Are you complaining that Nikon needs a general purpose 135 f2 lens or are you complaining about the Nikon 135 f2 DC? If it's the latter... well, the 135 f2 DC could be used for sports... though I am not sure how well it would perform in this capacity. It is after all (along with the 105 f2 DC) a unique lens designed primarily as a portrait lens. It has the DC (Defocus Control) feature that permits some subtle control over the smoothness of the OOF areas of the image.
Similarly on the Canon side I doubt you would use the 85 1.2 for sports. It is again an optic designed for a fairly specific purpose (I am guessing).
Just frustrates me that the Nikon hasn't released a 135/2 that competes with the AF speed of the Canon counterpart. I love my Nikkor 200mm F2 but sometimes I need something a little shorter at F2 for sports. And please do not tell me the slow AF performance of the Nikkor 135mm F/2.0D is a feature. They need to update this lens soon!
It's a portrait lens not a sports lens but that said it's ridiculous this lens has STILL not been updated. It's full of CA, 1990s af and comprehensibly outperformed by zooms but still costs the best part of £1000.
Stick with the 70-200. With nikon's current price gouging policy on lenses don't expect the updated version to cost under 2 grand anyway.
The Nikon 135mm f2 has nothing on the Canon 135mm f2. I dislike using the term "hands down" but you may attach it if it makes you feel better.
This is not to say that Nikon's version isn't any good. It's still a great lens that offers a very unique look but it just isn't in the same class as the Canon 135mm f2. The AF speed is wonderful and so is the sharpness.
I'm sure Nikon will release a new 135mm f2 soon. We are way over due for a new version. Too bad its probably going to cost twice as much as the canon version.
Kittyk wrote:
it focuses fast and if you don't mess with DC is as good as anything canon has to offer.
truth is that 99,974 bodies come out not really calibrated so you need to AFfinetune it.
Sorry, Kitty...it's not. AF is a joke compared to the Canon as well as the copious amounts of CA.
Looking forward to the new 135 f2 VR II Nano...that'll shut-up the L boys and I'll gladly pay 2 grand for the privilege
trenchmonkey wrote:
Sorry, Kitty...it's not. AF is a joke compared to the Canon as well as the copious amounts of CA.
Looking forward to the new 135 f2 VR II Nano...that'll shut-up the L boys and I'll gladly pay 2 grand for the privilege
Exactly! If the Nikkor 135L is anything like the 200/2 AFS--I too will pony up the $2K.
I used the 135L alot back in the day shooting HS basketball and volleyball. I tried the Nikkor variety and was very dissapointed. Same for the 105/2.
williamkazak wrote:
Just get the 70-200 F2.8 VR2. I don't know why a sports shooter would choose a prime. (I don't know why a landscape shooter would get a zoom).
Well, the only reason a sports shooter would get a prime is if it's f/2. A f/2.8 prime makes no sense unless it's a 300/2.8 or so . . . .
I'm getting a 135/2 DC for low speed, low light action and perhaps some daylight action where I really want f/2 isolation (I can't afford the 200/2 which I'd really love to have, but my back is glad I don't have).
trenchmonkey wrote:
Sorry, Kitty...it's not. AF is a joke compared to the Canon as well as the copious amounts of CA.
Looking forward to the new 135 f2 VR II Nano...that'll shut-up the L boys and I'll gladly pay 2 grand for the privilege
it have some CA but only in OOF areas. I dont find it really disturbing. But i am looking forward for updated version as well... I miss manual focus override which would be whole game changer for DC lens.
williamkazak wrote:
Just get the 70-200 F2.8 VR2. I don't know why a sports shooter would choose a prime. (I don't know why a landscape shooter would get a zoom).
Yea primes so suck at sports.
all with a 200/2 baseball was through a chainlink fence.
williamkazak wrote:
Just get the 70-200 F2.8 VR2. I don't know why a sports shooter would choose a prime. (I don't know why a landscape shooter would get a zoom).
I have a Nikkor 70-200 F2.8 VR2 and a Canon 135/2. The 135/2 much like the 200/2 has a "pop" to the images that you don't get with 70-200's. When looking at our images from the weekend I can't always tell you if it was taken on a Nikon body or Canon body but I can usually tell if it was taken on a 135/2 or 200/2 vs 70-200 lens.
I own the 135 f/2 DC, and it's an amazing portrait lens. However I would agree that it has too many shortcomings to make a great action sports lens. The AF isn't terribly slow, but it has nothing on the lighting fast 200 f/2. What a amazing piece of glass that 200 is. (sigh, drool, want...).
My friend has the Canon 135. The Canon lens has a much closer MFD. I find that I have a hard time composing some headshots, especially when shooting DX, with the Nikon lens. It would be nice to get in a little closer at times. It's less of an issue when using the D3S.
I'm not sure if the 85 1.4 accepts TCs or not, I believe it does. But why not take and slap a 1.4 TC on a 85 1.4 and you get a 120 f2.0 which is close enough... with quite fast AF speed.
trenchmonkey wrote:
Sorry, Kitty...it's not. AF is a joke compared to the Canon as well as the copious amounts of CA.
Looking forward to the new 135 f2 VR II Nano...that'll shut-up the L boys and I'll gladly pay 2 grand for the privilege
+1
I own the 135 f/2 DC, and it's an amazing portrait lens. However I would agree that it has too many shortcomings to make a great action sports lens. The AF isn't terribly slow, but it has nothing on the lighting fast 200 f/2. What a amazing piece of glass that 200 is. (sigh, drool, want...).
My friend has the Canon 135. The Canon lens has a much closer MFD. I find that I have a hard time composing some headshots, especially when shooting DX, with the Nikon lens. It would be nice to get in a little closer at times. It's less of an issue when using the D3S.
AF is a joke compared to the Canon as well as the copious amounts of CA. 
