Have you used the z 135mm f1.8 Plena? What do you think of it?

[JoelKlein]

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".

@Nimi wrote that the higher quality 50&85 f/1.2 (not the traditional f/1.8) are also offered by other manufacturers vs. the 135 which is only made my Nikon.

 

[JoelKlein]

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…..

…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….
View attachment 96362

I’m perfectly fine! We use the 50&85/1.2 as a daily driver, and we did some crazy f/1.2 outdoors shots for customers.
I am just curious if the Plena advantage is only in its perfect round bokeh balls edge to edge.

Before we bought the 50/1.2 we were using the 50/1.8 I wanted to know what the 1.2 would offer in the f/4-f/8 apertures, and we were blown away! We bought the 85/1.2 via NPS priority.

Now I’m eyeing the 135… I want to know that we are not losing out on artistic shots when using the 85/1.2 in DX for headshots.

Then there is the aspect of enjoying a lens-as-a-tool. For example, landscape photography. I love the rendering of the 50&85/1.2’s or shallow Dof for close up shots.

 

[Lance B]

@Nimi wrote that the higher quality 50&85 f/1.2 (not the traditional f/1.8) are also offered by other manufacturers vs. the 135 which is only made my Nikon.

I think Nimi stated that the 50 and 85 are comparable with the Nikon 50 and 85. That is Nimi's opinion and that does not make him right or wrong and the word comparable it does not make them better and it all depends on what you or anyone else considers comparable. In some aspects they may be comparable in others not so.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

I am wondering whether to add the Z 135mm Plena to the inventory.

In addition to wildlife photography I am into landscape and general nature photography.

I don’t have an interest in portrait photography.

Based on reviews I have seen I am attracted by the creative potential this lens may bring,

Next to the 200 f/2 it's the best lens I have ever held. I'll put some images up someday soon. They are both remarkable tools. I bought a 200 because I was so amazed by the images plena produces. rent one and shoot it. You won't send it back.

 

[wotan1]

I’m perfectly fine! We use the 50&85/1.2 as a daily driver, and we did some crazy f/1.2 outdoors shots for customers.
I am just curious if the Plena advantage is only in its perfect round bokeh balls edge to edge.

Before we bought the 50/1.2 we were using the 50/1.8 I wanted to know what the 1.2 would offer in the f/4-f/8 apertures, and we were blown away! We bought the 85/1.2 via NPS priority.

Now I’m eyeing the 135… I want to know that we are not losing out on artistic shots when using the 85/1.2 in DX for headshots.

Then there is the aspect of enjoying a lens-as-a-tool. For example, landscape photography. I love the rendering of the 50&85/1.2’s or shallow Dof for close up shots.

Joel, I have not shot with the 50 or 85 1.2. I have read up on comparative ratings by people I trust.

I am not a portrait photographer and am not interested in the Plena for that purpose. What I have seen that is special about the Plena is that at 135mm it can get far enough from the subject to do some remarkable creative things with its shallow depth of field and state of the art creamy dreaamy backgrounds and smooth transitions. It is the zen master of subject separation for dramatic and artistic inteent.

I really like photographing flowers and interesting foliage in addition to wildlife. I have the 85mm f1.8 and it is remarkably sharp. I have not been able to achieve the separation with that lens that I am looking for in that kind of photography. Not so with the Plena. In short the Plena has what I am looking for in spades. the creative potential for this one lens amazes me and I am just learning to train my vision to take advantage of its potential.

This lens is also unbelievably sharp. I have viewed some of the images I took just hacking around and using NX Studio have enlarged the image as high as 400%. Just amazing how much fine detail that lens can capture.

My suggestion is rent it and see what you think of it. Would be interesst9ng to hear your impressions.

 

[Bob Hullinger]

You mention creative potential. How about 1/32000s at 1.8 for creative potential. Keep in mind that this is also an incredible video lens even if you never shot stills. It has a lot going for it.