I know 70-200 is the popular choice in this area but I'm very curious to know if anyone here regularly uses a 135 and how they feel about it. Thanks!
Does anyone use a 135mm lens for environmental wildlife shots?
- Thread starter Stephen Berger
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Doug A.
Well-known member
I picked up a used Nikkor 135mm AI f3.5 for less than $100 earlier this year. HOLY SH*T!! The sharpness, color saturation, contrast, rendering and image quality from this lens is amazing. I'm convinced its primarily due to its low element count. The biggest optical issue with it is a little chromatic aberration wide open, but that is super easy to correct in post. Yeah I know I miss more shots due to it being a manual focus lens, but when I nail focus (and I'm getting better at it all the time), the results are wonderful. This lens and the Nikon 180mm f2.8 may be the two most underrated and forgotten telephoto lenses from Nikon. I was so impressed with both of them (not just image quality they produce but also the size and weight savings) I sold my 80-200mm and don't regret that decision for an instant. I find as the years go by, AF becomes less important to me and the way a lens renders becomes more important. I suspect I'm quite alone in this regard.
I am reviving an old thread which I found by searching for 135. I am thinking of getting a (Sony or Sigma) 135 f1.8 for low life wildlife that is not too far away. Does anyone use a fast 135 for wildlife (instead of the usual use of people portraits)?
I have and often do with a Zeiss Batis 135 f/2 on an A7RIV. I love the focal length for such shots. And as I tend to be out before sunrise I love the atmospheres I can capture cleanly at f/2 while waiting for enough light to use my 600/1.4TC combo (I tend to go out with 2 cameras).
You say you have a Batis 135 f/2 but what I see listed online is 135 f/2.8 . Did you mistype or do you have a faster version they no longer make?
Here is a nice comparison video of the four 135 autofocus lenses available for Sony:
Surprisingly, he rates the least expensive (Samyang) as the sharpest. However, he rates the most expensive (Sony GM) as having the best autofocus for fast action (but only by a small margin).
Coincidentally, three of the four (all except Sony GM) are currently on sale at B&H (around $250 off plus or minus a few bucks depending on lens).
Surprisingly, he rates the least expensive (Samyang) as the sharpest. However, he rates the most expensive (Sony GM) as having the best autofocus for fast action (but only by a small margin).
Coincidentally, three of the four (all except Sony GM) are currently on sale at B&H (around $250 off plus or minus a few bucks depending on lens).
ElenaH
Well-known member
Exactly! I have also a legendary 105/2.5 from Nikon ;-)
And yes, I have two 135mm: Zeiss Milvus 135/2 and Sigma 135/1.8. I also have also Nikon 180/2.8 and new Nikon 105/1.4
Once I watched the video of Davis Yarrow about animal-photography where he is saying: "...will you take a photo of beautiful woman with telephoto lens? No. Then take a portrait lens and come close to the animal..."
And I did ;-)
I took all of four lenses to Africa. Not all in one time but once I took Zeiss and the other time Sigma and the next time Nikon. It depended on where I went, to which park. I even took a Trioplan 100/2.8 of Meyer Optik Görlitz to Mana Pools where you are able to walk to animals and come very close to them becasue they are used to people. The picture taken with Trioplan even got some price on the Meyer Görlitz photo-contest. The lens design is from 1916. The point is that people saw a lot of excellent sharp photos made with telephoto lens and they look for something new ...
My pictures made with Milvus were excellent becasue the lens has increadible dynamic range, that means I could still recover lights and shadows where other lenses sucked. For example, when I photographed African Wild Dogs sitting in the shadow of the tree during the sunny late morning. I was able to recover details in lights and shadows. The same scene I photographed with Nikon 24-70/2.8 and it sucked completely. Milvus 135/2 is my reference lens for resolution and sharpness. I have a lot of beautiful pictures of wildlife taken with Milvus 135mm. But it is not easy to use the manual lens, of course.
