This is crazy good! 1/2000 sec w/asa 64? That’s nuts… Ordering tomorrow….. Seen enough to know this will help do what I need..
Have you used the z 135mm f1.8 Plena? What do you think of it?
- Thread starter wotan1
- 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).
John Navitsky
Well-known member
yah, one trick i like is when shooting fast glass in good light is to flip to aperture priority, fixed iso
I have also seen enough, But I am using the 50&85/1.2. Same idea…
I want the word Plena on those lenses.
I want the word Plena on those lenses.
That 50 1.2 is pretty darn near the look of the Plena, love that lens too. It also has that 3d look.
pic of the Plena with 50 1.2 at 1.2 and F4.
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 know, it bothers me the 50&85/1.2 doesn’t have the Plena word on it. Why?
Plena, as with Noct, is a branding element to signify something unique. In the case of Plena its optical design is such that light distribution is nearly uniform from center to corner and bokeh is circular and smooth across the frame. Perhaps its as much of a marketing decision as a technical differentiation, but Nikon wanted to differentiate the technology used in this lens from other Z lenses.
Beyond that, you’ll have to ask Nikon personnel.
I always liked 135mm perspective for its creative viewpoint. It reaches out while still having some perception of normalcy. The Plena adds the ability to have an exquisitely sharp yet very shallow point of focus combined with a beutiful softening of the background. Lends itself to all sorts of creative possibioities. It is currently my favorite lens of the moment. I love what it does with flowers and foliage and I am looking forward to putting it through its paces on fall colors and changes.
I am pretty busy with a major project which ends in the next two weeks after which I can resume shooting with my photo partner. Our early October trip to BC is coming up and thtat is always a wonderful time to get some quality time behind the shutter. Last year my longest lens was the 400mm this year I have both teh 800 and the Plena to play with.
What fun!!!!
I am pretty busy with a major project which ends in the next two weeks after which I can resume shooting with my photo partner. Our early October trip to BC is coming up and thtat is always a wonderful time to get some quality time behind the shutter. Last year my longest lens was the 400mm this year I have both teh 800 and the Plena to play with.
What fun!!!!
Those perfect optical formulas isn’t true for the 50/85 1.2?Plena, as with Noct, is a branding element to signify something unique. In the case of Plena its optical design is such that light distribution is nearly uniform from center to corner and bokeh is circular and smooth across the frame. Perhaps its as much of a marketing decision as a technical differentiation, but Nikon wanted to differentiate the technology used in this lens from other Z lenses.
Beyond that, you’ll have to ask Nikon personnel.
Krümelkraft
Well-known member
There is no perfect optical formula. In case of Plena, there is simply more margin left to the edges of the lenses, meaning bigger glass diameter to shift negative effects such as vignetting and cat's eye bokeh more towards the edges of the frame, or even beyond.
Nikon could make 50 and 85 Plenas, but they would be much bigger than they are now.
You can make them kind of Plena when you use them on a DX camera
I have a subjective impression this lens is unusually sharp.
I find the NX Studio program is excellent for inspecting the quality and sharpness of images taken on a Nikon camera. It easily allows you to zoom in as high as 400% and allows you to refiew the full resolution image without having to first import the image.
What i was amazed subjectively about is how much detail is captured by the lens.
In one case I took a photo of a cycling jersey that was displayed on a hanger roughly 10 ft from the camera. the image in the frame shows the full jersey. I zoomed in by 400% to look at a small section of lettering on the jersey. I could clearly see the grains in the fabric.
It is hard to show the difference with images posted here,
I am pretty busy right now on other stuff but when I get clear I am going to look at comparative shots.
Now unless you are printing fine graijn poster sized images you don't need that much resolution. But hiaving an image this sharp means wider flexibility in cropping.
I prefer to work with primes in the longer telephoto ranges. I prefer to review images in post and I make greater use of cropping for composition. It is much easier to review an image at home on a calibrated 5k monitor than on a camera screen or viewfinder in the field.
Because of its high IQ it has the potential to function at a singlificantly longer effective focal length than its native 135mm. Clearly 135mm is too short a focal length for much of nature photography and no one would willingly choose this focal length as the first choice for most of their nature shots. At the same time however this lens can show tremendous capability when you can find subjects that are close by.
I think my next project with this lens is to take it to the zoo. I can see having this lens on one strap and the 400mm f4.5 on the other and that would make an interesting pair.
It seems to me you could easily shoot this lens in DX to get an effective focal length of 200 mm and still have plenty of room to crop.
there are not many 200mm focal length lenses that can shoot at f1.8.
I have the 70-200mm f2.8 which is one of the holy trinity and itself a really fine lens. I think its DXOMARK from what I recall is the highest for any zoom in its range by any manufacturer and equvalent to many of the sharper primes in this range. It would be interesting to do controlled comparative shots between these two lenses both at 135mm and 200mm effective range.
I find the NX Studio program is excellent for inspecting the quality and sharpness of images taken on a Nikon camera. It easily allows you to zoom in as high as 400% and allows you to refiew the full resolution image without having to first import the image.
What i was amazed subjectively about is how much detail is captured by the lens.
In one case I took a photo of a cycling jersey that was displayed on a hanger roughly 10 ft from the camera. the image in the frame shows the full jersey. I zoomed in by 400% to look at a small section of lettering on the jersey. I could clearly see the grains in the fabric.
It is hard to show the difference with images posted here,
I am pretty busy right now on other stuff but when I get clear I am going to look at comparative shots.
Now unless you are printing fine graijn poster sized images you don't need that much resolution. But hiaving an image this sharp means wider flexibility in cropping.
I prefer to work with primes in the longer telephoto ranges. I prefer to review images in post and I make greater use of cropping for composition. It is much easier to review an image at home on a calibrated 5k monitor than on a camera screen or viewfinder in the field.
Because of its high IQ it has the potential to function at a singlificantly longer effective focal length than its native 135mm. Clearly 135mm is too short a focal length for much of nature photography and no one would willingly choose this focal length as the first choice for most of their nature shots. At the same time however this lens can show tremendous capability when you can find subjects that are close by.
I think my next project with this lens is to take it to the zoo. I can see having this lens on one strap and the 400mm f4.5 on the other and that would make an interesting pair.
It seems to me you could easily shoot this lens in DX to get an effective focal length of 200 mm and still have plenty of room to crop.
there are not many 200mm focal length lenses that can shoot at f1.8.
I have the 70-200mm f2.8 which is one of the holy trinity and itself a really fine lens. I think its DXOMARK from what I recall is the highest for any zoom in its range by any manufacturer and equvalent to many of the sharper primes in this range. It would be interesting to do controlled comparative shots between these two lenses both at 135mm and 200mm effective range.
No, check in my 50mm 1.2 posts above, you see the very slight angular bokeh circles to the lower left of the Plena. The Plena, below, even in strong highlights appears perfectly round.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
hef19898
Well-known member
I don't know, but IMHO these excesses in image quality are something only tech minded photographers care about. For example your BW shot, Commodore: It is a good, artsy BW image, it really is. The 135 Plena Bokeh so is not the reason for this, it is composition, light and editing.
Not to deminish the Plena or any other top of the line lens, but I think there are not a lot of cases were such a lens saves an otherwise bad image.
Not to deminish the Plena or any other top of the line lens, but I think there are not a lot of cases were such a lens saves an otherwise bad image.
Dave Stargazer
Well-known member
To my eye, the Plena has a more natural rendering than any lens I've used - more like what the eye actually sees when looking at something. There are few artifacts that give away that this is a camera capture - e.g. virtually no aberations. I have lenses that are very sharp, but the overall rendering of this lens is on a different level. The focus fall off (and fall on) are so much like what I see when I look at something.
Human vision is radically different from a camera sensor - the depth of field of the eye isn't that much, but you keep moving your eye around the scene - it's never static - and that builds the scene within your mind, but also gathers more information through multiple "frames."
The Plena is the closest I've seen to capturing one of those "frames." This means that almost anything you take a capture of has a special quality that other lenses don't have. I did an experiment in the field to test that thought. I randomly pointed the camera, hit BBAF, and took a capture. I only did 5, but 4 of the 5 were "good/interesting" - one particularly so - lol!
