To the fool who said the 135mm DC isn't sharp?

[GHP]

I had a conversation with some-one recently (not on here I hasten to add) who stated categorically that my Nikon 135,, f2 DC lens was not sharp when stopped down further than around f4. I have posted a few on here now with the lens wide open, and it is sharp, even wide open.
So I went into a studio for a meetup type shoot, and decided to try it stopped down. It was a small studio, so the 135 was a bit long, but I tried it anyway.
OK, heres a couple from that session.

Both were shot on a Nikon D700 with the 135mm f2 DC lens. First was shot @f8, and second was @f14 .
With the f14 shot I was trying to see how far I could stop down without seeing diffraction. I Think the first shot is a tad sharper shot TBH.

I am very impressed with the sharpness on these, there is very little sharpening applied, apart from LR's sharpen for screen on export to jpeg, and whatever Flickr has done to them !
If you want the full size to check out the sharpness, click on the image for full size !!

Shot 1: D700, 250th sec, f8. 2 x Bowens shot into softboxes.


Charlotte Louise Baker B&W by G_H_Photography, on Flickr

Shot 2: D700, 125th sec, f14. 2 x Bowens shot into softboxes, with another 2 to light the background.


Charlotte Louise Baker by G_H_Photography, on Flickr

 

[hunter20ga]

Obviously very nice rendering of the images. They certainly appear sharp, but of greater importance, have a very pleasing appearance.

 

[sultanofswing]

The 135 is my fav lens, and so sharp that you can shave with it!
Got meself a D600 yesterday, can't wait to try it out with the 135!

 

[GHP]

Obviously very nice rendering of the images. They certainly appear sharp, but of greater importance, have a very pleasing appearance.

Thanks. You are right, the appearance is great on this lens. I think it's due to the focal length. Many years ago the 135mm was a staple length for portraits. The amount of facial "distortion" is minimal.
The only problem was that it was a very small studio, and the length made it a bit awkward !

 

[GHP]

The 135 is my fav lens, and so sharp that you can shave with it!
Got meself a D600 yesterday, can't wait to try it out with the 135!

Mine too.
I am very keen to see some images on the D600/135mm combo.
I am trying to decide between the D600/D800 at the moment, so it will be good to see what the lens looks like on these cameras.
Make sure you get some images up ASAP please. I will await with interest !!

 

[Cagey75]

I agree that the second image seems sharper. Viewed large you can see the pores of her skin! Looks a fantastic lens.

 

[ShawWellPete]

I must admit, the 135mm DC is a lens I don't use that much. It's very long for the size of my studio,so prefer the 85mm for that. Outside the studio, it needs quite a lot of light, so often prefer the 70-200 VRII were I can hand hold at far lower shutter speeds. I have also found that the d800 is a bit unforgiving with it wide open.

I have thought about selling it, but love the feel of photos when I do use it, for me it's an outdoor portrait lens when there is plenty of light.

 

[JonathanRyan]

I must admit, the 135mm DC is a lens I don't use that much. It's very long for the size of my studio,so prefer the 85mm for that. Outside the studio, it needs quite a lot of light, so often prefer the 70-200 VRII were I can hand hold at far lower shutter speeds.

Interesting. I don't have the 135 but the 105 DC I have is supposed to be similar.

Was shooting in a stupidly dark church on Sunday (far darker than anything I've been in). I didn't use the 70-200 but swapped to the 105DC.

I always find the 70-200 needs an extra half stop at least of exposure (I'm told it's something to do with T stops...) and the f2 is WAY brighter to look through than the 2.8.

Sharp enough for web

 

[ShawWellPete]

Interesting. I don't have the 135 but the 105 DC I have is supposed to be similar.

Was shooting in a stupidly dark church on Sunday (far darker than anything I've been in). I didn't use the 70-200 but swapped to the 105DC.

I always find the 70-200 needs an extra half stop at least of exposure (I'm told it's something to do with T stops...) and the f2 is WAY brighter to look through than the 2.8.

Sharp enough for web

Hmm, I'd guess your hand is steadier than mine.

I had a family member who asked me to photograph her wedding last weekend. You know the type, because I have some kit and have taken some OK photos, I can turn up as a guest and replace a pro with years of experience. I offered her helping in finding someone which she declined. Anyway, when I turned up at the church, there was no photographer,which is why I found myself at the back of a dark church at 5.00pm in a Winters evening giving it a go.

Anyway, the 70-200 I was hand holding at pretty slow shutter speeds, 1/15 sec or so, and getting sharp photos. The 135mm went on and off my camera pretty quickly.

 

[JonathanRyan]

Hmm, I'd guess your hand is steadier than mine.

Not really - I was shaking from the cold

I ramped it up to get shutter speeds of 1/100 or so - that was f2 and ISO 8000. Sometimes higher.

The f2 does nice things to the light.

So, you're not using yours and thinking of chucking it out.....?

 

[ShawWellPete]

Not really - I was shaking from the cold

I ramped it up to get shutter speeds of 1/100 or so - that was f2 and ISO 8000. Sometimes higher.

The f2 does nice things to the light.

So, you're not using yours and thinking of chucking it out.....?

Ate you going to be going through my dustbin?

I think I'll keep it, you can borrow it if you want to test it.

The wedding was hilarious, don't get me started on the family shots, what a **** show. Only one flash and umbrella, not enough time, too many disinterested guests and a family member with a DSLR and kit lens standing in front of me flashing away with the on board flash.

Really, I'm not sure how you maintain your sanity...