Ripolini wrote:
For a 135 mm lens, 0.82 m is not "long MFD spec". It's a rather short minimum focusing distance.
Yet another YouTuber you should stop following
If I were his “follower,” I would have remembered who he was.
To be clear, his images made me want a Plena, more.
He did manage to find some other lens, which he could use to replace his Plena, on his newer, smaller budget. Cannot recall the brand, or the exact focal length, or even the camera brand/mount. I reckon that he used the MFD spec to rationalize his lesser, newer lens?
FWIW, Although my 105mm F1.4E isn't an AF speed demon I have much more confidence with AF now on my Z9 than I did on F-mount bodies, AF is faster and with eye detect it nails it.
OK, y’all made me curious, so, I burned the coal or natural gas, to run a search engine. I found: Viltrox 135, Sony mount, .72m MFD. To borrow a term from a former SecDef, I hold Viltrox in “high disregard.” That must be why I had disremembered...
To be clear, my take on the ewe-toob presentation was that I really do want a Plena, NOT whatever else the you-tuber had settled for…
Truth be told, I never had mediocre 85 or 135 prime, I guess there's something about this focal length which makes it easier for manufacturers to design.
In your case, since AF performance is of utmost importance, I’d stick with first party. Even though I personally don’t mind culling, I’ve shot dogs and whatnot with my Samyang AF 135mm adapted via the Megadap ETZ. I actually tried the Plena and still ended up keeping the Samyang.
I just can’t let this lens go for a throwaway price when it weighs only 770g.
Outstanding wrote:
Truth be told, I never had mediocre 85 or 135 prime, I guess there's something about this focal length which makes it easier for manufacturers to design.
In your case, since AF performance is of utmost importance, I’d stick with first party. Even though I personally don’t mind culling, I’ve shot dogs and whatnot with my Samyang AF 135mm adapted via the Megadap ETZ. I actually tried the Plena and still ended up keeping the Samyang.
I just can’t let this lens go for a throwaway price when it weighs only 770g.
I think there is a Hudson Henry video where he talks about his all time favorite lenses and the 105mm was one. The shots he posted in the video were enough to get me thinking about it as well, just don't want to fool with ftz.
I kept coming across the whole idea of what I’d really use the lens for and I think the truth is killer AF wasn’t really necessary. If I get it and it misses focus a bunch I’ll return it and pay the difference towards a plena.
I also keep wanting a couple f mount mf lenses (Voigtlander) that are chipped and miss one I had so I bought the ftzii. Then a few days later I got to considering the 105.
Superscroll wrote:
I think there is a Hudson Henry video where he talks about his all time favorite lenses and the 105mm was one. The shots he posted in the video were enough to get me thinking about it as well, just don't want to fool with ftz.
I'm late to the party on this one.
I use the Viltrox 135mm regularly in a low Cathedral, and I can't fault the AF. The eye focus locks on straight away (on a Z8)
My all-time favorite lens is the impractical but oh-so-wonderful 200f2. I have the 105e as well and it definitely takes the 2nd place - I call it the mini-chub (got the terminology from this forum ) My 3rd best is the not-so-loved 58g but I love it's rendering, despite the wide-open softness.
I don't have the funds as of now for a Plena but the output looks beautiful. I was very impressed with the Viltrox shots in the post by @deadwolfbones.
I do still have the 135 Art from Sigma and for what I paid for it, it works well enough.
Outstanding wrote:
Truth be told, I never had mediocre 85 or 135 prime, I guess there's something about this focal length which makes it easier for manufacturers to design.
Definitely, especially in the 135mm f/1.8 category, the overall quality is very high across the board, since, in addition to the OEM models from Nikon, Canon, and Sony, there have been various new releases from third-party manufacturers with high optical quality.
So if you’re just looking for the classic look of a 135/1.8 and high sharpness even at wide-open apertures, you don’t need the Plena.
What really sets the Plena apart here—aside from the fact that it has the fewest weaknesses when you consider all its characteristics as a whole—is its incomparably low optical vignetting; in other words, even wide open, there’s hardly any “cat’s eye” effect all the way to the edges.
It's high optical performance and minimal optical aberrations all the way to the edges of the frame even wide open, makes it shine across the entire range from portrait to astrophotography.
As a side effect, the light falloff at the edges is also remarkably low, but the most decisive unique selling point is the unrivaled, minimal optical vignetting even at wide-open aperture and its effect on the bokeh in the peripheral areas around highlights.
If that doesn't matter, then the Plena naturally loses one of it's strongest arguments to justify its premium price compared to third-party solutions that cost not much more than one-third of the price.
That’s why I’m a bit surprised by the choice of the AF-S 105/1.4 here, since in terms of optical vignetting it’s practically the polar opposite of the Plena—it’s a lens with massive, above-average optical vignetting, cat’s eyes/swirly bokeh.
Of course, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a wonderful lens, and tastes in this area vary.
sanjayg wrote
I do still have the 135 Art from Sigma and for what I paid for it, it works well enough.
Well enough is quite an understatement IMO to qualify the performance of the Sigma 135/1.8 Art.
Sharpness across the frame, Focusing (speed & accuracy), Rendering (colours & bokeh), Correction (lack of chromatic aberrations, vignetting), Handling.
An affordable dream lens, and my favorite for shooting people and flowers.
prigault wrote: Well enough is quite an understatement IMO to qualify the performance of the Sigma 135/1.8 Art.
Sharpness across the frame, Focusing (speed & accuracy), Rendering (colours & bokeh), Correction (lack of chromatic aberrations, vignetting), Handling.
An affordable dream lens, and my favorite for shooting people and flowers.
I have a 70-180 that I’ve considered upgrading to a 70-200 but I’d love the plans 1.8 and bokeh and character
What are You talking about?
This lens has no character in it's rendering. Nothing, null, zero.
Plena produces boring and dull bokeh, similar like artificial blur in Photoshop.
I’m just going by lots of people bragging about its special rendering and seeing a ton of beautiful shots from it when I said “character”. Wrong word I suppose.
But who cares, I bought the 105 instead.
BeatX wrote:
What are You talking about?
This lens has no character in it's rendering. Nothing, null, zero.
Plena produces boring and dull bokeh, similar like artificial blur in Photoshop.
