I want a brand new 135mm :-)

FrenchRiviera

Who will be the 1st to pop out an insane portrait lense like a 135mm f/1,8 ?

Sigma could with a 135 ART according to the famous 35mm and 50mm ART ... or Nikon completing the very good "1,8" line ?

donaldejose

135mm f1.8 might be a big and expensive lens. How about a 135mm f2?

FrenchRiviera

Right

I was thinking about the famous Zeiss for Sony

http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/500-zeiss_135_18ff

But as a former Canon user , I accept easily f2.0 as well ;-)

Most important point for me is an excellent performance wide open , would it be 1.8 or 2.0

WestEndFoto

The current 135 is in my bag and I regard it as a superior portrait lens to my 85 1.4G. The optics are not as up to date (but are still superb), but the longer focal length takes it over the top.

I would buy this lens even if you know you will buy whatever Nikon replaces it with. The replacement will not have refocus (bokeh) control and I would expect this lens to appreciate in value along the lines of the classic 28 and 58. There could be a profit potential here. If I was a speculator I would have a closet full of these in original packaging.

Golf007sd

@FrenchRiviera: If you find yourself seeking a prime lens above the 85mm focal length, have a look at the 105 2.8 Micro. It does a fantastic job as portrait lens and then some.

Thom Hogran review.

FrenchRiviera

@FrenchRiviera: If you find yourself seeking a prime lens above the 85mm focal length, have a look at the 105 2.8 Micro. It does a fantastic job as portrait lens and then some.

Thom Hogran review.

I had it , a very good lense , but I prefer longer range .

Currently , I use for portraits a 180mm 2.8 OS macro SIGMA and a 300mm 2.8VRII Nikon , both tremendous lenses but too heavy for travel and all day ride ;-)

I used to have the famous Canon 135L , I appreciated very much this lense , if I could get a modern version for Nikon ...

Golf007sd

I, too, would welcome a 135mm G lens from Nikon. It sure would be lighter than our 300 2.8 VR II. Should this lens never show up, you can always consider the 200 f/2...but you know that totally defeats the entire weight argument. Yet, it SURE makes up for it in its results. :P

FrenchRiviera

but the longer focal length takes it over the top.

Full approval

jjb930

Today on PhotoRumors:
http://photorumors.com/2014/12/22/rokinonsamyang-teasing-with-a-new-135mm-lens/

Obviously a third party brand and most likely manual focus, but it will probably be relatively cheap compared to the gold ring

MikeGunter

Hi all,

The 105mm Micro with VR is an upgrade that I'm looking to do soon. I have a older 105mm micro that is terrific, but I do envy and want VR.

Years ago (when TV was still broadcast in Black and White) I had an older 135mm slower f3.5 which was sharp and useful. The focal length is great.

It's tempting to root for the manufacture for that lens. There are some real problems. Getting below the current crop of zoom/micro lenses's f2.8 aperture would be necessary to make it worthwhile, and that would mean it would be on expensive and big sonofabitch. And to really, really make it worthwhile, it would have to be f1.8, making it more expensive and big, and yikes, more and more.

It would be a narrow market for sure.

My best,

Mike

WestEndFoto

Nikon only sells about 1,000 of the current 135s per year. But it is 20 years old....

haroldp

The Nikon 105/2 DC is also an outstanding portrait lens.

... H

WestEndFoto

+1 Haroldp

heartyfisher

Hi all,

The 105mm Micro with VR is an upgrade that I'm looking to do soon. I have a older 105mm micro that is terrific, but I do envy and want VR.

...

Consider the sigma 150 F2.8 macro .. I have the old one without OS and that is lovely for portraits.. ( a bit too sharp sometimes !) I have seen the new one .. and its got OS and some say its even better.

WestEndFoto

How can a lens be too sharp?

PB_PM

Hi all,

The 105mm Micro with VR is an upgrade that I'm looking to do soon. I have a older 105mm micro that is terrific, but I do envy and want VR.

The VR is nice, just keep in mind that most reviews show that the old Micro 105mm F2.8D is actually sharper. Didn't stop me from getting the G version though.

FrenchRiviera

How can a lens be too sharp?

I guess MikeGunter means too sharp for portraits of certain people , delivering too many unsightly skin details .

But this effect can be fought by software ( low contrast , low clarity , high key ) or choosing a good soft light .

That's why I also appreciate , even for portrait , very sharp lenses , but in that case , skin must be perfect
http://christophe-nober.photodeck.com/-/galleries/portraits/-/medias/e4adff12-3433-11e3-b1d7-4b73ac584590-la-couleur-des-yeux-de-margaux

henrik1963

What is wrong with Nikon 135 F2.0 DC?

I know it is an older design. But is it to soft for D8xx work?

studio460

Personally, I think 105mm is too short for head-and-shoulders portraits on an FX body (however, it's a great portrait length for DX bodies). Most subjects will photograph in a more flattering way at longer focal lengths (e.g., 135mm-200mm). My current portrait lens of choice is the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS macro. It's tack-sharp, and lighter and shorter than my 70-200mm Nikkor VR, plus it balances well on an full-sized body (whereas the 70-200mm is just too unwieldy for handheld shooting for any length of time in my view).

studio460

The DC-Nikkors are tricky lenses. At certain settings, they're a little soft and lack contrast. At the "right" setting, it can be very sharp. I have the DC 105mm (purchased when I was a DX-only shooter), but for money shots, I just don't trust it. The Sigma 150mm always seems to nail its focus dead-on, and is capable of producing razor-sharp images even wide-open. It's now my go-to portrait lens, and it never fails to deliver.

Msmoto

Here is the 135mm f/2.0 Nikkor wide open
Original:



Cropped:



Wide open:



Cropped:

WestEndFoto

The DC-Nikkors are tricky lenses. At certain settings, they're a little soft and lack contrast. At the "right" setting, it can be very sharp. I have the DC 105mm (purchased when I was a DX-only shooter), but for money shots, I just don't trust it. The Sigma 150mm always seems to nail its focus dead-on, and is capable of producing razor-sharp images even wide-open. It's now my go-to portrait lens, and it never fails to deliver.

Not sure I have had that experience with my 135. However, if the defocus control is set to something other than zero, then it needs to match the aperture that your lens is set at or it will be soft.

KnockKnock

I just discovered the existence of these f/2 DC lenses, the 105 and 135. Fascinated. Mostly shoot food (at least get gigs as such) and love to blow out the background. Tempted vs the 105mm f/2.8 Micro VR. A little concerned about their age. Imagine what they could do today. Might have to rent.

WestEndFoto

I would not be concerned with the age. I bought mine brand new last year and it is my favorite lens (of 9). They are superior to the 105 2.8 for portraits and blurring the background.

henrik1963

I am still tempted by the 135 2.0 DC. Judging from Msmotos shots it is plenty sharp for most things.

jimmyboy

I own both 135 f/2.0 D.C & 105 f/2.0 D.C. The king of Bokeh lenses. Also own Nikon 300 f/2.8 & the 105 f/2.8 macro vr. The 105 macro would be good but it hunt's to much for focus to get a quick shot. Theirs a learning curve using the 135 D.C. & 105 D.C. Nikon 300 f/2.8 good for studio work tri-pod mono-pod good for head shot's. Over-all Imho I would use the 135 f/2.0 D.C