I used also Sigma 135/1.8 for Bushbucks, Monkeys, Guinea Fowl etc.. portraits and for bigger scenes. The same with Nikon 105/1.4 and 180/2.8 - I used them for portraits and for scenic pictures where I wanted to habe an animal and his environment. I love the results becasue the animals are sharp and environment is nice unsharp and it all has a different look in comparison with telephoto.
Actually, I love taking pictures with these lenses. And the other big advantage is that I can take pictures when it is already very dark! In this condition the lenses do a very good job and they all are sharp already open.
Here is a comparison of portrait lens vs. telephoto:
105mm portrait lens vs. 500mm tele: will you see the difference?
We all know the famous quote of Robeert Capa: „if your photographs aren't good enough you're not close enough“ Well.. the other day I was watching a presentation of David Yarrow in YouTube where he said: „Will you photograph a beautiful woman with the 600mm lens? .. And why do you do it with...
bcgforums.com
Trioplan:
Capture of Mana Magic with the lens designed in 1916??
Yes, the first version of Meyer-Optik Görlitz Trioplan was presented in 1916. It had three uncoated elements and was 50mm f2.9. The Trioplans were produced until 1963 and people liked them because of low price and acceptable quality. Those vintage lenses experienced comeback in the digital era...
bcgforums.com
I will try to post the pictures of wildlife made by Milvus and Sigma 135mm.
ElenaH
Well-known member
I have found a few pictures taken with 135mm.
Sigma is known by its butter-bokeh and also circle-bokeh if picture its taken in backlight which is coming through the leaves:
Sigma is AF-lense and it is easy to photograph with f1.8 having eyes in focus (however this photo was made with D850 without eye-AF)
here are examples of butter-bokeh:
Sigma has also very interesting and nice front-bokeh and is often used for plant-photography where front-bokeh is important. Here is a leaves-front-bokeh with monkey:
Sigma is known by its butter-bokeh and also circle-bokeh if picture its taken in backlight which is coming through the leaves:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Sigma is AF-lense and it is easy to photograph with f1.8 having eyes in focus (however this photo was made with D850 without eye-AF)
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
here are examples of butter-bokeh:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Sigma has also very interesting and nice front-bokeh and is often used for plant-photography where front-bokeh is important. Here is a leaves-front-bokeh with monkey:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Attachments
Last edited:
ElenaH
Well-known member
Sigma is also very good by low light and makes very sharp high-key photos:
Zeiss Milvus 135mm/2 has different character. It preserves enormous amount of details in lights and shadows which can be recovered in post-processing like for example, with those wild dogs standing in the shadow of the tree during the sunny day:
the other picture of lions feeding in the shadow in the semi-desert Kgalagadi. The contrast of the scene is so strong that the other lenses normally suck.
It doesn't mean that I take pictures during the day but if you drive and there are lions and no car then you stop and at least take some shots for your memory album ;-). In such condition Sigma will definitely suck, the Zeiss - not!
The other quality of Zeiss are its colours. I didn't see such colours by any other lens, it turns a simple scene into a painting :
Zeiss renders the colours its own way:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Zeiss Milvus 135mm/2 has different character. It preserves enormous amount of details in lights and shadows which can be recovered in post-processing like for example, with those wild dogs standing in the shadow of the tree during the sunny day:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
the other picture of lions feeding in the shadow in the semi-desert Kgalagadi. The contrast of the scene is so strong that the other lenses normally suck.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
It doesn't mean that I take pictures during the day but if you drive and there are lions and no car then you stop and at least take some shots for your memory album ;-). In such condition Sigma will definitely suck, the Zeiss - not!
The other quality of Zeiss are its colours. I didn't see such colours by any other lens, it turns a simple scene into a painting :
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Zeiss renders the colours its own way:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
ElenaH
Well-known member
Here is an example of Zeiss-bokeh. The problem is that to get the focus right is not an easy task with manual lens. And when with Sigma I often took photos with f1.8 with Zeiss I used f4-5.6 because I was afraid to miss the focus and increased the DoF. But Zeiss lenses are known by their abrupt change of focus-plane and it is still possible to get relatively nice bokeh using f5.6 or f4.
In any case what is sharp is really sharp!
