Although my go-to portrait lens is the 85 f/1.4 Nikkor, I also use both the 105DC and 135DC - both brilliant lenses, both optimised for FX format.The 135 is probably the sharpest lens I own (all Nikkors) and absolutely superb for portraiture.
I guess the deciding factor for you will be their most-used shooting-distance, which is why I have all three 'portrait' primes in the bag.
I've owned both DC lenses. The 105 can sometimes leave you with odd shaped OOF highlights, even when wide open, due to the placement of the aperture blades. Here's an extreme example (not my image, but I can confirm this is the kind of performance that made me sell mine):
The 135 never fails to please when used wide open. I sold one and then bought it again. I'm going to upgrade to the G version whenever it comes out--it's a portrait length that suits my work perfectly.
I own a 105 f2 DC, and I am amaized that no one has even mentioned the Defocus Control capability when comparing it to the other Nikon lenses.
I shot this with my 105 f2 DC and used Rear Defocus. Notice how the focus immediately behind the foot just drops off. It defies physics of all other lenses. The blurred bubble right behind the tail is a pinpoint specular highlight on the water.
agelessphotog wrote:
I guess it's preference. I like the really buttery bokeh. Even when shooting at 2.0 to 4.0 I think my 135 F2 looks better than my newer Nikon lenses. Bokeh and skin tones. If I had to shoot it with my D600 I wouldn't use it as much, but on my D750 the AF has been perfect so far.
I've used the 135 DC on both D800 & D3s. Gorgeous bokeh, beautiful skin tones and rendering, very sharp indeed, acceptable and very accurate AF. No complaints here whatsoever (PF but that is very easily removed in PP, 10 secs from start to finish) and for portraits I have nothing better and there is nothing better in my price range (meaning that excludes the 200/2). The 300/2.8 VRII does great portraiture too - but then that's something entirely different.
Frogfish wrote:
I've used the 135 DC on both D800 & D3s. Gorgeous bokeh, beautiful skin tones and rendering, very sharp indeed, acceptable and very accurate AF. No complaints here whatsoever (PF but that is very easily removed in PP, 10 secs from start to finish) and for portraits I have nothing better and there is nothing better in my price range (meaning that excludes the 200/2). The 300/2.8 VRII does great portraiture too - but then that's something entirely different.
Agree completely, the only lens I thought was better than the 135 DC for portraits was the 200 F2 and it was out of my price range.
I had both. The closer focus distance of the 105mm is nice when working in indoor environments, but is awfully close to 85mm and the 85's are faster and much sharper lenses wide open with much less CA. The 135mm, IMHO, is better from a differentiation standpoint to the 85mm.
They really are good lenses for dreamy portrait shooting, but not without some issues. The CA is the worst I've seen in a non legacy lens. The focus reliability is not as good as modern G lenses with their internal focus motors (kind of like the difference between the 85 F1.4D and G.) The focus point moves with the DC ring so changing the DC ring during a shooting session will cause front or back focus. It is better to set it, fine tune the focus, and then forget it. The sharpness and more so the contrast degrades as you move the DC ring off center. I've read that the DC ring is often not properly centered which means the true DC center position might be somewhere between 0 and -2 or +2 so getting the maximum sharpness out of this lens is difficult unless you can somehow lock the ring on the true center.
Having said all that I will reiterate it works well for portraits and the CA smearing actually creates a nice dreaminess.
For me the negatives outweighed the positives. I will either buy the even more expensive but optically excellent Zeiss APO (which is one of the sharpest lenses available, albeit manual focus), the new Samyang 135 F2 (which is optically much optically superior to the Nikon or Canon offerings but also manual focus) or maybe wait to see what Sigma or Tamron offer. In the meantime I'm getting by with the Sigma 85mm F1.4, Nikon 105 micro and Tamron 70-200 F2.8 (which breathes down to 140 or so at close focus distances...like the Nikon VR2.)
I like the 135/2 DC for basketball actually...very sharp, and smooth rendering...and the F2 vs the 2.8 on my 70-200 saves some shots when ISO noise levels are right at the edge.
mshi wrote:
Some mentioned a few people whom I have never heard of nor seen their works because I'm more inclined to see the works of more widely acclaimed photographers whose works can be seen in most prestigious galleries around the world. Photography, after all, like anything else in the age of market, is a commodity. Some may like that ultra thin DOF and some may not. As long as one can make a buck out of it, everything goes in this world.
I disagree. Even at 2.8 or 4.0 the DC has better bokeh than the 70-200, more buttery.
agelessphotog wrote:
I really don't understand the 105 DC vs 135 DC, basically the only difference is the focal length. Do you want the focal length at 105 or 135?
Optically they are different though, for example the 105mm is pretty clear of CA while the 135mm struggles.
I used my Nikkor DC 135 f/2.0 lens for several images for my Harper's BAZAAR shoot. They were all shot wide open at f/2.0 on my Nikon D800 and all around 400 to 640 iso:
