First few shots with the Plena...received it...initial impressions are very positive...hoping to do some concert work in a week or so...rodeo in Jan and Feb...so excited for some future shoots...
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/1.81/125s400 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/1.81/125s400 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/1.81/100s800 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/1.81/160s800 ISO0.0 EV
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/1.81/160s800 ISO0.0 EV
Camerlabs review of the Z 135mm f/1.8 S is now online.
After the Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, it is the second Nikon Z lens to receive a full 5 stars rating at Cameralabs.
Vento wrote:
Camerlabs review of the Z 135mm f/1.8 S is now online.
After the Z 400mm f/2.8 TC VR S, it is the second Nikon Z lens to receive a full 5 stars rating at Cameralabs.
Last chance to use my Plena for a week as I am leaving a few hours from now for my scuba trip.
Anyway, got a chance to take a quick walk this morning with Z7ii and Plena + Zeiss 135/2 apo sonnar ( the earlier version, not the Milvus one which I understand, has a update coating ).
All shot wide opened. A couple of shots were shot at f2 on Plena as well. These are all jpg striaght from camera imported into PS just for labeling and resize only. I used matrix metering but it seems that exposure on Zeiss and Nikon kind of went all over the place a bit. Sorry about that. All shot at iso 64, A mode.
Surprisingly, I am not sure what T stop the Zeiss is but on Plena, shutterspeed was consistantly about 1/2 to almost 1 stop faster using A mode and matrix metering. But the exposure is not
identical so it is hard to tell. May be I should have used M mode instead
suteetat wrote:
Last chance to use my Plena for a week as I am leaving a few hours from now for my scuba trip.
Anyway, got a chance to take a quick walk this morning with Z7ii and Plena + Zeiss 135/2 apo sonnar ( the earlier version, not the Milvus one which I understand, has a update coating ).
All shot wide opened. A couple of shots were shot at f2 on Plena as well. These are all jpg striaght from camera imported into PS just for labeling and resize only. I used matrix metering but it seems that exposure on Zeiss and Nikon kind of went all over the place a bit. Sorry about that. All shot at iso 64, A mode.
Surprisingly, I am not sure what T stop the Zeiss is but on Plena, shutterspeed was consistantly about 1/2 to almost 1 stop faster using A mode and matrix metering. But the exposure is not
identical so it is hard to tell. May be I should have used M mode instead ...Show more →
Great comparison. Ever since Ricardo brought up the question, I have been getting a bit curious so I was thinking to do some comparison this weekend. Your shots already give quite a bit of information I was wondering about. In terms of white balance though, did you manually match white balance between the two? My experience has been that ZF.2 tended to set WB lower on Z6, making them initiallly appear cooler, while Nikon lenses tends to set higher temperature with warmer initially. I don’t see color temp difference here, and you mentioned these are jpg out of body.
Bokeh difference is apparent, but Apo looks much better than I expected. Slightly more structured, and corner bokeh of course shows the shape difference, but Apo Sonnar is not offending. From what I have shot in the past, Apo Sonnar gave double contouring bokeh ( Nisen bokeh) which was not too pleasant. In the flower shots, there is a slight hint, but not much. The metal gate example shows the tendency much more evident, The front bokeh of Apo is what I expected to see throughout but not as severely as I thought. I must say, Plena’s bokeh is mesmerizing and phenomenal. I do quite like it. Both look contrasty and plenty sharp. From these examples alone, they both look really good and really up to personal preference.
akul wrote:
Great comparison. Ever since Ricardo brought up the question, I have been getting a bit curious so I was thinking to do some comparison this weekend. Your shots already give quite a bit of information I was wondering about. In terms of white balance though, did you manually match white balance between the two? My experience has been that ZF.2 tended to set WB lower on Z6, making them initiallly appear cooler, while Nikon lenses tends to set higher temperature with warmer initially. I don’t see color temp difference here, and you mentioned these are jpg out of body.
Bokeh difference is apparent, but Apo looks much better than I expected. Slightly more structured, and corner bokeh of course shows the shape difference, but Apo Sonnar is not offending. From what I have shot in the past, Apo Sonnar gave double contouring bokeh ( Nisen bokeh) which was not too pleasant. In the flower shots, there is a slight hint, but not much. The metal gate example shows the tendency much more evident, The front bokeh of Apo is what I expected to see throughout but not as severely as I thought. I must say, Plena’s bokeh is mesmerizing and phenomenal. I do quite like it. Both look contrasty and plenty sharp. From these examples alone, they both look really good and really up to personal preference.