As I could see in my photos I used Zeiss in very contrasty condition and for landscapes to get much colour. Here in a lot of light:
Sihluettes:
Landscape:
Actually it is a very simple landscape, nothing special. But Zeiss (and Voigtländer, too by the way) can get a lot of details in colours. It has the excellent colour-gradation and resolution. It has 3D-pop because of abrupt change of the focus-plane.
The Sigma doesn't have these features. Or not so pronounced. But it has AF and it is sharp by f1.8. I can react very quickly and take animal-portraits with Sigma. I think that Sigma let more light. Yes, it is definitely because of f1.8 but f-number is defined by geometry. There is also T-number (Transmission) which is defined by glass used in elements of lens. Zeiss normally let less light, the T-number of Zeiss is more (less light) than its F-number. This information can be checked in DXOMARK, they publish transmission.
So, each lens has its strong points and I use them accordingly. I try to learn and understand those strong and weak points and where I can get better results. The same actually valid for any camera-lens combination.
I hope, it will help!
I can also post some pictures of 105/1.4 I use in Africa as well
Well... I am not so good as David Yarrow but I took his advice seriously ;-)
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
In any case what is sharp is really sharp!
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
As I could see in my photos I used Zeiss in very contrasty condition and for landscapes to get much colour. Here in a lot of light:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Sihluettes:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Landscape:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Actually it is a very simple landscape, nothing special. But Zeiss (and Voigtländer, too by the way) can get a lot of details in colours. It has the excellent colour-gradation and resolution. It has 3D-pop because of abrupt change of the focus-plane.
The Sigma doesn't have these features. Or not so pronounced. But it has AF and it is sharp by f1.8. I can react very quickly and take animal-portraits with Sigma. I think that Sigma let more light. Yes, it is definitely because of f1.8 but f-number is defined by geometry. There is also T-number (Transmission) which is defined by glass used in elements of lens. Zeiss normally let less light, the T-number of Zeiss is more (less light) than its F-number. This information can be checked in DXOMARK, they publish transmission.
So, each lens has its strong points and I use them accordingly. I try to learn and understand those strong and weak points and where I can get better results. The same actually valid for any camera-lens combination.
I hope, it will help!
I can also post some pictures of 105/1.4 I use in Africa as well
Well... I am not so good as David Yarrow but I took his advice seriously ;-)
Last edited:
tclune
Well-known member
A tad judgmental there, wouldn't you say?
Oh wow, that is a major typo! Obviously I meant low light wildlife, not low life!A tad judgmental there, wouldn't you say?
@ElenaH These are great and thanks for your input. I am surprised the lens (Zeiss Milvus) would make a difference in dynamic range since I thought that was only up to the camera sensor. In any case, I would not get a manual focus lens for wildlife because as you note it is too difficult (especially since I would want it mainly for low light). However, I currently use two Nikon D850's as my primary bodies (with four lenses) and a Sony A74 for the 200-600 lens. I was looking into a 135 for my Sony but now you have me thinking I could get a Sigma for my D850! However the new and highly rated Samyang for Sony (see my video link in post 6) is on sale for a more affordable price now, so that may be the way to go.
ElenaH
Well-known member
yes, it would because of resolution and because it is very good corrected (IMO). So, the lens resolves some number of lines per mm and the camera sensor, too. So, if the lens has a very high resolution and no funny stuff in colours like CAs then the details are there even if we don't see them before processing.
I don't know how it is possible but I always amazed how far to the left and right I can go with my rulers in LR and there is still place to go and recover something more! It doesn't work with other lenses the same way. I couldn't recover such amount of details in shadows and lights.
Mistyped. And yes, I would have loved the 1.4GM but at the time I got a good deal on a used Batis and the GM's even used were much pricier. That said I'm very happy with the Batis and its rendering.
Chris K
Well-known member
Elena, those are all great, but that silhouetted sunset is fantastic. Thanks for sharing!
I envy those of you who can produce with a 135mm lens. I have never been able to make anything pleasing between 135mm and 200mm. I don't know why, but it's not from a lack of effort. I just can't visualize in that range. I think I just start seeing "telephoto vignettes" past 100mm or so, and at that point I get into "zoom to frame" mode cause I'm too lazy to walk to frame a teleprime.
