Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
  

Archive 2014 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?

  
 
RogerC11
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


I use the 85 1.8G. It's fantastic!








Apr 10, 2015 at 10:50 PM
Gregg Heckler
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


"Just use 70-200VR2 instead and you've got all the FL you mentioned. Besides, it's much better."

I have both and I love both. But the 70-200 is definitely not better, especially at f/1.4

If you get the 85 1.4, get the g.



Apr 10, 2015 at 11:46 PM
Frogfish
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


mshi wrote:
You might have steady hands but many still prefer using VR so that they can select lower ISO. Maybe your better is better than Nikon's better? That can't be the case. Go look up each's lens construction and count how many or lack of ED elements in your proclaimed 85/105/135, which explains why there are inherently just so much AF inconsistencies and purple fringe and slow AF speed in your beloved but sperannuanted lenses. The look that the DC gives you or the do-called skintones can be easily achieved in post if you shoot raw by the way.


So I suppose what you are saying is that modern lenses are by their very nature superior to pre-ED lenses ...... and yet that is patently not always true. Sometimes it is the aberrations inherent in older lenses that occasionally trump technical perfection. Delivering that je ne sais quoi, or a specific quality, that users adore above modern clinicality.

Am I saying the 135 DC is superior to the 70-200 VRII ? Only in specific circumstances. Including those circumstances when AF is not a paramount virtue. If AF was so important Zeiss, Samyang etc. are obviously on the wrong track. Same applies to VR.

It's also not possible to develop a PS/LR etc. pre-set to specifically replicate the 135 skin tones (never mind it's other qualities) for every situation, so that's a lot of PP that most people don't, or can't be bothered, to try. PF is removed within 5 seconds in LR and really isn't an issue (it's not always present of course).

A 135/2 is a wonderful lens that an awful lot of people find a 70-200 can't replace. Hence why numerous manufacturers continue to develop them even when surrounded by excellent 70-200s, including their own.



Apr 11, 2015 at 12:59 AM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


I'm glad to hear they are the money makers for many of you. The tax season is here and I'm sure the more income taxes you can pay the stronger the country can become.

I'm really glad those glasses can create the win-win situation for everyone here. I don't have any skin in this since I don't shoot professionally and make no money out of photography. Once the 70-200VR2 arrived in my hands in late 2009, I look at my pix objectively, and as the result I immediately sold both DC lenses and later even sold the VR2 because I found my favorite focal range has become somewhere between 40 and 60. I know my taste is horrible but I'm no whore and I shoot for myself.



Apr 11, 2015 at 02:01 AM
Disaster
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


I love to shoot portraits. I've owned most of the lenses discussed in this thread. I owned the 105 and 135mm DC lenses. Both are gone now.

While they definitely have traits that people love for soft portraits, these same traits limit there usefulness outside of portrait shooting, imho. They have insane amounts of CA and are fairly soft wide open. They are the sharpest with the DC control centered but it isn't always centered by default (mfgr tolerances.) Changing the DC moves the focus point so you need to adjust your fine tune if you are going use different DC settings. They are old screw drive lenses which aren't quite as reliable or repeatable focusing as modern internal focus motor lenses. IMHO, these are lenses from another era, optimized for film where you can't post process like you can with digital. They soften and smear colors and are low contrast. Today I prefer a sharp lens with great micro contrast. If I want to soften a portrait I can do that with a couple processing steps in Photoshop

The Nikon 105 micro isn't a bad portrait lens in a pinch if it's all you have but it focus breaths and loses aperture at closer distances so instead of a 105mm F2.8 you end up with a 95mm F3.5. That makes it less versatile than your 85mm F1.8 Nikon which isn't a bad lens (though the 105 does have VR which is nice.)

The 70-200 F2.8 is a very good portrait lens (probably the most popular studio lens), sharp with a nice range of portrait focal lengths. It focus breathes heavily though and ends up being only 132mm at it's closest focus distance. It's image stabilization is a plus.

The Zeiss 135mm APO F2 is insanely good, one of the sharpest lenses available, fantastic bokeh, and almost no CA. It is, however, a challenge to manually focus any lens on a modern SLR but especially a 135mm.

The Sigma 85mm F1.4 is really, really sharp. It has very nice bokeh and fairly good CA performance. It is my goto portrait lens. I don't know that you would see a huge difference between it and your Nikon F1.8, though, and the Nikon is much smaller and lighter.

