The combination of sharpness and bokeh wide open is the best I have seen in any lens so far, clearly out doing the Noct, 200mm f2.0 VR, 400mm f2.8 S TC and even 85mm f1.2 S. The only lens I have used that may be even better is the P1 Schneider Blue Ring 150mm f2.8 LS.
Nikon has come up with an absolute wonder of a lens.
Cheers,
Bernard
These are F'ing amazing... I'm looking forward to seeing some night portraits from the streets of Japan and Thailand, as these narrow streets are often filled with colorful lighting. The Plena seems like the portrait shooter's equivalent to the wildlife shooter's long awaited 600PF... a dream lens that increases the opportunity to match one's vision to a realistic outcome.
bernardl wrote:
The combination of sharpness and bokeh wide open is the best I have seen in any lens so far, clearly out doing the Noct, 200mm f2.0 VR, 400mm f2.8 S TC and even 85mm f1.2 S. The only lens I have used that may be even better is the P1 Schneider Blue Ring 150mm f2.8 LS.
Do you think it is significantly better than the 135/2 Apo Sonnar?
I guess I could have taken pictures not much worse with my 135 AS, after corner light fall off correction in PP.
The review from Cameralabs should be online in the next few days.
One of the reviewers of cameralabs, Thomas, has already made a few comments in a german DSLR forum about his Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena review.
For those interested in the Plena, here are his comments, translated into English within the limits of my language skills.
"Everything from the bayonet to the focus ring is metal.
Decentration is low, light fall-off at f1.8 without profile approx. 0.5 f-stops. The profile irons out another approx. 1/6 f-stop, which leaves a light fall-off of 1/3 f-stop.
By the way, the thickness of the lens is not a hindrance when photographing, but it is noticeable when (dis)mounting the lens.
Distortion correction in the camera can be switched off, the shift due to the correction is about 16 pixels outwards - so the lens has some pincushion distortion."
"Longitudinal chromatic aberration: low
Focus shift: not noticeable
AF hit accuracy: 98.7%, no outliers, but a bit more fluctuations e.g. than the Z 85/1.2 S, but better than the Z MC 105mm f2.8 VR S."
"No onion rings appear in the blur circles (a.k.a. "bokeh balls"). Nikon has finely honed the (only) asphere in the plena!
And the cat's eye effect toward the FX corner is probably as slight as I've ever seen on any lens at f1.8. But there I will dig through my archives again...."
"As for focus speed, it's only about 0.5 seconds for static objects from infinity to 1:10 magnification (on the Plena, that's 1.52m).
That's fast and roughly comparable to the Z 400/4.5S, AF-S 500/5.6 or Z 100-400S. How the tracking works with moving objects I can't say, it also depends on the camera and the many settings. But the drive is certainly strong enough to move the two focus groups quickly."
"In the other shots I took today, the bokeh appears very soft in transition and largely free of double contours even in difficult high contrast situations (branches against sky). I didn't see any color fringing at first glance. The night shots today from Neumarkt give better hints.
Another thing I noticed: the quality of the bokeh in the foreground hardly differs from the background. Often optics designers give up foreground quality in favor of background. The plena looks very balanced"
"I am now finished with my systematic and 100% comparable bokeh test images.
My opinion: The Plena is slightly better than the Sigma, but the Z 85/1.2 S is still clearly better (at f1.2) in terms of softness/creaminess - in the middle ground and in the background.
What the Plena is uniquely capable of is creating round bokeh balls even in the extreme corners. No other lens can do that. There is definitely no danger of "swirly bokeh" with the Plena."
"For example, if you have to stop down the Z 85 f/1.2 to F1.8 to achieve the necessary depth of field, it looks similar to the Plena.
With a slight advantage for the Z 85mm f1.2 S in the transition zone behind the plane of focus and a softer rendered foreground on the Plena.
The roundness of the bokeh balls in the FX corner also becomes quite similar."
