Ok, I guess it's time to stalk Adorama's used site for when somebody barely uses it, decides it's not for them and trades it in cuz yeah, this is good. 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.
Thankfully, cameralabs has a systematic approach to comparing lenses. Idk how this tester concluded the sigma has less vignette.
Still the sigma remains an awesome performer. However, the combo approaches the weight of a 70-200 with the ftz adapter. The weight savings and af would be the biggest reasons to upgrade.
Vento wrote:
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.
It could be because of all the compromises a lens must make, optical vignetting is the most easily addressed in post. Also to be considered is that vignetting is often added in post rather than diminished. So, the value of the small differences in vignetting between these two lenses is small in practice. I think few would pay the price premium for this. The other benefits of the Plena may provide more value to most.
JadedWriter wrote:
Ok, I guess it's time to stalk Adorama's used site for when somebody barely uses it, decides it's not for them and trades it in cuz yeah, this is good.
I could see you putting this one to good use.
The 85/1.2 has become my primary over the 105e, and I don't tend to carry both because my typical shooting conditions don't necessitate one over the other. I just prefer the 85 over the 105. However, the 135/1.8 looks like it'll be a perfect compliment when i need a little more reach or compression.
I loved the 135GM, just never got to use it with good lights and such. Plena seems like it'd be gold for what I do...if I have the room for it. And yeah I don't use the 105E unless I'm using a DSLR setup these days. Driveitputtit wrote:
I could see you putting this one to good use.
The 85/1.2 has become my primary over the 105e, and I don't tend to carry both because my typical shooting conditions don't necessitate one over the other. I just prefer the 85 over the 105. However, the 135/1.8 looks like it'll be a perfect compliment when i need a little more reach or compression.
1bwana1 wrote:
It could be because of all the compromises a lens must make, optical vignetting is the most easily addressed in post. Also to be considered is that vignetting is often added in post rather than diminished. So, the value of the small differences in vignetting between these two lenses is small in practice. I think few would pay the price premium for this. The other benefits of the Plena may provide more value to most.
The "Light Falloff" yes, but not the effect of the optical vignetting, which leads to the truncation of light circles towards the borders of the frame, aka cat's eyes/swirly bokeh.
That's where the Plena's unique selling point lies, the rendering of out-of-focus point-light sources with an unrivaled low amount of optical vignetting and this was also the inspiration for its name.
Not only compared to the Sigma Art, but also compared to all other lenses in this category in full frame, be it the Z 85/1.2 S, or the respective solutions in the 135/1.8 range of the competition.
I'm far from a pro at PP, so maybe I'm missing something, but it would be news to me that there are easy ways to reverse the negative effects of optical vignetting, resulting in a clearly visible cat's eyes/swirlybokeh in PP so easily.
Vento wrote:
The "Light Falloff" yes, but not the effect of the optical vignetting, which leads to the truncation of light circles towards the borders of the frame, aka cat's eyes bokeh.
That's where the Plena's unique selling point lies, the rendering of out-of-focus point-light sources with an unrivaled low amoiunt of optical vignetting.and it was also the inspiration for its name.
I'm far from a pro at PP, so maybe I'm missing something, but it would be news to me that there are easy ways to reverse the negative effects of optical vignetting, resulting in a clearly visible cat's eyes bokeh, swirly bokeh's in PP so easily.
The Plena is very good with correcting those things. But it's bokeh balls also become more "lemon" shaped out near the edges as Ricci pointed out in his presentation.
This plus the Sigma 9 blades VS Plena's 11 blades makes a difference. The expanded image circle does as well. Also the modern ASPH Grinding and polishing to reduce texture and onion rings in the Plena makes a difference. Of course this is also not unique to the Plena. There are other lenses out there that have those nice smooth rounded Bokeh balls out to the edges.
I find the differences in the examples of Cameralabs already very clear, that looks much better than the Sigma 135 Art, or even the Z 85/1.2 S in regard to cat's eye shaped bokeh balls in the corners.
