Anyone here used the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC?

Hacker

Hacker

TPer Emeritus
Messages
7,625
Name
Colin
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm getting more and more into using fast primes and I quite like the look of the above for use on FX but I'm not sure if the DC (Defocus Control) is that good. I've tried reading how it works but ideally I need to be handling something to learn about it.
 
Colin, I had the 105mm DC, but never really got the hang of the DC enough to warrant paying any extra for it. Having said that, it was a lovely lens, but I suspect that Nikon owners looking for a 100mm+ prime will be drawn by the dual functionality of the 105mm f:2.8 macro these days.
 
Hacker said:
I've tried reading how it works but ideally I need to be handling something to learn about it.
Click to expand...

That was my line when I first got my future wife home for a 'coffee' ;)

Sorry can't help about the lens though, and I too am interested in comments, so consider this my :popcorn:

DD
 
I may be wrong, I think Lensflare was considering this lens as well as the 105mm DC. May be worth PM'ing him?
 
i had been considering this lens as a fast prime lens for gigs as a step along from my 85mm.
th DC didnt realy concern me as such.
i would be intersted in users of this.
 
Hacker said:
I'm getting more and more into using fast primes and I quite like the look of the above for use on FX but I'm not sure if the DC (Defocus Control) is that good. I've tried reading how it works but ideally I need to be handling something to learn about it.
Click to expand...

I've been reading up on this lens as well Colin. The think that worries me is the DC being moved about and weird things happening. It seems like a heavy lens too, although TBH if you're used to carting the 24-70 about... :lol:

Nikon really do ned to hurry up with a 35/1.4 :)

Pete
 
I'm also interested if anyone has any further comments on this lens. It's on my shopping list for the summer.
 
I tried the 135 and the 105DC lenses.

I am FX too and went for the 105 in the end, both are f2 both have the Dc and without it is as sharp as a razor, as you would expect.

The 85 1.4 is a different animal, and probably a good gig lens - but with the D3, I can make do without that extra opening and just crank up the ISO to 400 instead.

The 105 was my choice because it actually provided a "nicer" result than the 135, and is handier in a tighter corner. I have the 70-200, so I can go longer wiht that.

The DC is absolutely brilliant. You can keep it turned off, in which case you have an f2 prime, same as any other. Use the DC to throw the background out of focus and you get lovely softened highlights, it also alters the plane from focus to out of focus, so you do need ot focus after you have set the DC.

Rule of thumb, set the DC aperture to the same as your working aperture. I have played wiht more DC aperture, and it just strengthens the softening, you can overdo it. One stop extra is not too much, but two stops of DC then becomes obviou, a bit like a 1970s softened image.

I have used the effect successfully to replicate an old camera when doing some classic bikes the other day - we wanted them to be "period" pictures too, and they looked like they were taken with an old camera/lens.

Very happy and it is built like it was hewn out of granite. A glorious, specialist, portait lens. If you ain't doing portraits, then there are better lenses for genral photography - the 85 f1.4 for a start, despite the difference in length.

i wouldn't compare the micro 105 with the DC - totally different optical designs. The micro is optimised for close work, and is very nice for general work. The DC excels at portraits, as was intended. At £800 I think it is excellent value - a lens that will withstand marches in time.
 
Lensflare said:
i wouldn't compare the micro 105 with the DC - totally different optical designs. The micro is optimised for close work, and is very nice for general work. The DC excels at portraits, as was intended. At £800 I think it is excellent value - a lens that will withstand marches in time.
Click to expand...

You might not compare the two, but many other photographers have done and will still do so. One particular tog I know who really knows his onions couldn't justify having two lenes of the same focal length and flogged the DC.

The fact that they're different optical designs won't bother 90% of buyers.
 
I'm thinking about selling my 85 1.8 (using on DX, so equivalent to 126mm on FF, so almost 135mm) simply because im finding it a really hard focal length to use. Its an absolutely fantastic lens, but i just can't find a situation where that sort of focal length is useful. Of course this is personal to me and has no reflection on the quality etc of a lens, but it might be something to bare in mind when looking at the 135 f/2.
 
alexisonfire said:
I'm thinking about selling my 85 1.8 (using on DX, so equivalent to 126mm on FF, so almost 135mm) simply because im finding it a really hard focal length to use. Its an absolutely fantastic lens, but i just can't find a situation where that sort of focal length is useful. Of course this is personal to me and has no reflection on the quality etc of a lens, but it might be something to bare in mind when looking at the 135 f/2.
Click to expand...

85mm is a tricky length on DX....I found it most useful for outdoor portraits, indoors was quite restrictive with the minimum focussing distance.
 
Why did he sell the DC and not the micro - that would be an interesting decision.

If he wanted the close focussing for just lips, or eyes, I can understand his logic. A B&W soft spot filter will give a very pleasing effect, similar to the DC, but not quite the same, but it would serve a purpose.

I wanted a specalist portrait lens for corporate and editorial portraits, for that it is brilliant.

Each to their own. We can only give one sided views!
 
I can't imagine why anyone would decide to lose a 105 DC in favour of a 105 micro.....on focal length alone.
The DC is a specialist lens, it can't shoot macro, but then the micro can't shoot DC....what is there to compare :shrug:
 
joxby said:
I can't imagine why anyone would decide to lose a 105 DC in favour of a 105 micro.....on focal length alone.
The DC is a specialist lens, it can't shoot macro, but then the micro can't shoot DC....what is there to compare
Click to expand...

Well it's quite simple, if you don't use the DC function that much, what are you losing? Okay so it's slightly faster at f:2, but it hasn't got VR nor the macro ability. They're both great lenses but I certainly wouldn't have both in my kit bag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top