I've posted up my first work based on a Plena capture over in the Landscape Presentation forum here. I also posted it on Flickr at a higher resolution (4k) - I worked on it for quite a while to get the tonality and eyeflow I wanted, but I did not have to touch the rendering at all - kind of magical fade into the distance.
Cheers!
Human vision is radically different from a camera sensor - the depth of field of the eye isn't that much, but you keep moving your eye around the scene - it's never static - and that builds the scene within your mind, but also gathers more information through multiple "frames."
The Plena is the closest I've seen to capturing one of those "frames." This means that almost anything you take a capture of has a special quality that other lenses don't have. I did an experiment in the field to test that thought. I randomly pointed the camera, hit BBAF, and took a capture. I only did 5, but 4 of the 5 were "good/interesting" - one particularly so - lol!
I've posted up my first work based on a Plena capture over in the Landscape Presentation forum here. I also posted it on Flickr at a higher resolution (4k) - I worked on it for quite a while to get the tonality and eyeflow I wanted, but I did not have to touch the rendering at all - kind of magical fade into the distance.
Cheers!
My experience as well. The 1.2s come close. It's not how the background is rendered, it's the transition to that background, specifically the few millimeters approaching the sharp edge of the subject. Coincidently, I'm putting a new system through its paces, and every shot is like it (28mm f1.7 Summicron).
I’m about to use mine all weekend. Tomorrow, I’ll be using it for some landscape work, then Sunday at a private event, 70-200 for those run-of-the-mill shots and the Plena for the candid portrait bangers.
DHL
Well-known member
That’s correct, a Plena will not save an otherwise bad image, but it can make a good image more distinctive.
hef19898
Well-known member
Do you have to put the EXIF data next to the image for that effect?
Couldn’t Nikon make 50/85 f/1.8 Plena?!
Last edited:
John Navitsky
Well-known member
probably
Nikon has only one Z lens with Noct branding. Surely they could make an 85mm or 35mm Noct, but they haven’t. I certainly could be wrong but I don’t expect another lens with a Plena brand.
Joel, I’m going to try and help you out here…..I got this cool engraving tool 30 years ago and use it occasionally to put my name on things that wander into friends possession. So, I started practicing on wood scraps to see if ”Plena” could be done… Well yeah! I need some more practice before you send me your lenses… (just a little levity here!)
I get your point by the 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.
great idea to use the engraving tool…In all honesty, I am a little confused about the facts.
I had believed that Nikon made that perfect 50mm 1.2 lens, edge to edge sharpness wide open, magical rendering, beautiful and perfect out of focus bokeh, etc etc etc.
Then Nikon pulled it off again with the 85/1.2, same everything as the 50.
Then Nikon pulled it off again with the 135mm, and only changed it to f/1.8 to keep the design and cost in check.
So I had those questions,
1) Why has Nikon decided to write Plena on it and not on the 50&85?
2) Why is the 135 such a big deal that it is the only lens in its class, while 50&85 f1.2 higher quality lenses are available from Sony/Canon, can’t they just make a 135?
Now I’m learning that the 135 is stepped up a notch from the 50&85, with? Perfect round bokeh at the corners.
Is “THAT” the big deal to earn the Plena name? Or am I missing something here
Pardon my ignorance
beano
Active member
In all honesty, I am a little confused about the facts.
I had believed that Nikon made that perfect 50mm 1.2 lens, edge to edge sharpness wide open, magical rendering, beautiful and perfect out of focus bokeh, etc etc etc.
Then Nikon pulled it off again with the 85/1.2, same everything as the 50.
Then Nikon pulled it off again with the 135mm, and only changed it to f/1.8 to keep the design and cost in check.
So I had those questions,
1) Why has Nikon decided to write Plena on it and not on the 50&85?
2) Why is the 135 such a big deal that it is the only lens in its class, while 50&85 f1.2 higher quality lenses are available from Sony/Canon, can’t they just make a 135?
Now I’m learning that the 135 is stepped up a notch from the 50&85, with? Perfect round bokeh at the corners.
