I've owned both for years, along with the 85 f/1.4d. I don't have a preference on which one to use. It just depends on how much room I've got and what kind of shoot I'm doing, ie portrait session vs shooting candids or PJ style.
I'd guess that I've used the 135 the most, simply because I like to do PJ or candid style and the longer focal length usually gives me flexibility that the others don't.
The DC lenses are notorious for their poor AF accuracy largely due to their lack of spherical aberration correction - partly because of the need to obtain better skin tones in camera before the digital era - and the issue is particularly acute when shooting at wide open or near wide open. Though DOF is inherently different between f/2 and f/2.8 at a given focus distance, the difference is not hugely different. Bokeh is more a personal preference and taste which is hard to quantity scientifically. Overall, 70-200VRII outperforms both of them, easily.
I had the 135 for a few years and sold it when I got the 70-200/4.0 VR. Every time a read a 135 thread, I regret selling it and wish it was still an option available to me. The 135 renders lovely images for sure. The only nit is that f2.0 gives up a little bit of sharpness/contrast/saturation over f2.8, so I always tried to stop the 135 down just a bit. And, I think that is the best argument favoring the f2.8 zoom.
But yes, Nikon please give us a 135/2.0VR with all the latest Nikkor goodness, and I will buy one.
mshi wrote:
The DC lenses are notorious for their poor AF accuracy largely due to their lack of spherical aberration correction - partly because of the need to obtain better skin tones in camera before the digital era - and the issue is particularly acute when shooting at wide open or near wide open. Though DOF is inherently different between f/2 and f/2.8 at a given focus distance, the difference is not hugely different. Bokeh is more a personal preference and taste which is hard to quantity scientifically. Overall, 70-200VRII outperforms both of them, easily.
Skin tones and bokeh are much better on the DC lenses than the 70-200VRII. Af may not be as accurate or fast but IQ is better. Also I can tell you the AF on my 135 F2 DC is really good on my D750, not as good on my D600. Even at 2.8 the DC's Bokeh is more buttery and better. The only Nikon lens that renders better skin tones is the 200 F2.
agelessphotog wrote:
Skin tones and bokeh are much better on the DC lenses than the 70-200VRII. Af may not be as accurate or fast but IQ is better. Also I can tell you the AF on my 135 F2 DC is really good on my D750, not as good on my D600. Even at 2.8 the DC's Bokeh is more buttery and better. The only Nikon lens that renders better skin tones is the 200 F2.
Yes and no. If one shoots film or jpg with no post, the answer is yes. If he shoots raw, skin tones can be conveniently changed in post according to his taste since he won't be put into bandage of camera's tyranny. So can any effects of out-of-focus (OOF) blurs.
It seems to me that ultra thin OOF blurs for portraiture, in general, only appeals to newbies. When was the last time that one saw that kind of look in Nadav Kinder's or Annie Leibovitz's portraiture works?
mshi wrote:
Yes and no. If one shoots film or jpg with no post, the answer is yes. If he shoots raw, skin tones can be conveniently changed in post according to his taste since he won't be put into bandage of camera's tyranny. So can any effects of out-of-focus (OOF) blurs.
It seems to me that ultra thin OOF blurs for portraiture, in general, only appeals to newbies. When was the last time that one saw that kind of look in Nadav Kinder's or Annie Leibovitz's portraiture works?
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Lisa Holloway shoot wide open at F2 with her Canon 200 and 135?
agelessphotog wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Lisa Holloway shoot wide open at F2 with her Canon 200 and 135?
She also uses them essentially as landscape lenses, getting 35mm-like compositions with extremely blurred backgrounds, while still keeping enough DOF for her subjects to remain sharp.
It's a very specific use of a very specific and expensive lens (in the 200/2L's case) that likely couldn't be very well replicated with a slower prime or zoom, and it's also not a look for everyone.
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.
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 miss your work there