In this respect, it definitely sets new standards compared to the direct competition in the focal length and max. aperture range.
How important something like that is to you is another matter.
For me, the Plena is not an issue, because my resources are limited and I can not pull sth./€ 3.000 out of a my hat for something i wouldn't use frequently enough.
Also, my portrait photography is limited to the family circle, where my existing solutions are more than adequate....
Nevertheless, as someone who loves the glitter of a city at night photographically, who also loves to work in backlit situations with lots of specular highlights and reflections, I can see a clear added value.
"But looking towards the DX- and FX-corner differences become very clear: The Sigma Art develops cat’s eyes much faster and stronger than the Plena so Bokeh of the Sigma has a more “swirly” appearance."
I will add some images in a few days once I get out from under a mountain of editing, but I shot over 10k images with the Plena over the weekend. I wasn't sold on the lens until I started editing today. Any review that focuses on the technical and clinical aspects of this lens or tests it in a controlled environment is gonna miss the point and value of it. I shot a lot of images with the sony 135GM and thought that from a sharpness perspective edge to edge it was one of the best lenses available for any platform. It's rendering was never magical though; I would describe the backgrounds as muddy, but it made really sharp contrasty images. In contrast, the plena does something really cool with backgrounds that is, for lack of a better term, painterly. I read through the Cameralabs review that suggested the bokeh is a little better on the 85 1.2. I've been shooting that lens a lot for the last few months and it is a really nice lens, but the plena has a cool effect that lens just can't match. The bokeh balls are not perfect near the edges, but they are about as good as it gets wide open. But the rendering is just so smooth and even all over the background and it happens really soon after the focal plane. There are no ugly or distracting borders on any contrasty out of focus areas. The look of this lens isn't like the 200 f2, it has a lot more contrast wide open than that lens does, and it's a little sharper and less compressed, but it reminds me of that lens in that it has a really unique rendering to it that makes the images really easy to work with and hard to replicate without it.
So far, I'm really pleased and surprised with it. One of the big selling points for me was the potential to use it for astrophotography as the sony 135 GM was one of the most perfect astro lenses I've every owned or tried. The camera lab report of some LoCA is a bit of a bummer as I would hate to see purple fringing on astro shots, although I've seen no sign of it in the daytime images.
p.7 #11 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
nhmorgan wrote:
The camera lab report of some LoCA is a bit of a bummer as I would hate to see purple fringing on astro shots, although I've seen no sign of it in the daytime images.
LoCA shouldn't be a concern with astro photography, as everything is in focus. Coma, on the other hand, looks good (i.e. small) in the cameralab test.
p.7 #12 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
A quick question for an owner of the Plena who also owns any of the f/2.8S zooms and/or a 50/1.2S...
The hood mount of each of the zooms, and the 50/1.2S, all use the same bayonet mount dimension so that in a pinch, the 14-24S hood can be used on the 24-70/2.8S, the 50/1.2S hood can be used on the 70-200S, and either of the 14-24S or 24-70/2.8S hoods can function as a compact bump-preventer on the 50 or 70-200.
Does the Plena share the same hood mount dimensions?
p.7 #13 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
1bwana1 wrote:
This plus the Sigma 9 blades VS Plena's 11 blades makes a difference. The expanded image circle does as well. Also the modern ASPH Grinding and polishing to reduce texture and onion rings in the Plena makes a difference. Of course this is also not unique to the Plena. There are other lenses out there that have those nice smooth rounded Bokeh balls out to the edges.
Such as?
The only ones I am aware of are some older Sony lenses that use an internal filter, but the aperture of these lenses is typically f5.6 which makes them a lot less valuable for many use cases.
The Plena is the only bright lens I am aware of with smooth rounded bokeh balls across most of the frame.
p.7 #14 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
bernardl wrote:
Such as?
The only ones I am aware of are some older Sony lenses that use an internal filter, but the aperture of these lenses is typically f5.6 which makes them a lot less valuable for many use cases.
