Nikon releases the NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena

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).

Member's gallery
O said:
May i ask whats your feelings with the optical difference head to head compared to the 105Z, i know you prefer this 135 but is it a massive difference or just a slightly noticeable one.
Click to expand...

I have not compared them side by side but I would mention a few things.
The extra 30mm is a plus or minus but matters. In a busy place it may be hard to get shots. Notice the tight crop of the images.
They both have incredible micro contrast - so for food, museums, etc they both shine.
Plena is bigger but offers an extra stop. 995 grams vs 630
Close focusing is 2.7 vs 1 foot.
I think the PL review is accurate.

What sets the Plena apart is both the bokeh and the transitions to the bokeh. I have had people say that some images of people make them look like they are standing next to you.
 
Member's gallery
O said:
May i ask whats your feelings with the optical difference head to head compared to the 105Z, i know you prefer this 135 but is it a massive difference or just a slightly noticeable one.
Click to expand...

Here are some examples from Karneval in Cologne. The 105 was great but this is next level with little effort post in terms of sharpening and colors. In the examples if I did post I would tone down background highlights. These are just transfers from RAW develop in camera via Snapbridge and a crop.

I do think I may walk around with my Peak Design Capture Clip and Pro Pad in the future.




 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Member's gallery
I got to try this lens on both a Z8 and a Z9 today, at Gulf Coast Camera's (Pensacola, Florida) "Grand Opening".

Wow! I'm sold on it. I didn't purchase the one they had in stock, because I opted for something else that was discounted (Z8.) But I certainly want to get one later. (Maybe it will go on sale later this year or early next year.)

I do wish that I had taken my Z9 and a memory card with me so that I could have brought some of the images home to look at on my computer.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeans Coffee said:
Here are some examples from Karneval in Cologne. The 105 was great but this is next level with little effort post in terms of sharpening and colors. In the examples if I did post I would tone down background highlights. These are just transfers from RAW develop in camera via Snapbridge and a crop.

I do think I may walk around with my Peak Design Capture Clip and Pro Pad in the future.




Click to expand...
Incredible, thanks for that
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
I got to try this lens on both a Z8 and a Z9 today, at Gulf Coast Camera's (Pensacola, Florida) "Grand Opening".

Wow! I'm sold on it. I didn't purchase the one they had in stock, because I opted for something else that was discounted (Z8.) But I certainly want to get one later. (Maybe it will go on sale later this year or early next year.)

I do wish that I had taken my Z9 and a memory card with me so that I could have brought some of the images home to look at on my computer.
Click to expand...

Among the Z lenses I have, this and the 85/1.2 are the two "wow" lenses. They continue to put everything they have into those fast primes, so hoping for a 200 and 300 and a 35, maybe a 105 of this caliber.
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
Among the Z lenses I have, this and the 85/1.2 are the two "wow" lenses. They continue to put everything they have into those fast primes, so hoping for a 200 and 300 and a 35, maybe a 105 of this caliber.
Click to expand...
I have a copy of the F-Mount 200 f/2, and would love to see a Z-Mount 200 f/1.8-2 Plena lens. However, I don't believe that I would get rid of my F-Mount for one. But, like some here have indicated that the 135 is too long for them, I often find the 200 too long unless I set a shoot up specifically for that lens.

The Nikon rep at the store yesterday discussed the similarities of the Plena 135 and the 85 1.2, and I came to the conclusion that each has its own "place." It appears that the image quality between the two is very similar and they each seem to handle very well on either a Z8 or a Z9.

No matter what it comes in, if Nikon were to release more Plena lenses in the normal and short-telefoto focal lengths, I think they would do well with them.
 
Member's gallery
Whiskeyman said:
I have a copy of the F-Mount 200 f/2, and would love to see a Z-Mount 200 f/1.8-2 Plena lens. However, I don't believe that I would get rid of my F-Mount for one. But, like some here have indicated that the 135 is too long for them, I often find the 200 too long unless I set a shoot up specifically for that lens.

The Nikon rep at the store yesterday discussed the similarities of the Plena 135 and the 85 1.2, and I came to the conclusion that each has its own "place." It appears that the image quality between the two is very similar and they each seem to handle very well on either a Z8 or a Z9.

No matter what it comes in, if Nikon were to release more Plena lenses in the normal and short-telefoto focal lengths, I think they would do well with them.
Click to expand...
My stills work has two distinct locations, studio apparel and fashion where the 50 and 85 rule and outdoors automotive where I need the 135-200. And then 4-5 times a year, surfing tournaments where I need a 300. The 70-200 2.8 S is actually very capable, but I just prefer primes. Nikon's fast primes are the best on the market, if they make one.

I rented the A9iii with the 300 2.8, killer combo. But I don't mind heavier setup.
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeans Coffee said:
Here are some examples from Karneval in Cologne. The 105 was great but this is next level with little effort post in terms of sharpening and colors. In the examples if I did post I would tone down background highlights. These are just transfers from RAW develop in camera via Snapbridge and a crop.

