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

  

Archive 2014 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1

  
 
canerino
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1


Greetings all!

I am a wedding shooter and I just made the switch from Canon to Nikon I had a 5d3 and 5d2 with 24L/35L/85L/135L.

My Nikon setup will be similar. D750s with 28 1.8G/35 1.8G/85 1.8G.

Now, on the long end I'm not quite sure I'm going to do. My 135L sees very limited use when covering weddings. I would really only use it for ceremonies and then it would stay in my bag...it made for a very small percentage of my shots.

I am considering the 135 f/2 for Nikon. I understand it is not 'as good' as the Canon L. I would be OK with that, to be honest. But I'm considering a 70-200 v1 to add some flexibility on the long end.

How do these two lenses compare optically? Keep in mind, I'm a complete Nikon newb.

Thanks!

Chuck




Nov 06, 2014 at 11:26 AM
the solitaire
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1


The 135mm f2 DC and 70-200 f2,8 VR are such different lenses in basically everything I would not want to compare them or advise for one against the other. You would know if and why you would NEED the 135 f2 DC whereas the 70-200 f2,8 (for full frame better see if you can stretch your budget for the VRII version which is better in the corners and edges on full frame) is indeed a flexible and optically excellent lens.

The 135 DC is a special purpose lens. Best read up on it here (even though it was used on a DX sensor camera here):

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/225-nikkor-af-135mm-f2-d-dc-review--test-report

The other Nikon 135mm f2 option is the 135 f2 Ai-S, a manual focus lens from the 1980's that can be found used for about $500 in excellent shape and is optically every bit as interesting as the autofocus version but without the DC confusion

The AF version focuses slowly. Something to keep in mind as well.



Nov 06, 2014 at 11:43 AM
canerino
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1


Thanks for the info.

I really do not want to stretch my budget on a lens that will really see limited use.



Nov 06, 2014 at 01:36 PM
craigjohn
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1


I love the 70-200 VR v1. So much so, I never considered upgrading the second version. I prefer the character it gives in the corners wide open.

I don't have the 135/2DC (yet), but it's on the docket as a 2015 purchase. It's little brother, the 105/2 DC is considered the better of the two. But the 135/2DC is no slouch. If you can get away with Manual focus lenses, the Zeiss 135/2 is obscenely good. <--- Nikon needs to step up their game. The third party lenses (Zeiss and Sigma) are killing it lately.



Nov 07, 2014 at 10:19 AM
dgleason
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1


I'm in the same boat as you Chuck.. Just order my 750's yesterday and I've been looking for a good alternative for the 135. Except for me I use the 135 quite often.. I'm considering this Sigma 150 mac. It seems like it could be a very useful lens. I also noticed on shotkit that Davina and Daniel are using it... must be good stuff


Nov 07, 2014 at 10:44 AM
visionguru
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1


I had 135DC for 2 years. It's beautiful. But I had to fine tune at the distance I intend to shoot in order to get tack sharp results. It's slightly long for indoor use, so I sold it after 100 pictures.

70-200 seems to have more flexibility, though it doesn't have the 3D feel of the subject and not as nice bokeh.

Nikon has officially discontinued 135DC and 105DC. I suspect there will be a new 135/2 coming.



Nov 07, 2014 at 12:15 PM
gnjphotography
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1


I am seeing some great images and hearing great things about the 70-200 f/4. If you are like me and use f/4 for most of your images of the bride and groom or during the ceremony to ensure the both are in acceptable focus it should work perfectly. It is lighter and Cliff Mautner and Susan Stripling have been giving it some pretty rave reviews.


Nov 07, 2014 at 12:20 PM
mshi
Offline
• • • •
[X]
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1


135DC is not suitable for fast-paced event photography because its AF speed is not very fast and accurate if shooting wide open. 70-200VRII is far more suitable in my opinion and it's better lens too.


Nov 07, 2014 at 06:38 PM
truittmedia
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 135 f/2 vs 70-200 f/2.8 V1


I absolutely LOVE my 135/2 DC, but like the others have said it's a very special purpose lens and unless I'm at a place that is wide open where I can walk around a bit I don't even think of using it. The xx-200 gets far more use because it is just that much more versatile in a fast-changing wedding (I chose the 80-200 for $$/performance reasons).


Nov 07, 2014 at 08:02 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

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.