Ripolini wrote:
Hi Luka,
thank you for these tests.
My feeling is:
- the Plena has slightly more blur;
- the Zeiss has sligthly more vivid colors and contrast;
- at close distances and f/2, the Zeiss seems sharper in the corners (see the rusty ring in the bottom left of the images taken close to minimum distance).
Hi Riccardo,
For close distance, I see what you mean on the rusty ring in the bottom left. It looks, though, somehow that area is in focus with Apo Sonnar. It makes me wonder it is from either DOF difference or the difference in slight field curvature at close distance.
OwlsEyes wrote:
Had I not seen the Plena photos, I would have claimed that the Zeiss had some of the nicest out of focus areas/isolation/bokeh I had ever seen. The Plena takes this to a whole new level. While post processing techniques can now emulate this to a degree, it is nice to know that an AF lens can produce such a creamy image out of the box without post.
I am certain that the Plena will be in many wedding photographers' bags and may be the one lens that persuades some non-Nikon photographers to consider switching or adding a Nikon to their kit.
I too was surprised to see how nice Apo Sonar's bokeh is, and with the beautiful rendering, contrast and sharpness, it does holed its own place. To be fair, Apo Sonnar was introduced in 2012. Nikon had many years to improve their 135mm design.
Having said that, I am quite pleased with Plena, I admit.
gear-nut wrote:
@akul@ — compliments on an excellent series to compare all relevant aspects!
What I see is a generally better balanced and smoother behavior, as well as superb rendering of both front and rear bokeh from the Plena. The character of each lens is distinctly different, the Zeiss leaning to its historical roots of contrast and clarity while Nikon has leaned back to a smoother legacy look similar to its F mount 58 and 105 f1.4’s and even the 200/2.
For my money from what I’ve seen, I would buy the 200/2 simply due to the fact I prefer the focal to 135 of the Plena. But I do appreciate the family of similar character these lenses share and for that I think the Plena will be quite successful with people, portrait and wedding photographers. ...Show more →
Gear-nut,
Thank you. I do quite like the front bokeh of this lens even at f4 or more, giving me options for composition.
200/2 looks to be a phenomenal lens. It is just so big that I know I won't be touching that lens, but always loved the photos from the chub posted here at FM. Very special character.
snapsy wrote:
Great samples @akul. It appears the Plena has greater background blur, ie the quantity of blur independent of DOF and a function of physical aperture size. Here are some references:
Texasdesigner wrote:
Thank you for these tests Luka. I think they are really helpful. I did keep wondering why the Zeiss images seemed to be more saturated overall , and the Plena images brighter. Then I noticed the shutter speeds were consistently not the same going from Nikon to Zeiss lenses. The Zeiss was "underexposed" by a third of a stop each time. That would account for the more saturated "look" of the Sonnar images. If you do more of these, maybe go full manual to see if the differences are less. Thank you for all your efforts.
Thank you. I did use manual exposure. As it was outdoor, and that was my interest, lighting was never the same. And, it was changing faster than I could move while trying not to get any dust on the sensor, etc.. So, in the end, I just matched the exposure meter to set the shutter speed between the shots. You are right that Apo Sonnar does look a bit more 'underexposed', which may be the way how the lens and Z6 communicate. It may also be the contrasty nature of Apo Sonnar adding to its characteristics too. Plus, vignetting at f2 adds to that impression. ( I love the Vignet of Apo Sonnar. Adds drama to the scene) This testing was sort of personal. I needed to do it from my personal guilt I felt about not giving Apo Sonnar proper examination in the past. It is not something I particularly enjoy doing, so I may not do this again though.
snapsy wrote:
Would love to see samples against the Sigma ART, if anyone is inclined 😀
If no one else can, I will do it but you will have to wait at least a week until I get home from
my vacation.
Apo sonnar is one of my favourite lens but manual focus and size precluded it from frequent use
unfortunately. For me Sigma Art is sharp with nice bokeh for the dof that you get but rendering
leave me a bit cold and I usually grab Apo sonnar instead in the past.
suteetat wrote:
If no one else can, I will do it but you will have to wait at least a week until I get home from
my vacation.
Apo sonnar is one of my favourite lens but manual focus and size precluded it from frequent use
unfortunately. For me Sigma Art is sharp with nice bokeh for the dof that you get but rendering
leave me a bit cold and I usually grab Apo sonnar instead in the past.
Thanks - would love to see a comparison between the two.....especially full body portraiture or similar distance to subject if I could be greedy enough to ask! I've found the sigma to be great for closer nature shots, headshots and city portraiture. But I'm less than happy with the portraits in many nature shots.....the bokeh is grittier than the 105 1.4E.
