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.