I do think I may walk around with my Peak Design Capture Clip and Pro Pad in the future.




Click to expand...
The shots look almost like they have been scanned with a lazer LOL, their that clean sharp accurate in every way, above all amazingly natural looking especially with colour.
The back grounds from this lens seem first class based on samples shown here. The extra length would add compression over say a 50mm.

I think renting one for a week would be awesome, after all its a specialized tool, the purpose of renting is to determine a fit for enough application, the lens performance and quality is a given.

I prefer these days in times of chnage especially to rent more tools and own less, especially when you can add the rental into a price your quoting and the cost is tax deductible.

I feel from my early understanding that even longer focal length combined with 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 aperture will simply add even more benefits but how far is to far or to shallow.

Will Ai let us add the subject onto a chosen background more easily than ever before if things keep going the way they are, will higher resolution sensors and higher quality glass ie: like this 135 be needed to achieve these possibilities, who knows ?

Its interesting that even today the 200 F2 DSLR lens is still beyond words for what it is, i find my 300 2.8 VR II DSLR lens is arguably so close to the 200 F2 in many cases.
With these standard lenses unless used at F2 or F2.8 equally with the 135 at F1.8 there a waste of time, you may as well use a 70-200.

If doing model shots out doors with good natural lighting, i find the 300 F2.8 VR II at F 2.8 is highly capable and melts the back grounds out spectacularly well.

I see the 135 has dropped $1000 AUD here in the Grey arena.

I feel it seems based on all the discussion its a spectacular lens.

Fair to assume, if you have the room the 135 should be better than the 50 or 85mm focal length due to the 135 being able to compress things more, compression being very desirable.

Only an opinion
 
Member's gallery
O said:
The shots look almost like they have been scanned with a lazer LOL, their that clean sharp accurate in every way, above all amazingly natural looking especially with colour.
The back grounds from this lens seem first class based on samples shown here. The extra length would add compression over say a 50mm.

I think renting one for a week would be awesome, after all its a specialized tool, the purpose of renting is to determine a fit for enough application, the lens performance and quality is a given.

I prefer these days in times of chnage especially to rent more tools and own less, especially when you can add the rental into a price your quoting and the cost is tax deductible.

I feel from my early understanding that even longer focal length combined with 1.2, 1.4, 1.8 aperture will simply add even more benefits but how far is to far or to shallow.

Will Ai let us add the subject onto a chosen background more easily than ever before if things keep going the way they are, will higher resolution sensors and higher quality glass ie: like this 135 be needed to achieve these possibilities, who knows ?

Its interesting that even today the 200 F2 DSLR lens is still beyond words for what it is, i find my 300 2.8 VR II DSLR lens is arguably so close to the 200 F2 in many cases.
With these standard lenses unless used at F2 or F2.8 equally with the 135 at F1.8 there a waste of time, you may as well use a 70-200.

If doing model shots out doors with good natural lighting, i find the 300 F2.8 VR II at F 2.8 is highly capable and melts the back grounds out spectacularly well.

I see the 135 has dropped $1000 AUD here in the Grey arena.

I feel it seems based on all the discussion its a spectacular lens.

Fair to assume, if you have the room the 135 should be better than the 50 or 85mm focal length due to the 135 being able to compress things more, compression being very desirable.

Only an opinion
Click to expand...

StarTracker50 said:
I love the pictures I've seen from this lens! But I have to ask: Would I love it any less if the bokeh were oval instead of round?
Click to expand...

JoelKlein said:
I have the same question 😀
Shape is a taste.
Click to expand...

FWIW - May depend on your purpose and other options. What I am finding is the SOOC are so amazing with this lens, assuming good exposure, all I do is crop. I can't say that I found that with other lens to this extent. This was at a food show. I just find the colors pleasing and the balance pleasing. I can't speak to other uses, such as portraits for profit, but for traveling I love having it for people and food, and just everything, and will compose with my feet when I need too.

Plena bread - _MDH9324-2 - February 05, 2024.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


I need to try it out my fountain with birds and auto capture.
 
Member's gallery
StarTracker50 said:
Why would it negatively impact the image?
Click to expand...
That's a very good question.

I believe that uneven distribution of light across the sensor would be a problem, and comatic aberations would likely be as well.

It's been about forty years since I had my optics class in college, and I haven't used the materials at work since then, so I'm a bit rusty on the subject. I'll ask around at work to see if I can find out more about what all of the effects of an eliptical aperture in a lens would be.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I have only used the Plena for a couple of days (on loan). I don’t need another lens but after just a few hours I realised that it would be the only lens in my priority list. I can cover portraits with the 85 1.8S in the studio and the 105 M outdoors. Despite this the Plena distinguishes itself as an exceptional (but niche) lens. It won’t appeal for some photography genres but it is a lens I find rather inspirational to use. If the subject is not particularly special then the Plena may be overkill.
I found it an especially enjoyable lens which challenged me to explore different looks and approaches and subjects. That’s enough for me. I have opted for less high end choices in my Z mount lenses opting for lighter and less expensive options. The F4 options and even a variable aperture 180-600 reflect a change in my needs. The Plena will be my first really niche Z series lens. It does however fill a need for me. Having one very very special lens is absolutely justified. For me it is the Plena which fits best.
 
