4 VR or go for AF-D 135/2 DC?
williamkazak wrote:
Have you tried the new 85mm F1.8G? I sold my 105 F2 Dc and I bought the 85G. It is that good for me.
I have 85/1.8G already. It's great. So, 105mm is so close to 85mm, that's why not consider 90 or 105mm.
But I think I will wait for the regular review of 70-200/4VR. Let's see.
Thanks to all!
