Just some grabs from the weekend to help me evaluate this "new" lens I received on Friday. A few of these were already posted in People, and there's a few there that aren't here. Numbers 6-8 were shot at f/2.8; the others wide open.
Anyone recall if the Early non-AI version is the same optically as the "newer' AI-s?
I'll admit I have a 135 f/2 AI-s that I haven't really used much, and I was wondering about the different iterations.
jhinkey wrote:
What camera did you use for these images?
- John
Sorry, I missed your question...I just saw your post in the other thread, that you were not thrilled with your 135, so I was digging around to see if you had posted here. As you can see, I love it. These were all shot with a D3.
I have the lens mounted to my D2x at the moment....it seems quite competent there as well, though I have only done some boring test shots....hoping to find a good subject tomorrow.
Todd Adamson wrote:
Sorry, I missed your question...I just saw your post in the other thread, that you were not thrilled with your 135, so I was digging around to see if you had posted here. As you can see, I love it. These were all shot with a D3.
I have the lens mounted to my D2x at the moment....it seems quite competent there as well, though I have only done some boring test shots....hoping to find a good subject tomorrow.
Thanks Todd - I was saving my 135/2 for an FX body as it seems the resolution of my D300 may be too much for it - or my MF skills just haven't caught up with this lens/body combo. I need to take it out for a spin one of these days and give it a go.
I have to chuckle at how folks on this board keep sharing the wealth, thereby stimulating those of us suffering from Nikon Acquisition Syndrome to ADD to our shopping lists. I'd pretty much ruled this lens out of my future, telling myself that as much as I loved the 135 f/2L that remains in my Canon kit, I didn't pull it out that often... and that I have the 105 f/2.5 AS-s as well as the Sigma 150 f/2.8 and don't NEED to cover that focal length. But then I see these images and the sweet bokeh produced by this oldie but goodie and my resolve melts.
I'm afraid I may have to up the maximum I'm willing to pay for what up until now has been a relatively inexpensive pleasure to accommodate the 135 f/2 AND the 105 f1.8... I may just have to sell another Canon lens...
Great shots Todd! Nice to see your family will still let you take their photos. You can tell they're much practiced as models. My friends have gradually become accustomed to having lenses pointed at their face.
Thanks, you guys. Curtis, if you're shelling out more cash in the future for this lens, it's Karma, pure and simple. I don't think I'd have even been thinking about it if it weren't for you mentioning and showing shots from the 200 f/4, which really got me started looking at old teles (the only reason I was looking at MF before your post was to explore wide angles, which really isn't my shooting style). So, your fault, bub.
Yes, the bokeh on this lens is wonderful....in some ways it has the same feel as some of the shots I saw that first made me notice the 200/2 VR, which I could never afford. While I would have scoffed only last month at the prospect of dropping $500+ for such a dinosaur, I am now keeping my eyes open for another one, just in case anything happens to this one. I love it that much. It's so easy to MF this lens, and it has an incredible heavy quality build feel to it.
And that, of course, is what captivated me with the 180 f/2.8 ED AI-s. It is a big, heavy lens unlike the smaller beauties that feels wonderful mounted on the camera. This was shot wide open, hand held with the 180.
This lens is definitely my new "Cream Machine." But I do need to pick up something closer to the 85 to replace the 1.4 I just sold. For studio use, at least.
