Hi All - I just picked up the 135/1.8 Plena and shot a volleyball game. Found it to be quite a battle with the Z9 on FW 5.31.
1. The initial focus acquisition isn't blazingly quick
2. The net threw off the AF a lot more than I expected
3. I had more slightly soft photos than anticipated
For comparison, I was shooting alongside the 85/1.2 S on a second body and that thing was INCREDIBLE. Rapid AF, tack sharp, focused right through the net. Absolutely loved it. Also used the 300/2.8G VR II (a 17 y/o lens) and also had 0 issues...fast, sharp, no net issues.
Additionally, rented the Canon 135/1.8L a week ago (used on an R5II) and found it to be faster than the Plena with acquisition, less inclined to grab the net, and nearly always tack sharp.
Looking into all this a bit more deeply, I learned the Nikon 135/1.8 Plena uses dual STM motors, the Canon 135/1.8 L uses the newer Nano USM, and the Sony 135/1.8 GM uses an insane FOUR linear motors.
Seems to me like Nikon prioritized AF smoothness + quietness ... Canon prioritized AF speed + IS for low light ... and Sony prioritized AF speed above all else (and probably wins easily based on what I learned from speaking to a Sony shooter last night, who said it was one of the fastest-focusing lenses he's ever used).
Have any of you had issues when using the Nikon 135/1.8 Plena for volleyball, basketball, or other fast-paced, erratic sports?
I'm surprised at how much better the Nikon 85/1.2 and Canon 135/1.8 performed in comparison.
Across BMX Racing, Basketball and LAcrosse- Its keeps up very well. I think Keeping up is the wrong term though. It feels blazing fast.
I have seen it hunt slightly at and close distances where you need to reset it, similar to a long tele but thats in closer focus areas-
Pictures not being sharp sounds like a real problem though- At no point should this lens and a Z9 give you those results. Maybe try a different body, ( you had 2 and a Canon with you ). Are you set to release priority vs Focus etc.
I use mine regularly for dog photography and have absolutely no comparable problems.
In sports photography, I've only used it for football/soccer so far, and even there I haven't had any problems in combination with a Z8.
In this post I linked a GIF where you can already see the performance of the Plena during a 20fps burst.
Here's another GIF, unfortunately it's massively compressed, but you can see that the Plena's autofocus can easily follow along.
It looks slow because there's a delay between each frame, but in reality, the dog is moving quite fast and running towards the camera at full speed.
The second GIF is 15fps, so the entire action—the dog turning around on command and running towards me—actually lasted no more than one second.
The pauses in the GIF are added to better illustrate the autofocus tracking.
The Z8 and Plena have absolutely no problems here, and the results at 20fps burst are almost always flawless.
Even when the dog enters the MFD range and passes me sideways, the focus remains stable.
For me, it's quite the opposite; I was surprised how consistently the autofocus works with the Plena and action, even at f/1.8 and fast movement at 20fps.
I was surprised because the Plena is generally optimized for high precision in portrait photography with a longer focus throw.
So, in typical AF speed tests that categorize AF speed based on the speed of tracking from MFD to infinity and back, it's definitely not the fastest.
However, this has nothing to do with my practical experience, as the speed the AF unit needs to switch from MFD to infinity is never really relevant.
In practice, my experience with the Plena is that AF speed in action shots is pretty flawless, but this might be different in extremely fast action situations.
Does the autofocus of the Z8 in 3D tracking always manage to focus precisely on the eye?
No, not with this dog!
The success rate is very good when the eye is fairly unobstructed, but with this dog, it's often covered, and eye/coat color definitely plays a role.
Consequently, if the autofocus can't track the eye, it focuses on the head/snout.
With other dogs, without fur covering the eye and with better eye/coat contrast, the eye-AF success rate is significantly higher.
Well, I did more tests w/ the Nikon 135/1.8 Plena vs. Canon RF 135/1.8L.
The Canon won every time...easily.
I'm updating this post's title to "Nikon 135mm Plena SLOW for Volleyball?" ... specifically.
My biggest issues with the 135 Plena for volleyball are:
1. AF motors are slower than Canon
2. AF acquisition is slower than Canon (biggest issue)
3. AF hunts at close ranges
4. AF pumps / jerks in & out when shifting from close (~1m) to a little farther away (~4m).
^ #2 and #4 above are really relevant to me as I'm shooting pro volleyball this season. Consistently trying to grab 1 player close to me (serve receive), then the 2nd a little farther away (set), then the 3rd (hit/spike...either close to me or opposite side of court).
This means AF acquisition of different subjects at different distances is crucial.
(That said, once AF has been acquired, either the Nikon 135 Plena or Canon RF 135 work fine for tracking 1 moving subject while running toward / around you over a longer distance, but that doesn't occur much in volleyball).
It's that super quick "focus on Player A, then reacquire to grab Player B" in a fraction of a second where the 135 Plena drove me crazy.
So, I sold the Nikon 135, purchased the Canon 135, and am way happier
Here's a quick video test I put together showing the AF acquisition between the 2
I too found the focusing speed of the, 135mm Plena on a Z9 not suitable for volleyball, compared to my Sony a1II and Sony 135mm 1.8. When the Sony 50-150 f2 came out, I switched to it and found it even better and it is now my main lens for basketball and volleyball. The image quality of the Plena is great, so I have kept it.
@rclewis - Encouraging to hear the 50-150/2 performed well. I'll admit, I've been thinking about adding Sony to my bag due to the many incredible 1st / 3rd party lens options When you said you found the 50-150/2 to be "even better," you were comparing it to the Sony 135/1.8, yes?
Yes, the Sony 50-150 f2 will focus faster than the 135 f1.8, and is sharper, but quite heavy. I put up with the weight by using a pistol grip. At age 84, the weight is not immaterial, but the results justify it.