Is “THAT” the big deal to earn the Plena name? Or am I missing something here
Pardon my ignorance
The Plena has a pretty large rear-element, as such, it will have better corner-corner sharpness and less vignetting, vs the 85 and 50 1.2. It‘s all a bit theoretical in the end though, many artistic /portrait photographers will argue the value of older glass, able to render vintage-looking portraits.
Modern lenses might have that ‘too clinical’ look for some. Horses for courses, I guess.
In all honesty, I am a little confused about the facts.
I had believed that Nikon made that perfect 50mm 1.2 lens, edge to edge sharpness wide open, magical rendering, beautiful and perfect out of focus bokeh, etc etc etc.
Then Nikon pulled it off again with the 85/1.2, same everything as the 50.
Then Nikon pulled it off again with the 135mm, and only changed it to f/1.8 to keep the design and cost in check.
So I had those questions,
1) Why has Nikon decided to write Plena on it and not on the 50&85?
2) Why is the 135 such a big deal that it is the only lens in its class, while 50&85 f1.2 higher quality lenses are available from Sony/Canon, can’t they just make a 135?
Now I’m learning that the 135 is stepped up a notch from the 50&85, with? Perfect round bokeh at the corners.
Is “THAT” the big deal to earn the Plena name? Or am I missing something here
Thanks for bearing my ignorance
I don't think they went with a f1.8 for the 135 Plena just to keep prices in check. It would have been a ridiculously large lens to go with a larger aperture like f1.4 or worse f1.2. They also may not have been able to make the bokeh balls round at the edges unless it was an even larger lens again.
1) It may have been too difficult to make the 50 and 85 f1.2's with round edge bokeh balls without other compromises, like size, weight, CA and of course cost. It also may be more difficult to produce a wider focal length lens with round bokeh balls at the edges compared to the 135. It also may have impacted other aspects of the lens's performance like bokeh, CA, distortion etc.
2) What do you mean the Sony and Canon are higher 50/85 quality lenses? That is pure speculation. To some they might be, to others clearly not. Don't confuse (central) sharpness as the only metric for being higher quality, that is just one aspect of a lens and not an aspect that everyone requires wide open. CA, vignetting focus breathing, distortion, onion ring bokeh, overall bokeh, bokeh transition, edge to edge sharpness wide open and stopped down are some of the aspects that affect a lens's desirability. Not to mention less requirement on post process manipulation via software to fix many of these "issues".
Last edited:
Just poking you a bit Joel. Your points have merit of course. The 50/85 1.2s are likely awesome fast glass. You just cannot let Nikon jerk your chain when they use a marketing tool (icon) “Plena” on a new lens that you feel should be on a shorter focal length previously introduced lenses. Move on…. It’s about function and performance not “bling” engraving…..
In all honesty, I am a little confused about the facts.
I had believed that Nikon made that perfect 50mm 1.2 lens, edge to edge sharpness wide open, magical rendering, beautiful and perfect out of focus bokeh, etc etc etc.
Then Nikon pulled it off again with the 85/1.2, same everything as the 50.
Then Nikon pulled it off again with the 135mm, and only changed it to f/1.8 to keep the design and cost in check.
So I had those questions,
1) Why has Nikon decided to write Plena on it and not on the 50&85?
2) Why is the 135 such a big deal that it is the only lens in its class, while 50&85 f1.2 higher quality lenses are available from Sony/Canon, can’t they just make a 135?
Now I’m learning that the 135 is stepped up a notch from the 50&85, with? Perfect round bokeh at the corners.
Is “THAT” the big deal to earn the Plena name? Or am I missing something here
Pardon my ignorance
…Case in point…. I have this 58mm “dinosaur” lens from antiquity called the “NOCT”. Yup, fast glass. Is it more functional than my 50mm f/1.2 AI-S? Probably not in my hands…but it has this mystic reputation. Apparently cost a bunch to manufacture and was discontinued. Nikon’s current version of this cost as much as a 3 year old Toyota P/U….. and less useful…. Ignore the marketing and enjoy your lenses….I don’t have the 50 or 65 Zs… I bet they are great….
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.