I bought an old Canon 70-200/4 for my GFX100S, and I've been doing my best to train my eye. Maybe this year will be the year I crack this nut!
I envy those of you who can produce with a 135mm lens. I have never been able to make anything pleasing between 135mm and 200mm. I don't know why, but it's not from a lack of effort. I just can't visualize in that range. I think I just start seeing "telephoto vignettes" past 100mm or so, and at that point I get into "zoom to frame" mode cause I'm too lazy to walk to frame a teleprime.
I bought an old Canon 70-200/4 for my GFX100S, and I've been doing my best to train my eye. Maybe this year will be the year I crack this nut!
Here is a nice review from Dustin Abbott comparing the Samyang 135 f1.8 and the Sony 135 f1.8 GM. He confirms what was reported in the other video I linked in this thread: Samyang is actually sharper in the corners and is a better value than the Sony, which only beats the Samyang in continuous high speed autofocus. He also shows that the Samyang has more pleasing bokeh. Considering B&H has the Samyang for $225 off right now, I am tempted to grab it.
I like Dustin Abbot. Funny enough it was his review of the Batis thst fully convinced me to go that route.
fcotterill
Well-known member
Thank you for sharing your beautiful captures @ElenaH - above and in your earlier threads. And further thanks for the background about these primes. All your images work well, although the atmospheric scene of the small Kudu herd caught my eye
I had the excellent Zeiss 135 f2 APO Sonnar, which is everything for which it's prasied. This prime caught my eye some years ago, including in the Ultimate Lens List compiled by Ming Thein. plus several reviews lauding the optic. However, I found it wasn't getting sufficient use unless when visiting the 'right' habitats for Animalscapes. I also found on regional flights, it was yet another big weight that saw limited action compared to my other lenses.
I treasure my 58 f1.4G and also it's much lighter; but the FoV of a 58 on a FX sensor is very different from 105 yet alone 135. I would also be interested to see animalscapes captured with the 105 f1.4E Nikkor..... And not least, this thread kindles even more interest in the roadmapped Z 135 Nikkor!
https://www.lenstip.com/388.4-Lens_...T*_135_mm_f_2.0_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-apo-sonnar-135mm-f2-zf-2-review/
Duston Abbot's review https://dustinabbott.net/2014/07/zeiss-apo-sonnar-t-2135mm-ze-review-2/
I had the excellent Zeiss 135 f2 APO Sonnar, which is everything for which it's prasied. This prime caught my eye some years ago, including in the Ultimate Lens List compiled by Ming Thein. plus several reviews lauding the optic. However, I found it wasn't getting sufficient use unless when visiting the 'right' habitats for Animalscapes. I also found on regional flights, it was yet another big weight that saw limited action compared to my other lenses.
I treasure my 58 f1.4G and also it's much lighter; but the FoV of a 58 on a FX sensor is very different from 105 yet alone 135. I would also be interested to see animalscapes captured with the 105 f1.4E Nikkor..... And not least, this thread kindles even more interest in the roadmapped Z 135 Nikkor!
https://www.lenstip.com/388.4-Lens_...T*_135_mm_f_2.0_ZE_ZF.2_Image_resolution.html
http://www.verybiglobo.com/zeiss-apo-sonnar-135mm-f2-zf-2-review/
Duston Abbot's review https://dustinabbott.net/2014/07/zeiss-apo-sonnar-t-2135mm-ze-review-2/
ElenaH
Well-known member
thank you!
it is interesting that you both liked that image. I rather thought it is just nothing special ;-)
Thank you very much!
I will post some images made with Nikon 105/1.4 (need to find some ;-)
The other 100mm was Trioplan. There is a link to images in this thread, post #7
You are talking about Zeiss APO Sonnar... I have one 100mm f2.8 Zeiss Sonnar for Contax Digital N1. Actually Contax was the first FX digital camera. I think it was co-production with Zeiss. And Zeiss had a lot of excellent glass for this camera with Auto-Focus! I have three of Contax N1 lenses. But Sonnar 100/2.8 is really something special and its design is different to those of normal Contax/Yashica. So, it is different Sonnar ;-) and all those lenses of Digital Contax are other than normal C/Y Contax.