The Plena is the only bright lens I am aware of with smooth rounded bokeh balls across most of the frame.
Cheers,
Bernard
Probably not in consumer level camera lenses. Cinematographer for the Invasion, an Apple TV series must love bokeh balls. Perfect circular bokeh balls are everywhere in that series. A quick research showed system and lens used are on Venice series Cinecamera with Pnavision G series Anamorphic lenses. They are kind of expensive. Panavision does not sell lenses at B&H.
“Price Points
Panavision does not sell any standalone lenses. If a studio wants to purchase the lenses, they are usually restricted to purchasing them with a camera like the Panavision Genesis. For this bundle, one would be looking at shelling out $500,000-$750,000 to purchase or $4000.00/day to rent.”
p.7 #15 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
davidrwilliams wrote:
A quick question for an owner of the Plena who also owns any of the f/2.8S zooms and/or a 50/1.2S...
The hood mount of each of the zooms, and the 50/1.2S, all use the same bayonet mount dimension so that in a pinch, the 14-24S hood can be used on the 24-70/2.8S, the 50/1.2S hood can be used on the 70-200S, and either of the 14-24S or 24-70/2.8S hoods can function as a compact bump-preventer on the 50 or 70-200.
Does the Plena share the same hood mount dimensions?
I use my Nisi hood and 114mm filters on a few lenses - 50/1.2, 135/1.8 Plena, and others (Z70-200/2.8S, Z24-70/2.8S and the 14-24/2.8S) -- BUT NOT the 85/1.2 which very irritatingly and unnecessarily has a very slightly larger barrel NOR the 100-400. Obviously if the Nisi hood fits then so will the Nikkor Hoods.
p.7 #16 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
AcuteShadows wrote:
LoCA shouldn't be a concern with astro photography, as everything is in focus. Coma, on the other hand, looks good (i.e. small) in the cameralab test.
Unfortunately it doesn’t work out that way. Lenses with LoCA show purple fringing even if the stars are perfectly in focus. It’s because it’s a high contrast area near the focal plane.
p.7 #17 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
bernardl wrote:
Such as?
The only ones I am aware of are some older Sony lenses that use an internal filter, but the aperture of these lenses is typically f5.6 which makes them a lot less valuable for many use cases.
The Plena is the only bright lens I am aware of with smooth rounded bokeh balls across most of the frame.
Cheers,
Bernard
Such bokeh exists in current very bright lenses as well. I like the look of Plena images so I tested a bit.
Should I post a sample on a Nikon forum? Or will people get upset about that?
p.7 #18 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
1bwana1 wrote:
Such bookek exists in current very bright lenses as well. I like the look of Plena images so I tested a bit.
Should I post a sample on a Nikon forum? Or will people get upset about that?
Hi,
I know you didn't ask me, but, I am curious to learn what other lens have such Bokeh capability / characteristics. How about, you can start a new thread, so the Plena image thread stays as more or less just that ? Just a thought.
p.7 #19 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
akul wrote:
Hi,
I know you didn't ask me, but, I am curious to learn what other lens have such Bokeh capability / characteristics. How about, you can start a new thread, so the Plena image thread stays as more or less just that ? Just a thought.
Luka
Thanks for the suggestion Luka. But I fear a full thread dedicated to that would be even more upseting to many.
p.7 #20 · Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena Image Thread
nhmorgan wrote:
Unfortunately it doesn’t work out that way. Lenses with LoCA show purple fringing even if the stars are perfectly in focus. It’s because it’s a high contrast area near the focal plane.
Indeed. For whatever reason current web vernacular uses the term LoCA to refer to color fringing in out of focus areas. This is an odd usage since aberrations are usually defined at the focal plane. The original definition of LoCA is different focus distances for different colored light - in other words fringing at the focal plane because some colors are slightly out of focus. I guess with modern ED glass fringing at the focal plane is often very well controlled leaving folks only the out of focus regions to stare at and thus the term has been hijacked leading to some confusion.