My guess is that Plena will clean up all that I don't love about the Sigma.....but then I think I prefer the character with the swirly bokeh than the perfectly round bokeh balls.
p.6 #10 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Prosophos wrote:
More photos (please)...
—Peter.
I received my copy mid week, and have had a couple shoots to try it out next to my 85/1.2
My daughter and I went out last night to get some senior photos for her. I'll add to the thread as I can, but my initial impression is that this lens is spectacular, and I have no regrets with my purchase.
NIKON Z 9NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena lens135mmf/1.81/400s64 ISO+0.3 EV
p.6 #11 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Driveitputtit wrote:
I received my copy mid week, and have had a couple shoots to try it out next to my 85/1.2
My daughter and I went out last night to get some senior photos for her. I'll add to the thread as I can, but my initial impression is that this lens is spectacular, and I have no regrets with my purchase.
Really lovely photo. It's a a great example that shows the falloff and rendering of the lens.
p.6 #12 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Driveitputtit wrote:
I received my copy mid week, and have had a couple shoots to try it out next to my 85/1.2
My daughter and I went out last night to get some senior photos for her. I'll add to the thread as I can, but my initial impression is that this lens is spectacular, and I have no regrets with my purchase.
p.6 #15 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
urbanwild wrote:
Thanks - would love to see a comparison between the two.....especially full body portraiture or similar distance to subject if I could be greedy enough to ask! I've found the sigma to be great for closer nature shots, headshots and city portraiture. But I'm less than happy with the portraits in many nature shots.....the bokeh is grittier than the 105 1.4E.
My guess is that Plena will clean up all that I don't love about the Sigma.....but then I think I prefer the character with the swirly bokeh than the perfectly round bokeh balls.
Thanks very much! It's too bad that there were no full body portraits for comparison but I think there's enough in these samples to conclude that there's enough similarity there and differences may be less significant than I would have hoped. We'll see what other tests show in the future but for a guy like me that doesn't use 135mm that often, keeping the Sigma is not a bad choice. If I used 135mm regularly, I think the weight advantage and native mount would have me thinking.
p.6 #20 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
Jman13 wrote:
It does not shock me that the Plena is only a very slight improvement on the Sigma, as the Sigma 135 is one of the best lenses I’ve ever used.
Where, of all things, the real special feature of the Plena and the major differences to the Sigma you'll find in the amount of optical vignetting.
This may not bother everyone, but should still be neutrally weighted and addressed in a review of a lens like the Plena, whose main criterion is precisely the unique selling point in the area of optical vignetting and light fall off.
Which makes sense, since there is hardly any room for improvement in terms of sharpness and resolution, even wide open.
Something which the reviewer of the NR linked review, here more or less completely sweeps under the carpet.
Also, the choice of subjects in his comparison does not exactly go into the torture test category for the bokeh, with the majority of the chosen subjects it is quite the complete opposite.
The cameralabs review is much more detailed and gets to the heart of the matter with its conclusion, especially since it goes into detail about the optical vignetting, rendering of out-of-focus point-light sources.
As Cameralabs also writes in its review, the Sigma 135 Art is still very close, but in total, the Plena is slightly better in nearly every aspect.
Whether these differences, which are nuances in many areas but add up across almost all criteria, are worth the extra cost for a native solution is another matter.
That will probably depend on how one personally weights the visible advantages in the area of light fall off, optical vignetting, rendering of out-of-focus point-light sources.
In this aspect, the Plena is currently unrivaled in this category.
To be fair, it should be added that we are at a level with these lenses where diminishing return is becoming increasingly strong.
The effort and thus the surcharge for small improvements increases disproportionately.
Accordingly, the conclusion there in the Plena vs. Sigma Art comparison is as follows:
"Sigma’s 135mm f1.8 Art from 2017 is optically probably the best lens in their “Art” series for DSLRs: It’s extra sharp, with only minor color aberrations and a beautiful Bokeh. But progress in optical design and a dedication of Nikon to produce the best 135mm f1.8 lens available makes the Plena just better than Sigma’s Art in practically every aspect: Better resolution and contrast, smoother Bokeh, less vignetting. And the Plena is even a bit shorter and lighter than the Sigma (with FTZ adapter). But then, the Plena is more than twice as expensive as the Sigma. My comparisons in this review show that the Sigma Art still is a very good lens. So if you balk at the price of the Nikon and don’t need the last bit of optical performance from the Plena the Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art (plus FTZ adapter) is a more affordable alternative to the Nikon Z 135mm f1.8 S Plena."
