Why the new name Plena?

donaldejose

What's up with Nikon introducing a new name? If it just means fast glass we already have two f1.2 lenses and one f0,95. If is means portrait we already have a 50mm f1.2, a 58mm f0.95 and an 85mm f1.2. I don't get what Plena would add. Any ideas?

donaldejose

It seems this line of lenses will really be different having solved some wide open issues optically such as round bokeh balls all the way to the edge of the frame and no darkening of the corners near the edges of the frame. I am not too sure just how important these "issues" are but solving them optically is an advancement. I wonder what other lenses would benefit from the optical technology of the Plena design? A 20mm prime?

WestEndFoto

This Plena looks pretty impressive. I have always loved the focal length and still shoot the DC.

I like to compose portraits in sections of the frame where vigneting starts to set in and sharpness is falling off. I think that this lens could be really helpful for someone who composes like me. I can also appreciate that a wide "Plena" could work really well for astro.

donaldejose

I came to the conclusion that it would be a special lens and ordered one even though I don't shoot portraits much anymore and see no need for me to own the 50mm f1.2 or 85mm f1.2 or 58mm f0.95. I find that f2 is "good enough" and tends to keep both eyes in better focus for portraits and if I want better background bokeh I can just compose with a greater distance between the subject and the background. We will see when the Plena arrives how much I use it. Bokeh and great edge performance are not everything but this 135 Plena may just become a legendary Nikkor lens so I want to try it. The price is right.

WestEndFoto

I will eventually order the Plena. I already have the 50 and 85 1.2 and they are suburb. The images are beautiful. I also own the Noct. With the Plena, I think I will have both legendary Z mount lenses.

Hmmmm.....but what about the 400 2.8TC, 600 2.8TC and 800 6.3? They certainly seem like they are seminal.

donaldejose

I agree WEF. All the Nikkor Z lenses you mentioned, and more, are extremely good. Long telephotos with built in teleconverters are so good I think they too will become legendary. In my opinion many photographers should start to drop other brands and switch to Nikon for the glass (AF ability is now close enough). I hope to see that happen. I hope the larger Z mount gives Nikon an advantage in lens design which Sony and Cannon cannot match. In terms of personal purchases for me I am limited by being 76 now and not shooting as much. Also, I don't want to carry as much weight around as I used to. So the wildlife lens which is attractive to me (and I have) is the 400mm f4.5 (in DX mode it is 600mm). Actually, my favorite body and lens to carry these days is the Z50 body with the DX 18-140 zoom. This portrait was done with the Z50 and the 50mm f1.8 lens shot wide open and it is "good enough" with a shallow enough depth of field. Click through to flckr and look at it full size. Sharp eyelashes and irises. I printed it 16x20 and it looks great.



My favorite portrait lens these days is the Nikkor 24-140 f4 shot at f4. I can put the camera on a tripod and shoot from groups to headshots without much movement of the tripod. Here is an example. Click through to see the details.



In my case I am just not going to use f 0.95 or f1.2 enough to justify the cost of owning the lenses. One of the old debates on NR so long ago was whether it is better to have one eye sharp and one blurry or both eyes sharp. I am in the both eyes sharp are better camp so f1.2 for me would only be used when the model was quite some distance from the camera.

WestEndFoto

What do you think of this one Donaldejose? Wide open at 1.2.

WestEndFoto

Or this one, wide open at 0.95.

WestEndFoto

Since I showed three of my kids, I better show the fourth. And an excuse on why I have not been around for the last year.

donaldejose

WEF. Great and cute kids. Your photos make a very compelling case for the f1.2 and f0.95 lenses. There is no problem with both eyes being in focus at that distance and the bokeh is beautiful. I especially like the first one because the colors are stronger. It makes me think twice about getting an f1.2, but which one? I have to think of my "use case." Since I would tend to use f1.2 mostly when the human subject is nearly full body and when there is plenty of background bokeh included in the frame, perhaps the 35mm f1.2 would be the best choice for a more "environmental portraiture" use case. Or maybe the 50mm would be more versatile? I don't think I would use the 85mm at f1.2 as much because I would be too far away from the subject when shooting far enough back to keep both eyes in the focal plane at f1.2
Which f1.2 do you use the most? The 50mm or the 85mm?

