Nikon 135mm f2

[Melvin J Bramley]

Anyone using Nikon 135mm f2 AI lens?
I have my eye on one and would like users experience as a general use lens not just portraits.

 

[250swb]

860gm (more than an F3 body but it may balance on a heavier F4).

 

[loccdor]

Almost 300 grams lighter than my Sigma ART 135mm f/1.8, which is slightly arm-fatiguing on long shoots but can still be carried (just barely) in my waist pouch. I find the focal length great for landscape as well as portraiture. Most 135mm lenses are quite sharp.

 

[xkaes]

I have a 135mm f1.8 Sigma. Great for low light situations where you need more reach -- or for subjects calling for a short distance and shallow DOF, like portraits & still-lifes -- but otherwise it's just too heavy to carry around. If you have strong arms -- or need the exercise -- it could be nice for candid/street photography, but for that, I'd recommend a MUCH lighter and less conspicuous 250/300mm f5.6 CAT.

 

[Paul Howell]

Unless you need the additional stop for low light the 2.8 is much lighter and likely sharper at 2.8 than the 2. wide open. I'm a bit surprised that Nikon did not a 105 or 100 F2.

 

[dynachrome]

There is a 105/1.8 Nikkor, which I have. I've been thinking of adding a 135/2 Nikkor for a while.

 

[Paul Howell]

Is the Nikon 105 1.8 MF or AF?

 

[Chuck1]

MF

 

[chuckroast]

Anyone using Nikon 135mm f2 AI lens?
I have my eye on one and would like users experience as a general use lens not just portraits.

I have the 135mm f/2.8 AIS which I love. It's only 430g as compared to the 735g of the f/2. That's what I would opt for unless you must have the faster speed lens because ...

I bought the 85mm f/1.4 AIS some years ago and it taught me a lesson. Unless you absolutely must have the extra stop of lens speed, favor the smaller aperture lens because of ... weight. My f/1.4 weighs in at 570g and I should have bought the f/2 variant at 370g.

 

[BrianShaw]

I use the 135 f/3.4. Never needed “speed”. Great focal length. Decent IQ.

 

[hardly any color]

I had it for a while, it’s an amazing portrait lens with very thin depth of field at f2. It is big and heavy though.

 

[250swb]

I have a a 135 f/2.8 Q from the early seventies and that is heavy enough for me, but it served me well in theatre photography being 'just' fast enough. And it's also a very good lens and like other people have said the image quality between all the types isn't in doubt. But at 2.8 the DOF is still pretty shallow and at an aperture where a lens is starting to work at its best, so for me the best of both worlds.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I got my first and so far only Ai-s 135mm f/2 in a bundle of Nikon MF gear that a daily news shooter dumped when the change shifted to Canon EOS for the tele sports shooting. I admit to not knowing anything about it but the guy said it was a killer volleyball lens. This one was well used but with super smooth focus throw and pristine glass, every shooter shot with a filter but the lens worked way better in those dim gyms without a filter. Indoor volleyball, basketball, baseball from third base, usually a Nikon F3P doing 7fps with MD-4 running over cooked 18v MN-2 Ni-Cads, burning rolls per quarter, fun times. Post news shooting that same lens was my pro secret for weddings. A super deep hood with no filter for first dance with spotlights is what that lens was made to do. Mine suffered a hit to the rear element from a Domke metal strap fitting, the loose clip when working fast and flipping the bag shut. A shatter on that thick element didn't fully chip it but gave a circular shatter, after looking thru the finder the center seemed sharp enough to finish the wedding. The resulting negatives made me regret getting NPS to rebuild the whole thing, helicoids and all, was like a new lens. That lens stayed with me but got melted in the Lahaina wildfires a few years ago, I've considered replacing it but I don't really use that length ofter, and if I did at this stage I'd consider the DC 135mm f/2 just to try it. The original Ai or Ai-s version is also stellar long portraits lens, the natural compromise of the optical design close in gives a lovely glow with sharpness.
I'm also very fond of the 135mm f/3.5 in the compact AI-s version, a really great small lens with a top f-11 performance.

 

[awty]

You need all the lenses.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Ha yes at today's prices you can collect them all, but let me save some of you some time and purchases.

As mentioned above the 135/2 is the range topping lens, and on the other side of weight and size is my fondly recalled 135/3.5 Ai-s. The older Q and Q.C 3.5's are really good but quite heavy and large, for that size and weight you'd be better served with an ED 180/2.8 Ai-s. The 135/2.8 AI and Ai-s should be the sweet spot for a travel lens but I've always felt that the design was along the lines of the 85mm f/2 Ai/Ai-s, somewhat flatter contrast and color, you may like it but I never did, I tend to prefer the 3.5 contrast and the 2 for bokeh.

 

[Franklee]

Have had Zeiss, Sigma and the 135 Plena on the Z system but the one I'd buy again is the plain 135/2 AI or AIS. It's the most compact and easy handling. I think all of the fancy 135 lenses are sharp and high quality but the relatively inexpensive 40-year old 135/2 AI or AIS is just as sharp with just as nice bokeh.

Easier to focus than my 105/2.5 or 85/1.4 but for portraits outdoors you'll be far enough away that you have to shout directions especially in the wind.

Also took a 135/2.8 AIS on a trip with a 40mm, traveling light. It's a great lightweight and compact tele.

The lens Nikon should make again is a compact 180/2.8. They are not as good as a modern 70-200 but modern coatings and manufacturing could probably fix that.

 

[loccdor]

If you want an excellent compact tele try the Canon New FD 100mm f/2.8. It looks like a 50mm lens.