Vento wrote:
The review from Cameralabs should be online in the next few days.
One of the reviewers of cameralabs, Thomas, has already made a few comments in a german DSLR forum about his Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena review.
For those interested in the Plena, here are his comments, translated into English within the limits of my language skills.
"Everything from the bayonet to the focus ring is metal.
Decentration is low, light fall-off at f1.8 without profile approx. 0.5 f-stops. The profile irons out another approx. 1/6 f-stop, which leaves a light fall-off of 1/3 f-stop.
By the way, the thickness of the lens is not a hindrance when photographing, but it is noticeable when (dis)mounting the lens.
Distortion correction in the camera can be switched off, the shift due to the correction is about 16 pixels outwards - so the lens has some pincushion distortion."
"Longitudinal chromatic aberration: low
Focus shift: not noticeable
AF hit accuracy: 98.7%, no outliers, but a bit more fluctuations e.g. than the Z 85/1.2 S, but better than the Z MC 105mm f2.8 VR S."
"No onion rings appear in the blur circles (a.k.a. "bokeh balls"). Nikon has finely honed the (only) asphere in the plena!
And the cat's eye effect toward the FX corner is probably as slight as I've ever seen on any lens at f1.8. But there I will dig through my archives again...."
"As for focus speed, it's only about 0.5 seconds for static objects from infinity to 1:10 magnification (on the Plena, that's 1.52m).
That's fast and roughly comparable to the Z 400/4.5S, AF-S 500/5.6 or Z 100-400S. How the tracking works with moving objects I can't say, it also depends on the camera and the many settings. But the drive is certainly strong enough to move the two focus groups quickly."
"In the other shots I took today, the bokeh appears very soft in transition and largely free of double contours even in difficult high contrast situations (branches against sky). I didn't see any color fringing at first glance. The night shots today from Neumarkt give better hints.
Another thing I noticed: the quality of the bokeh in the foreground hardly differs from the background. Often optics designers give up foreground quality in favor of background. The plena looks very balanced"
"I am now finished with my systematic and 100% comparable bokeh test images.
My opinion: The Plena is slightly better than the Sigma, but the Z 85/1.2 S is still clearly better (at f1.2) in terms of softness/creaminess - in the middle ground and in the background.
What the Plena is uniquely capable of is creating round bokeh balls even in the extreme corners. No other lens can do that. There is definitely no danger of "swirly bokeh" with the Plena."
"For example, if you have to stop down the Z 85 f/1.2 to F1.8 to achieve the necessary depth of field, it looks similar to the Plena.
With a slight advantage for the Z 85mm f1.2 S in the transition zone behind the plane of focus and a softer rendered foreground on the Plena.
The roundness of the bokeh balls in the FX corner also becomes quite similar."
Interesting but incomplete.
A long review which does not reveal anything not already published.
It is getting rather boring having reviewers either publishing uncorroborated optical measurements or posting photos of night and day scenery avoiding portraits which is the essence of this Plena lens.
The Pena is sharper than the 85/1.2 S.Why don't they say it.
Better Bokeh and better sharpness.
Almass wrote:
Interesting but incomplete.
A long review which does not reveal anything not already published.
It is getting rather boring having reviewers either publishing uncorroborated optical measurements or posting photos of night and day scenery avoiding portraits which is the essence of this Plena lens.
The Pena is sharper than the 85/1.2 S.Why don't they say it.
Better Bokeh and better sharpness.
It's just not particularly relevant for a portrait lens if it is sharper or less sharp than another modern lens of a completely different focal length. Usually people would find it scary to see themselves in such detail, and the rendering of skin by modern lenses looks very different from how we typically see the skin of other people. The photography process tends to accentuate details and bring out blemishes in an unnatural way. Traditionally lenses in this focal range (especially by Nikon but also several others) were designed not to accentuate blemishes, and this was done with a blend of optical aberrations. Somehow this is no longer fashionable and there is a trend for more clinical sharpness, or maybe there is this trend just on camera geek sites, since on social media many portraits certainly are processed not to show too much detail. I personally prefer the optical method where I can use the images without working on them significantly in post. It saves time and arguably the results look more authentic.