WestEndFoto

Thank you. I think we are done with the kids now. The oldest is in university this year, so it is quite a range that I have.

Regarding composing with both eyes in focus, I have to compose carefully to achieve that. I often shoot those lenses at 2.8 for that reason.

I think that the 50 is perfect for full body shots but if you want to get an environmental portrait at 28 or 35 you need space that you might not have. So if you have the space a 50 is good otherwise get a 35.

I use the 28 1.4E just for that and the bokeh is beautiful. I am looking forward to seeing what the 35 1.2S has to offer.

donaldejose

WEF: "I often shoot these lenses at f2.8 for that reason" (to keep both eyes in focus). So my question is: How does the f1.2 lens bokeh compare to the f1.8 lens bokeh when both are shot at f2.8? When both are shot at f2? I generally shoot headshots and waist up shots at f4 so the subject can change poses and I still get both eyes reasonably sharp. If I back away to a 3/4 body or full body shot I can go to f2.8 or f2 and still get both eyes reasonably sharp. If I shot 3/4 body to headshots at f1.2 the model would pretty much have to have both eyes in the plane of focus for them to both be reasonably sharp. Hence, it has seemed to me that I would so infrequently use the range from f1.2 to f1.8 to make the extra cost not worth it. But am I losing something in bokeh when those f1.2 lenses are shot at the f stops available to me with the much less expensive f1.8 primes? I don't know. What is your experience and opinion? My thinking is that the additional compression of the 135 Plena lens may proved great bokeh at f2, f2.8 and even at f4 so I can get both great bokeh and both eyes in reasonable focus. But I don't really know.

WestEndFoto

I shot this image with the Noct at 2.8 and I am very pleased at the quality of the bokeh.

WestEndFoto

I think that people think of this issue the wrong way. I want to shoot at the "optimum" f-stop. For example, there is a balance between having a total washed out background and one that still has identifying elements. Sometimes that bokeh is almost part of the subject in its own right. At other times it is an accent.

My favourite lenses to think about this are my 85s. I have the 85 2.0AIS, 85 1.4AIS, 85 1.4D, 85 1.4G, 85 1.8S and 85 1.2S. Up until now the 1.4AIS and D where my favorite for bokeh. Then the 1.4G upped the plane of focus sharpness game - it is easy to forget about that today. When I bought the 1.8S I was surprised. I bought all five of the 1.8 primes and when it came to rendering, the 85 was in a class of its own. Not as good as many - I compared it most often to my 28 2.8E and 105 1.4E and the 85 1.8S is not quite in this category. But much better than the other 4.

And then the 1.2S has taken this to a whole new level.

I tested the 58 0.95S, 50 1.8S and 50 1.2S really closely. At 2.0, all three were equally sharp in the centre, but the 1.2 was sharper than the 1.8 in the mid-frame to the corners and the Noct took this to a new level. I also noticed that at 4.0-5.6 the Noct was a little sharper than the 1.2 which was a little sharper than the 1.8. So much for the notion that all lenses are the same when stopped down. At diffraction that is true, but you have to get to f/8.0 to start to see a hint of diffraction on a 45mp full frame sensor.

I have not looked this closely at my 85 1.8S and 85 1.2S, but anecdotal evidence suggests that this is true of these two lenses.

Now, your question on bokeh. I love the bokeh on my Noct at 2.8. But it is subtle and you have to look closely. I am getting into opinion but I feel strongly that the bokeh on my 50 1.2 and 85 1.2 takes the bokeh to a level that the 1.8 primes does not reach regardless of the f-stop. Sometimes I look at an image and think "mediocre" but what beautiful bokeh.

