O
Well-known member
Good to know thankyou
Nikon releases the NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena
- Thread starter BlackRockArt
- 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).
Why compare to the 50, 85, 105? This is a different focal length and so a different working distance and perspective. Different tools for different approaches to the job, that's all. 
John Navitsky
Well-known member
right. there isn't a "best" lens that is encapsulates all other lenses.Why compare to the 50, 85, 105? This is a different focal length and so a different working distance and perspective. Different tools for different approaches to the job, that's all.
For laughs, look at a comparison of lens configurations of the Plena and the amazing 135/2.0. This new lens has the highest, best, flattest MTF I've ever seen. With its Canon counterpart, we're seeing the best of lens design.
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.
EXACTLY what I tell my wife when she reviews my expenses.
So, clearly this lens is going to be another tour-de-force for Nikon...A worthy stable mate for the Z50mm 1.2S and Z85mm 1.2S for the working photographer.Why compare to the 50, 85, 105? This is a different focal length and so a different working distance and perspective. Different tools for different approaches to the job, that's all.
When I think about this lens, I do think about it in comparison. I do (some) environmental portraits (my favorite genre), group shots for musical bands and the odd corporate headshot (as a favor for friends. Ugh!).
The 50mm has proven to be just right for environmental portraits and easily includes the environment at comfortable standoff distances. It is capable of magical images in the low light one frequently encounters. Also good for groups. But for close-in headshots, clients just don't like the level of detail it produces (probably biased by the demographic I shoot).
So, for headshots, I have gravitated to the Z105mm f2.8S, which gives less exaggerated features when the subject's face fills the frame. 105mm
results in a comfortable standoff distance from the subject and still fits in the size of rooms I frequently encounter. I have yet to encounter a client who prefers the 50mm to the 105mm (to my great disappointment) for headshots.
I am sure the 135mm f1.2 produces stunning images, probably even better received by my subjects than the 105mm f2.8. However, I think that the focal length is just a bit too long to fit in most of the random spaces I encounter for my type of work. If I was shooting in a (large) studio, then I would buy it in a heartbeat. But the bulk of my work involves rapid framing of small groups of people in informal and uncontrolled settings. In Matt Granger's preliminary review on YouTube, he concludes much the same thing...Namely, that the 135mm focal length is just too long to fit comfortably in the usual space he encounters. He shows himself squeezed into a corner of a small room. This really resonated with me. Of course, he lives in Hong Kong where space is at a premium.
So, sadly this lens will not be a priority for me.
I would love to hear about the specific use cases of other photographers...Why will you buy this lens?
My shoots are slow and I only need one or two or three frames from a 2hr session (eg cowboy hat on model). Now, I go between the 50 and 85. Both in studio and outdoors I sometime prefer being distant from my model, make myself less obtrusive to let them do their job. But I still want to get that head shot and not rely on cropping (I try as much as I can to compose in camera). The 135 will do that. Also, for my outdoors automotive work, currently I use the excellent 70-200, but I suspect the IQ on this new one will be an order of magnitude better.
Finally, and that's a personal work habit, I like to be removed/detached from the subject and take in the surroundings. The 85 in some instances gets me too close, so I step back and use the 105. I think a few months from now I won't be using the 105 anymore.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
right. i think the sweet spot for this lens is probably outdoors, although some indoor contexts, like indoor sports come to mind as a potential good application.
personally, i'm collecting (all? most of?) the fast primes like the 35 1.2 (when avail), 50 1.2, 85 1.2 and now 135 1.8. imo if i don't need a ultra fast lens, the zooms are probably fine.
if the zooms *aren't* enough, then i want as fast of a lens as is possible for two potential reasons: low light, (and/)or maximum background separation. from there, it's simply an issue of picking the right focal length for the job.
which is why i like nikon's strategy of a more general version of primes, and a no-compromise line. this allows maximum differentiation between the zoom and the prime. i can shoot something at f/2.8 with the zoom, or as fast-as-is-possible with the zoom.
in general, i've started leaning towards shooting as long and as fast as possible, but too long is too long, so you have to have a variety of options to be able to get a good fit.
Also, 135 was my first pro lens (Ai-S), which I still use, so I am accustomed to the field-of-view.
Like John above, I'm a sucker for fast primes and don't overthink it. Nikon and Canon always put the best brains on these so I know the IQ is going to be best-in-class even if I don't shoot at f1.2.
I only wish they corrected for breathing making it more useful for pulling focus in video, but looking at the schematic, I can see why they didn't; hardly any space for additional gearing.
The 85 has a much better IQ than the 105 for faces, even with identical field of view and iris setting. The 105 is wicked sharp, but very contrasty. I get around it by moving my key light about 15 degrees towards the front then decreasing clarity in post.
@Nimi, this is a stunning shot. Love the graduated tone under the Stetson...Not just all lens, here. A lot of expertise.
Thank you!
Chris K
Well-known member
I wonder how the 105MC would react to a diffusion filter like the Cinebloom? A tiny bit of halation might improve its portrait rendering. Chill it out a little.