What is special about the new Z 135/1.8 is the out of focus rendering, thus it is natural that people post images and report their observations to highlight this characteristic. Many people don't post images of individual people on public forums because there are privacy and data protection concerns, and they may not want to subject their portrait subjects to such exposure even if the subjects would be willing.
You ask for new results that we don't already know, but then imply in another sentence that you don't want to see "uncorroborated" results. One cannot report new findings that are already corroborated (by definition). If it is the same result as reported several times before, then it is corroborated (by the multiple sources). If it is a new result then it's uncorroborated until repeated.
I honestly don't understand the upset.
This is not a review, but only disjointed first impressions of the reviewer from Camerlabs, which he made in a German photo forum at the request of some users in the Nikon 135mm f/1.8 S Plena thread.
Why he doesn't write about the sharpness, because this is not a review, but just the first comments from the camralabs reviewer in a photo forum, which I copied out.
These were not made together, but were individual, self-contained comments within the discussion surrounding the Plena lens in a German photo forum.
So it's no different than Fred Miranda describing a few impressions here while working on one of his reviews in the comments of the lens thread.
This was actually just about giving users who are really itching for the Plena a few initial comments of the cameralabs reviewer.
Of course the final review will work off this point.
These are only first comments during the individual test runs for the review, where he describes his first impressions.
The full review will surely be published in the next few days and the reviewer's testing methodology has not changed compared to his previous reviews, almost all Nikkor Z lens reviews on cameralabs.
Maybe you should wait for the finished review before you throw up because the reviewer might rate some parts differently than you do, or would like to.
With regard to sharpness and aberrations, it's important to keep in mind that less vignetting also means more light rays that are further away from the chief ray are hitting the sensor, including light rays that travel through the more remote parts of the lens.
I would therefore rather expect that sharpness and aberrations are not better than other Nikon lenses with the S designation. Indeed, sharpness and aberration may well be worse as a result of the effort to increase overall esthetic image quality.
I’m sure there are uses for sterile, clinically perfect lenses with no aberrations. But I find myself more interested in the character of individual lenses, and in the ways they deviate from technical perfection (or the ways their designers chose to compromise).
Almass wrote:
It is getting rather boring having reviewers either publishing uncorroborated optical measurements or posting photos of night and day scenery avoiding portraits which is the essence of this Plena lens.
Well, too bad it sounds like that my post of day scenery somehow offended you, but I can't help you with that one. Like I said, I am sure plenty of people will post portraits here anyways. Now, I diagree with one thing. I don't believe Portrait is either the essence or the only subject this lens is meant for. It can be for all other purposes. I didn't buy this for portrait. I am just replacing Zeiss Apo Sonnar with Plena which has AF.
p.3 #10 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
akul wrote:
I am just replacing Zeiss Apo Sonnar with Plena which has AF.
Hi Luka,
I'm quite interested in your opinion.
As you probably know, I own and love the 135/2 Apo Sonnar. I find it (almost) perfect for different photographic genres, from portraiture to landscapes. It has a lovely bokeh, it's razor sharp and has practically nil LoCA.
It exhibits corner light fall off (like ALL similar lenses manufactured for SLR cameras) and, consequently, cat's eyes at the larger apertures in the frame corners. Honestly speaking, corner light fall-off and cat's eyes have never been a problem to me.
So,according to your experience, is the Plena as good as the 135 AS is in different shooting conditions, ranging from portraits to landscapes?
p.3 #11 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
As much as I was hoping for a “new” DC-Nikkor lens, which might be received as a portrait lens, I am happy with what the Plena turned out to be, and look forward to using it for many other things.
p.3 #13 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Ripolini wrote:
Hi Luka,
I'm quite interested in your opinion.