I found an adaptor Contax N (C/N) to Sony E and use it with old Sony Alpha R (the first one with 36MP) and it is really great, a treasure, a jewel. The other two are Zooms and are also very good. It is astonishing that Zeiss made that AF-glass in 2003 ;-) or earlier... And the camera was also good. And now I guess nobody remembers it ... nobody knows what was Digital Contax ;-)
Calson
Well-known member
The 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is quite adequate to photograph subjects even at f/5.6 and have a nice background bokeh. Faster lenses was very important with film cameras where chome film limited one to ISO 160 and with early digital cameras like the Nikon D2x that had significant IQ problems past ISO 800. With pretty much all digital cameras able to go to ISO 6400 the lens speed is much less important.
I want to crop at the time of the shot as much as possible and prime lenses make that much more difficult. It is why the 600mm f/4 lens was often replaced with a 80-400mm zoom lens in the field. Much easier to adjust the amount of image magnification and view angle with the zoom lens and also adjust the amount of perspective distortion.
For people where I have a lot more control over the camera to subject distance a 105mm prime as long been a favorite. My first DSLR cameras were purhased without a lens and then I bought a 105mm and used it 100% of the time for people portraits and street and travel photography. 135mm is too restrictive with it narrower view angle for general use.
I want to crop at the time of the shot as much as possible and prime lenses make that much more difficult. It is why the 600mm f/4 lens was often replaced with a 80-400mm zoom lens in the field. Much easier to adjust the amount of image magnification and view angle with the zoom lens and also adjust the amount of perspective distortion.
For people where I have a lot more control over the camera to subject distance a 105mm prime as long been a favorite. My first DSLR cameras were purhased without a lens and then I bought a 105mm and used it 100% of the time for people portraits and street and travel photography. 135mm is too restrictive with it narrower view angle for general use.
ElenaH
Well-known member
thank you
ElenaH
Well-known member
I used 105mm from Nikon in Africa by photographing animals in the total darkness when I didn't see much and must rely on the camera. One can think that today the IBIS can help for no-VR lenses but it doesn't work in most cases because the animals move and you need to set aa shutter speed accordingly.
Here the lion was lit by a small torch:
I could have taken f1.4 but probably he was close to the car and I wanted to have him sharp for sure. You cannot imagine how important to learn DoF tables... With 105mm and f1.4 at the 5m the DoF is only 18cm.
Those hyenas were also in the dark! The sun was already down. You realise how the photos look like only after taken them.
One hyena to the other: "give me to taste that delicious spare-ribs, please!"
Often I also took video with 105mm like for example, in such situation (also after sunset):
For day photos you would need a ND-filter if you want to use f1.4.
Here by f1.8 is a good separation of a lion from the bush behind. The bush is perhaps a half a meter or less behind the lion. Even grass is not in focus anymore.
Here is with f1.4. The pictures look differently than from telephoto-lenses.
The foreground and the background are blurred. On the other hand it is very easy to miss the DoF.
Here the lion was lit by a small torch:
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I could have taken f1.4 but probably he was close to the car and I wanted to have him sharp for sure. You cannot imagine how important to learn DoF tables... With 105mm and f1.4 at the 5m the DoF is only 18cm.
Those hyenas were also in the dark! The sun was already down. You realise how the photos look like only after taken them.
One hyena to the other: "give me to taste that delicious spare-ribs, please!"
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Often I also took video with 105mm like for example, in such situation (also after sunset):
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
For day photos you would need a ND-filter if you want to use f1.4.
Here by f1.8 is a good separation of a lion from the bush behind. The bush is perhaps a half a meter or less behind the lion. Even grass is not in focus anymore.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Here is with f1.4. The pictures look differently than from telephoto-lenses.
The foreground and the background are blurred. On the other hand it is very easy to miss the DoF.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.