I take any excuse to use the 105/1.4, but if the 105MC were but a filter away from becoming a pleasing portrait lens, that’s $1000 not spent.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
stupid (and OT) question, but why use a filter when you could do it in post?
Chris K
Well-known member
Halation is really hard to mimic in post. It’s not an effect I want often, but I find the results from a filter are easier and nicer in post. It’s a bit like shooting JPEG, however: you better nail it in camera, cause there’s no going back!
Ditto for polarization. You can crank the blues to make water the same color as a polarizer, but the difference in contrast is difficult to replicate, and if there’s windows and such in the photo it’s impossible to generate the same effect in post.
For color and ND, however, I agree. There’s rarely a need, if your camera can shoot low enough ISO and fast enough shutter speed. For me, ND could be called “the water filter”, cause that’s the only time I want one.
That's a good idea. I only ever use a 1/8 and only on video, but I just ordered a 1/4 and try that. The clarity slider on LRC is actually pretty good for this too, maybe a little haze. The 105 is a great lens, but the 85/1.2 is in a different class for faces, and I think the 135 will be as well.
I am not so sure in real life this is an issue. Watch this youtube from a Korean reviewer at the 19:10min mark to 20min mark. He focuses on the model and yet the background objects are rock slid and don't move as the focus moves with the model.
My guess is it was deliberately corrected in post just to elicit this reaction. The scene, moving model straigh on is the easiest to correct since you have to "zoom" to compensate for breathing but since the model is moving you dont have the static subject and notice field of view. Every video I watched showed breathing.
But it's not a big deal, it's an amazing lens and I look forward to getting one. As is everyone else, I hear from my store...
I don't think it could be corrected in post. And I don't think this reviewer was trying to portray anything other than what the lens does in that situation without any post processing.
It's very easy. In Resolve, select clip, click Stabilizer, click Camera Lock, then uncheck Zoom. It crops a little and there is a little danger of some perspective shift. For this scene, with the background square, there is no perspective to worry about. When is use old lenses, I leave at least 10% extra to allow for a deeper crop.
We don't know his intentions, but knowing that the lens breaths around 5-7% (look at the DR video), and not seeing any here, I'm certain he intentionally removed it.
Waiting for DCine or Gerald Undone to test, and I'll test it myself when I get it.
But again, very minor issue that can be planned for and fixed.
Also, note that (a) on the scene the with they guy, it is cropped from 9x16 to 3x2, so there is definitely post work.
Last edited:
Chris K
Well-known member
I shot auto racing back in the early DSLR days, and on tracks where I wasn’t allowed flash I used a Canon 85/1.8. Lightning-fast AF and sharp. I used it for portraits, too, and I thought it was the best thing out there until I tried out an 85/1.2 and realized that there’s much more to lens design than the numbers.
These days my favorites are the Nikon 58/1.4 and 105/1.4. Bonus: they adapt well to GFX, so I also have a “46/1.1” and “85/1.1”.
In addition to Clarity, I like to tone down overly-sharp images by reducing the sharpness but increasing Texture a little more than I normally would. The image still has punch, but it’s in the larger details. To take it even further, I add LRC’s grain. A little bit of grain isn’t really distracting to a viewer (who expects to see a bit of it), but it obliterates those high-frequency details you don’t want to see in skin.
Anyway, I only have a 72mm Cinebloom 10%. That’s roughly equivalent to a 1/4 Black Pro Mist, although the Cinebloom has a somewhat different and stronger effect, I understand. I stuck it on my 105MC and fired off a couple frames of the cat. It definitely ate some sharpness, but not in a “this lens is soft” kind of way. It also gave me a super 70’s look when lit by some bare bulbs, which always makes me smile.
Thanks for all those tips!I shot auto racing back in the early DSLR days, and on tracks where I wasn’t allowed flash I used a Canon 85/1.8. Lightning-fast AF and sharp. I used it for portraits, too, and I thought it was the best thing out there until I tried out an 85/1.2 and realized that there’s much more to lens design than the numbers.
These days my favorites are the Nikon 58/1.4 and 105/1.4. Bonus: they adapt well to GFX, so I also have a “46/1.1” and “85/1.1”.
In addition to Clarity, I like to tone down overly-sharp images by reducing the sharpness but increasing Texture a little more than I normally would. The image still has punch, but it’s in the larger details. To take it even further, I add LRC’s grain. A little bit of grain isn’t really distracting to a viewer (who expects to see a bit of it), but it obliterates those high-frequency details you don’t want to see in skin.
Anyway, I only have a 72mm Cinebloom 10%. That’s roughly equivalent to a 1/4 Black Pro Mist, although the Cinebloom has a somewhat different and stronger effect, I understand. I stuck it on my 105MC and fired off a couple frames of the cat. It definitely ate some sharpness, but not in a “this lens is soft” kind of way. It also gave me a super 70’s look when lit by some bare bulbs, which always makes me smile.
Just saw this. They love the lens, as I'm sure we all will. Discussing and demonstrating focus breathing at the 3:05 mark.