Honestly, I think you should spend a little more time with your Nikon 85mm F1.8. It is a very nice lens, lightweight, sharp, fairly good CA performance and decent bokeh.

Another one to consider, if you are willing to give manual focus a try, is the Samyang 135mm F2. It is a much sharper lens with much less CA than the Nikon DC. It has 90% of the Zeiss's performance at one third the price.

For portraits in the studio, stopped down with monolights there any number of lenses will work. I prefer to work with sharp primes myself, most of my shots are from the 35/50/85/135 primes, but most zooms are more than adequate (just bulkier to work with.)

To recap, you already have a decent portrait lens in the 85mm F1.8. Go out and give it a try and when you start running into specific limitations you may have better direction on what to buy.



Apr 11, 2015 at 04:15 AM
agelessphotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


Some of you guys act like the 135 F2 DC is too soft, I don't see it. At least not with mine. I just took these today with my lens, does this look soft to you guys? Or did I just get a great copy?

1
DSC_0265 by agelessphotog, on Flickr

2
DSC_0258 by agelessphotog, on Flickr

3
DSC_0221 by agelessphotog, on Flickr

4
DSC_0239 by agelessphotog, on Flickr



Apr 11, 2015 at 09:44 PM
wsalopek
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


Beautiful. No softness there.

--

Bill




Apr 12, 2015 at 02:07 AM
suteetat
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


I think it is very natural looking,sharp enough but if you compare it to
Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar, Leica 50/2 apo, 85/1.4G, those lenses will look sharper, more contrasty with more pop than 135/2 dc. For me it is just a different look and each is more suited to certain purpose. When I take my friends' pictures (mostly in their 40's), they do like 135/2 dc more. less blemish detected for sure



Apr 12, 2015 at 03:39 AM
Disaster
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


suteetat wrote:
I think it is very natural looking,sharp enough but if you compare it to
Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar, Leica 50/2 apo, 85/1.4G, those lenses will look sharper, more contrasty with more pop than 135/2 dc. For me it is just a different look and each is more suited to certain purpose. When I take my friends' pictures (mostly in their 40's), they do like 135/2 dc more. less blemish detected for sure


Agreed. Stopped down the Nikon isn't too lacking in sharpness. Wide open is is much softer than the Zeiss and has a lot of CA, low contrast and "color bleeding." The sharpness and micro-contrast of the Zeiss wide open is amazing. I never thought a lens could be so sharp at F2. The Nikon can't touch it at any aperture. The Sigma 85mm is as sharp and "clean" at F1.4 as the Nikon is at F3.5.



Apr 12, 2015 at 08:49 AM
agelessphotog
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


I understand the Zeiss is sharper. However, I can tell you when I got my 135 F2 DC it was really soft. It was front focusing bad and even fine tuning +20 didn't correct it. I sent it back to Nikon with a detailed email of what was going on. Talked to a tech and said I wanted it calibrated for a D750, not sent back with the same issue. He assured me it would be fixed. I got it back and the difference was huge. No fine tuning needed at all now. No longer do I have a soft lens. Of course the Zeiss is sharper. But after they calibrated it, it's every bit as sharp as my 1.8 Nikon lenses. I don't look at the photos and think, "if they were only sharper" like I use to. Sadly I think for what ever reason the 135 F2 needs calibrated for new cameras and most people don't have it done. It's really stupid it doesn't come from the factory calibrated correctly like other lenses. But it is an easy fix. I was without the lens for 1 week. And now it's my favorite lens by far. I personally couldn't use a manual focus lens for portraits, no matter how sharp.




Apr 12, 2015 at 09:50 AM
Disaster
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?


agelessphotog wrote:
I understand the Zeiss is sharper. However, I can tell you when I got my 135 F2 DC it was really soft. It was front focusing bad and even fine tuning +20 didn't correct it. I sent it back to Nikon with a detailed email of what was going on. Talked to a tech and said I wanted it calibrated for a D750, not sent back with the same issue. He assured me it would be fixed. I got it back and the difference was huge. No fine tuning needed at all now. No longer do I have a soft
...Show more

My 135 was dead on in the center position and didn't require any calibration on my D810. Having said that it was definitely softer than my Nikon 85mm F1.8 wide open with tons more CA. The Zeiss is in another stratosphere altogether. One could argue whether the Zeiss level of sharpness is really a benefit with portrait photography but one would never question it has much more contrast and sharpness when reviewing both side by side with the Nikon or Canon 135mm F2's.



Apr 12, 2015 at 10:18 AM
1       2      
3
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.