I think that you will get lovely bokeh on the Plena based on what I have seen. I will be adding it to my bag in the spring. Based on my DC 135 2.0, I think that you should be able to have both your eyes and bokeh - even if you stop down to 2.8 and 4.0. And you will also get wicked sharpness wide open that the DC 135 2.0 is just not able to deliver.

donaldejose

Thanks. Very cute kids. Good to have you back commenting based upon your vast experience with the equipment. I have the 105 f1.4E and kept it even though I switched to Z mount for all other lenses (except for a few special effect odd ones like Lensbaby and Helios). Hopefully, the 135 Plena will keep me from spending money on the 50mm f1.2 or the 85mm f1.2 but I still may be tempted to purchase a 35mm f1.2 because I may be able to shoot that lens wide open with a human subject 3/4th to full body. I would like to shoot wide open more than I do now. Now I just always feel the DOF wide open is too narrow. 35mm should give me more DOF wide open and maximum bokeh from f1.2. That might work for my preferences.

Talking about kids. This is a grandchild shot in 2013 with cheap 2011 16mp crop sensor Nikon D5100 with the cheap kit lens at f8. Flash bounced off ceiling. Less than a 6mp image but you can still see the eyelashes when viewed full size. Expensive equipment just is not needed to have family memories. I don't know why I didn't have better equipment back than; I should have had a D4 which was released in 2012! LOL

WestEndFoto

Lovely kid. It would be something to see a recent image.

donaldejose

Snapshot at 10th birthday party this year, a quick photo break from playing soccer with friends. Still orange hair. Must have been eating something blue. Z6ii with 28-75 lens at f2.8.

WestEndFoto

Wow, that kid grew. And he kept the original hair!

I like the concept of the 28-75 lens. My only issue is that I wish it was 20-50. I would replace my 24-70 in a minute.

donaldejose

I have both the "cheap" 28-75 f2.8 and the expensive S 24-70 f2.8. My comparison of the two is that the 24-70 is sharper on test charts and pixel peeping but it makes no difference in "real world" photos where viewers are not pixel peeping in the corners. 99% of the time those corners are out of the subject's plane of focus anyway because only 1% of the time in the "real world" is a person using that lens to photograph a completely flat subject where the corners and the center are all in the same plane of focus. (If so, just stop down because bokeh is not going to exist in such a photo anyway). I have both the "cheap" 70-180 f2.8 and the expensive S 70-200 f2.8 also and have the same opinion of that pair. Technical superiority is nice, but it does not translate into superior "real world" images as much as we tend to think. it is fine to "use the best" if you can afford it but those who chose to not spend all that money should not feel their images will be inferior. They will not. Other factors are much more important that whether or not you used an S lens for that image.

donaldejose

Although she is shooting Canon, Irene makes a very good case for shooting 50 and 85mm f1.2 lenses at f1.2. Also, her editing is excellent. Some of Irene's other videos just blow me away.

WestEndFoto

She does. Personally I don't like to get that close with anything less than 135. But I doubt that many or even anyone will notice the difference. It is something you only notice when you compare something like a head and shoulder shot side by side with different focal lengths.

This is also a testament to how a simple tree can be the critical prop for beautiful images.

donaldejose

I agree with the closeness comment. I don't like using a 50mm that close and was surprised that she did use it. To me 50mm is not a "portrait lens" unless you are doing 3/4 body or full body portraits. To me a 3/4 body image is pushing the definition of a portrait. But I am too narrow minded about that not having done a lot of "environmental portraiture." I should try to do more with a 35mm lens. Maybe I will.

WestEndFoto

I find that I use my 28 1.4E alot for portraiture, but it is "environmental" or "editorial" style portraiture. At 1.4 you don't get super blurry backgrounds at 28mm, but the blur you do get is gorgeous without detracting from the editorial feel. You can still see what it going on around the subject, but it is less "distracting" and "harsh".