Luka, I usec AWB on Z7 ii. Rendering wise, Apo Sonnar has always been one of my favourite lens and except for 200/2 VR ii, I can't recall another lens that has better bokeh. May be with busy foliage background wiht lots to striaght line, bokeh can be a bit distracting but not nearly as bad as majority of lenses that in that situation, certainly when comparing to lenses with good sharpness anyway. I think Plena is the first lens in a long time that has softer, more pleasant bokeh in just about every situation. I really like what I see so far
BTW, AF on Plena really kind of slow and unsure on Z7 ii. I have not used it in awhile but my Z8, Zf are all packe away already. Did not remember Z7 ii being this bad wiht other lenses
The Zeiss looks great but the Plena amazing... while offering AF.
The camerlabs test confirm that the Pena has incredibly light corner darkening with around 1/3 stop i the far corners. Many lenses suffer from more than a stop. This means that the total amount of light reaching the sensor is much higher than with other f1.8 lenses.
The Zeiss looks great but the Plena amazing... while offering AF.
The camerlabs test confirm that the Pena has incredibly light corner darkening with around 1/3 stop i the far corners. Many lenses suffer from more than a stop. This means that the total amount of light reaching the sensor is much higher than with other f1.8 lenses.
Check the vignetting of many FF lenses at the APS-C distance or even a bit further and see the light loss, sharpness, and bokeh balls shapes. I did some experiments with this. It does wonders with high quality optics.
A technique to get similar results. In fact if I shot on my 60mpx sensor and cropped down to the Z8/9 49mpx resolution the improvements were amazing with no loss of resolution relatve to the Nikon system. Nikon has been very open that this enlarged image circle concept is a big pert of the Plena design. Give it a try. Interesting results.
I am not saying that this is the whole of the Plena design and rendering. Nikon implemented a lot of optical Engineering to maximize the concept. Simple cropping could not match it in all aspect. Though some of the GM lenses git close in many ways.
suteetat wrote:
... got a chance to take a quick walk this morning with Z7ii and Plena + Zeiss 135/2 apo sonnar ( the earlier version, not the Milvus one which I understand, has a update coating ).
Thank you for the tests.
I too own the "Classic" version of the Apo Sonnar: I like it more.
Those pictures show the oof rendition of both lenses. The Plena wins; the Zeiss can be used on DSLR too, though
However, I would love seeing how even is the sharpness of both lenses across the frame, and how do they compare near minimum focus distance.
suteetat wrote:
Surprisingly, I am not sure what T stop the Zeiss is but on Plena, shutterspeed was consistantly about 1/2 to almost 1 stop faster using A mode and matrix metering. But the exposure is not identical so it is hard to tell.
It's not surprising at all: the Plena has less vignetting and this does influence the automatic exposure with matrix metering.
EDIT:
Just a side comment on coatings.
Both me and an Italian Nikonian fellow own the (early) Made-in-Japan AF-S ED Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8G VR. The coatings (front element & rear element) have different colors ...
We haven't performed a side-by-side test. However, I don't think that same lenses, manufactured in the same plant, and whose elements have slightly different anti-reflective coatings, could exhibit sharpness, or bokeh, differences larger than those ascribable to sample variations.
p.4 #10 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
1bwana1 wrote:
Check the vignetting of many FF lenses at the APS-C distance or even a bit further and see the light loss, sharpness, and bokeh balls shapes. I did some experiments with this. It does wonders with high quality optics.
A technique to get similar results. In fact if I shot on my 60mpx sensor and cropped down to the Z8/9 49mpx resolution the improvements were amazing with no loss of resolution relatve to the Nikon system. Nikon has been very open that this enlarged image circle concept is a big pert of the Plena design. Give it a try. Interesting results.
I am not saying that this is the whole of the Plena design and rendering. Nikon discovered a lot of optical Engineering to maximize the concept. Simple cropping could not match it in all aspect. Though some of the GM lenses git close in many ways. ...Show more →
I know it is the case, but:
- it is a bit of a waste to carry a large lens to end up only using it's DX+ center area,
- since you have a higher pixel density I am not convinced that you retain the same sharpness per pixel, that would be lens dependent,
- we will soon get a 80mp FF Nikon that will further increase the gap so I'd rather invest in lenses natively able to deliver the best possible corner to corner rendering.