As you probably know, I own and love the 135/2 Apo Sonnar. I find it (almost) perfect for different photographic genres, from portraiture to landscapes. It has a lovely bokeh, it's razor sharp and has practically nil LoCA.
It exhibits corner light fall off (like ALL similar lenses manufactured for SLR cameras) and, consequently, cat's eyes at the larger apertures in the frame corners. Honestly speaking, corner light fall-off and cat's eyes have never been a problem to me.
So,according to your experience, is the Plena as good as the 135 AS is in different shooting conditions, ranging from portraits to landscapes? ...Show more →
Hi Ricardo,
It is a bit too early to tell in order to be fair and sure, I would need to do some comparisons for myself, especially since Apo Sonnar was the least used ZF.2 lens among all ZF.2 I own/ed. However, two big factors I know for sure at this time are:
1. It balances well even with Z6. Weight distribution of the lens is such holding it is not an ordeal. It feels lighter than the actual weight difference with 50/1.2S, we had this conversation before, the weight of Apo Sonnar + ftz make Apo Sonnar unusable hand hold with Z6 in most of my application. With your D 780, I think playing field is different.
2. I will be a whiner. AF on Plena makes a huge difference in the usability of 135mm lens. So far, I am impressed with the AF of Plena, and it really helps. Besides the time I use tripod for stationary portraits, I had hard time getting acceptable focus in portrait with Apo Sonnar with laser thin DOF even with magnified view to focus on Z6. ( It was worse on D810 ). I find the AF for big 135mm Plena, really makes it easy to achieve acceptable focus quite easily. That in itself was the decision to give a try on Plena, and I am pleased with the decision.
I will see about the image quality difference, and I will update when I have more experience with Plena. I am not picky with Loca or cats eye, or vignettes, which I am certain multiple reviews will inform.
p.3 #14 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
I've been doing some comparisons between the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 E and Nikkor 85mm Z f/1.2. But just received the Nikkor Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena about an hour before sunset and took some quick samples with it, all at f/1.8 and JPEG's SOOC.
p.3 #15 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
chatcher wrote:
I’m sure there are uses for sterile, clinically perfect lenses with no aberrations. But I find myself more interested in the character of individual lenses, and in the ways they deviate from technical perfection (or the ways their designers chose to compromise).
Some well corrected lenses feel sterile, such as the Sony GM 135mm f1.8.
I absolutely don't feel that about the images delivered by the Plena so far. It has an absolutely lovable rendering.
I used to own the Zeiss 135mm f2.0 and loved it until I replaced it by the Voigtlander 125mm f2.5 APO manufactured in the same factory in Nagano until the agreement between Cosina and Zeiss prevented them from continuing manufacturing it.
My initial feeling is that the Plena is at least as sharp as the Zeiss, has an even nicer rendering and... is an AF lens. It is IMHO as good or better than the Zeiss Otus 100mm f1.4 that I have considered the best short tele ever designed for 35mm camera until I started to use the Plena. It's in that category of lenses IMHO.
p.3 #16 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
These are F'ing amazing... I'm looking forward to seeing some night portraits from the streets of Japan and Thailand, as these narrow streets are often filled with colorful lighting. The Plena seems like the portrait shooter's equivalent to the wildlife shooter's long awaited 600PF... a dream lens that increases the opportunity to match one's vision to a realistic outcome.
cheers,
bruce
Thanks Bruce! I know you were speaking about the lens rendering but thanks nonetheless.
p.3 #17 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
I am kind of curious. The round bokeh is not just because of lack of optical vignette it seems.
The more I look at it, it almost like if you have any hilight or any out of focus area with bright spot, it turned circular shape quite easily. Much more so than the usual fast prime like 85/1.2, 50/1.2S.
I wonder what exactly in the optical formula makes it do that. This is very obvious when you have any kind of foliage in the background at all.
