Over the years I have always used the D850 and 100/2 Makro Planar / D500 and 58/1.4 with the 12mm tube while shooting these small flowers. But with the 100/2 it gets a bit tight and I have to move away to get some background causing it to be a bit dull even when shooting wide open. With the 85/1.4 and 12mm tube combo I still get a reasonable FOV, magnification and focus distance. Works excellent at F2 but for the extra dreamy look it works also at F1.4. The depth of field is razor thin but that is what I like anyway...
Al Trujillo wrote:
I own a 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar...any experience with this lens and what kind of results I might be able to achieve?
I like it a lot. It's my most used lens of all time. I'm mostly use it (and all the other lenses) for close up shots on full frame.
As of now it's usually the 100/2 MP, 135/2 APO or 85/1.4 Otus with 12mm tub. For me they have a similar look with some differencies and quirks when shooting wide open or close as I do.
.
100/2 MP - for small flowers and stuff close up. If I move back to get some more background it sometimes get's too busy.
135/2 APO - for slightly larger objects and when I have the space close up. MFD is 0.8m. Magnification is 0,33 and good for a 135. Background usually gets more pleasing than with the 100/2.
85/1.4 with tube - similar to 100/2 but more pleasing background than 100/2. Reallly thin DOF at F1.4 but dreamy. Larger flower might get out of range with tube. MFD is somewhere between 100/2 and 135/2 but it get's nearsighted...
cyra wrote:
the snail is great, you are a master of getting the sharp zone just right.
if the 135 wasn't that heavy I would buy it instantly.
It is heavy but there are times when I can overlook its weight, especially when I know what I'm going to shoot. This was shot with the 'Classic', which according to my internet review indicates it weighs less than the Milvus 135mm which replaced it (930f vs 1123g).