- I understand your point of view as a Sony user, but to me the Nikon system is overall superior at this point, including the ability to use any Sony FE mount lens if I so desire.
p.4 #12 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
bernardl wrote:
I know it is the case, but:
- it is a bit of a waste to carry a large lens to end up only using it's DX+ center area,
- since you have a higher pixel density I am not convinced that you retain the same sharpness per pixel, that would be lens dependent,
- we will soon get a 80mp FF Nikon that will further increase the gap so I'd rather invest in lenses natively able to deliver the best possible corner to corner rendering.
- I understand your point of view as a Sony user, but to me the Nikon system is overall superior at this point, including the ability to use any Sony FE mount lens if I so desire.
I was not trying to establish either system as superior to the other. In fact I never mentioned Sony. An assumption on your part that says more about your sensitivity than about my little experiment. I don't own a 60mpx Sony camera. I used my 60mpx Leica 11 for that particular test.
I was just trying to do an experiment based on the Plena concept because I like the lens. I absolutely was able to get most of the improvements with a relatively small crop if I shot with that intent from the begining. My post is about a technique not a brand. I also stated that I never achieved the full Plena rendering.
I will agree with you that it is better to just be able to shoot the lens directly.
p.4 #13 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
I currently shoot with Nikon, Fuji and Phase one, so brand isn't relevant to me either.
I had just assumed you had done the test with an a7rV but the same does apply to the M11.
The M11 is nice, I considered it may times but always concluded that this amount of cash would serve me better in other ways, including buying a Plena.
Cheers,
Bernard
Oct 19, 2023 at 08:11 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #14 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
1bwana1 wrote:
Check the vignetting of many FF lenses at the APS-C distance or even a bit further and see the light loss, sharpness, and bokeh balls shapes. I did some experiments with this. It does wonders with high quality optics.
A technique to get similar results. In fact if I shot on my 60mpx sensor and cropped down to the Z8/9 49mpx resolution the improvements were amazing with no loss of resolution relatve to the Nikon system. Nikon has been very open that this enlarged image circle concept is a big pert of the Plena design. Give it a try. Interesting results.
I am not saying that this is the whole of the Plena design and rendering. Nikon implemented a lot of optical Engineering to maximize the concept. Simple cropping could not match it in all aspect. Though some of the GM lenses git close in many ways. ...Show more →
Hi Steve,
Interesting test. I often crop my Leica M10 to a 4 X 5 aspect ratio (as I like that a lot better for many shots than 2 X 3) and it does a pretty good job of improving the worst of the vignettes problems on the edges but not in the corners. The downside of an APS-C crop is you end up with a little more than a stop of extra depth of field. So if you shoot and f/1.4 lens it really only has the depth of field of about f/2.1 and when we are talking about the Plena and f/1.8 becomes almost an f/2.8 and for me that is often a significant loss. I really like what Nikon has done with the Plena as you seem to as well, and in important ways to me it can't be replicated by cropping.
Oh, and I think Bernardi inferred you used a Sony because you mentioned 60MP and GM lenses in the same post which if someone doesn't know your gear would quite naturally lead them to think you were using Sony. I also think you will find Bernardi to bring a very sensible take to almost all his posts. I know I enjoy hearing what he has to say.
p.4 #15 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Alistair1 wrote:
It seems they like it!
I thought I read elsewhere that this lens suffers from focus shift. Cameralabs report no focus shift.
It shouldn't have focus shift (nor should any other lens on a Z body) - unlike DSLRs, Nikon Z cameras perform AF at the user-selected aperture up to and including F5.6 specifically to prevent with focus shift. DSLRs always autofocused wide open regardless of the user-selected aperture, and would stop down at the time of each shot which is what usually causes focus shift.
p.4 #16 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Steve Spencer wrote:
Hi Steve,
Interesting test. I often crop my Leica M10 to a 4 X 5 aspect ratio (as I like that a lot better for many shots than 2 X 3) and it does a pretty good job of improving the worst of the vignettes problems on the edges but not in the corners. The downside of an APS-C crop is you end up with a little more than a stop of extra depth of field. So if you shoot and f/1.4 lens it really only has the depth of field of about f/2.1 and when we are talking about the Plena and f/1.8 becomes almost an f/2.8 and for me that is often a significant loss. I really like what Nikon has done with the Plena as you seem to as well, and in important ways to me it can't be replicated by cropping.
Oh, and I think Bernardi inferred you used a Sony because you mentioned 60MP and GM lenses in the same post which if someone doesn't know your gear would quite naturally lead them to think you were using Sony. I also think you will find Bernardi to bring a very sensible take to almost all his posts. I know I enjoy hearing what he has to say.
Yes, you are correct I really like what I am seeing in the Plena. Since it is not available to me with my current system I wanted to develop a technique to get me as close as possible with what I have to work with. Some of my GM, and Leica lenses don't need much of a crop to improve edge to edge sharpness, round and smooth Bokeh balls, and very little vignetting (zero afte software correction). The GM 50 f/1.2 GM as an example. Others don't even get close. The cats eye distortion of Bokeh goes way too deep. So, I have eliminated lenses that require even close to a APS-C crop to get the the rendering I am after. Those that can do so with a very minor crop are my candidates for that type of image. In this way I minimize most of the compromises you mention. If you can't have a real Plena, you work with what you got!
Bernard and I get along very well. He is always polite and sincere in my interactions with him. I like him, and enjoy our discussions. I try to treat him with full respect and civility as well.
Thanks for your always insightful comments as always.
p.4 #17 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
suteetat wrote:
Last chance to use my Plena for a week as I am leaving a few hours from now for my scuba trip.
Anyway, got a chance to take a quick walk this morning with Z7ii and Plena + Zeiss 135/2 apo sonnar ( the earlier version, not the Milvus one which I understand, has a update coating ).
Great samples suteetat, thanks! At first it was clear the Plena has much smoother OOF rendering but upon careful examination it appears like the APO has noticeably deeper DOF (or is front focused) vs the Plnea shots, even though both were shot at f/2. How are you dialing in the f/2 on the APO - via the aperture ring or the camera? If it's the latter then I wonder if the aperture lever on the FTZ or lens is miscalibrated and not actually shooting at f/2.
Here are two animations I created from two pairs of shots. Look at the foreground and background areas for differences in DOF.
p.4 #18 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
snapsy wrote:
Great samples suteetat, thanks! At first it was clear the Plena has much smoother OOF rendering but upon careful examination it appears like the APO has noticeably deeper DOF (or is front focused) vs the Plnea shots, even though both were shot at f/2. How are you dialing in the f/2 on the APO - via the aperture ring or the camera? If it's the latter then I wonder if the aperture lever on the FTZ or lens is miscalibrated and not actually shooting at f/2.
Here are two animations I created from two pairs of shots. Look at the foreground and background areas for differences in DOF.
I think what this is really illustrating is the effect of the minimal Plena vignette and cats-eye. If you look at the DOF right at the center of the image the two lenses are very close as far as DOF and blur. Move away from the center and now the Zeiss has deeper DOF because its aperture is in fact reduced due to cats-eye. Common effect with wide aperture lenses.
But one might argue the Zeiss still looks a little deeper at the center, so maybe that's what you were saying. The differences at the edges are much more extreme, but that's expected due to cats-eye.
p.4 #19 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
kwalsh wrote:
I think what this is really illustrating is the effect of the minimal Plena vignette and cats-eye. If you look at the DOF right at the center of the image the two lenses are very close as far as DOF and blur. Move away from the center and now the Zeiss has deeper DOF because its aperture is in fact reduced due to cats-eye. Common effect with wide aperture lenses.
But one might argue the Zeiss still looks a little deeper at the center, so maybe that's what you were saying. The differences at the edges are much more extreme, but that's expected due to cats-eye....Show more →
Thanks and you're definitely right about the edges. The center blur quantity seems pretty significant though as well. For the bike photo I'm looking at the bushes for reference.
p.4 #20 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
snapsy wrote:
Here are two animations I created from two pairs of shots. Look at the foreground and background areas for differences in DOF.[/url]
Deeper DOF @ same aperture and magnification could come from more sharpness. Actually, no lens produces nil-radius points (i.e., ideal geometrical points) on the focal plane. The smaller the radius of a point (in a geometrical sense) on the focal plane, the smaller its radius (cirle of confusion) in the out of focus planes. Sharper lenses do actually produce more DOF.
Curious to see MTF values obtained with real lenses (Plena & Apo Sonnar).
).