Member's gallery
JoelKlein said:
I have the same question 😀
Shape is a taste.
Click to expand...
Interesting. You are correct but smoothness blends very nicely on the Plena. I guess you would have to try it. My experience with the lens was enough to convince me that the images are very tasteful. But each to his own. Scepticism can be a good thing….. right up until you realise that you would like to change your mind.
 
Member's gallery
Griffym said:
Interesting. You are correct but smoothness blends very nicely on the Plena. I guess you would have to try it. My experience with the lens was enough to convince me that the images are very tasteful. But each to his own. Scepticism can be a good thing….. right up until you realise that you would like to change your mind.
Click to expand...
I want to play with it. Question is, where would I use it.

Let me explain, and I would love to hear input.

In studio, anything above the 85/1.2 calls for the 70-200 zoom flexibility.

Outdoors? The 70-200 zoom is again being used as the preferred choice because of the zoom.

Landscape? Maybe. I use the 85/1.2.
135mm is a bit on the long side for the area I live in. It doesn’t justify to spend money and add to the insurance premium just for landscape when I have other options.

Events, macro shots of the ring, etc. My wife gets with the 85/1.2. True, the 135 would be a better choice for the ring, but it’s not that practical to shlep around so many lenses. She uses the toggle to DX with the 85/1.2 much faster and more efficient.

Once all A profile shots are done, she changes to the 24-120/4 for any additional table shots, friends posing, etc. She uses flashes around the hall, plus the on camera flash. Lighting isn’t a factor.

What’s the use case for a 135 prime?
 
Member's gallery
JoelKlein said:
I want to play with it. Question is, where would I use it.

Let me explain, and I would love to hear input.

In studio, anything above the 85/1.2 calls for the 70-200 zoom flexibility.

Outdoors? The 70-200 zoom is again being used as the preferred choice because of the zoom.

Landscape? Maybe. I use the 85/1.2.
135mm is a bit on the long side for the area I live in. It doesn’t justify to spend money and add to the insurance premium just for landscape when I have other options.

Events, macro shots of the ring, etc. My wife gets with the 85/1.2. True, the 135 would be a better choice for the ring, but it’s not that practical to shlep around so many lenses. She uses the toggle to DX with the 85/1.2 much faster and more efficient.

Once all A profile shots are done, she changes to the 24-120/4 for any additional table shots, friends posing, etc. She uses flashes around the hall, plus the on camera flash. Lighting isn’t a factor.

What’s the use case for a 135 prime?
Click to expand...
It's heavy and inflexible but you can't duplicate the images it produces with anything else in this focal length. So if you shoot in the 100-150mm range with whatever lens, but need your image to pop like nothing else, it's for you. Same league as the 1.2s.

For me, it replaced the 70-200 2.8 for more expensive shoots (longer, bigger budget) for automotive outdoors. Which BTW, are never shot at the maximum aperture because I need more depth of field to cover a Toyota at the distances I shoot.
 
Member's gallery
I finally got this lens about a month ago (used the airline ticket refund from my cancelled Arctic trip LOL). For me, the chat about bokeh is irrelevant beyond what those nice round balls rendering of points of light mean for the overall quality of the lens. Bokeh, of course, is well beyond the shape of points of light, as most of you know much, much better than me -- but surely what produces that shape is a good indicator ultimately of the quality of the overall blur of out of focus areas (forgive my wading dangerously into optics engineering :D ) -- you know, an indicator of overall technical and engineering excellence. I am as far as is possible from a pixel peeper -- to my eye this lens's sharpness is superb, yes, but the remarkable separation between subject and background (or foreground) and the transition between focus and out of focus is simply sublime to my eye. Every single person I've shot with this lens has wondered if I used photoshop to make the "3d look." (And no it's not that pronounced, really, but still...) "Better" than my z50 1.2 -- can't really say (see bit about I don't pixel peep :D ). While in the world of the internet this is blasphemous, surely, but I don't care about 'comparisons.' The sharpness, the dof, the nikon colours!, are simply as good as Niklkor lenses get. Period. So why not just use the 50, well, I love the 135 focal distance, too, especially for street portraits, for which I've used the lens almost exclusively thus far -- but really can't wait to use it for wildlife subjects (rather than my 105 macro) such as frogs. Oh, and the bokeh balls ARE a lovely shape on the Plena (tho seriously I've had points of light bokeh in precisely two shots, both of those test shots). LOL
 
Member's gallery
Nimi said:
It's heavy and inflexible but you can't duplicate the images it produces with anything else in this focal length. So if you shoot in the 100-150mm range with whatever lens, but need your image to pop like nothing else, it's for you. Same league as the 1.2s.

For me, it replaced the 70-200 2.8 for more expensive shoots (longer, bigger budget) for automotive outdoors. Which BTW, are never shot at the maximum aperture because I need more depth of field to cover a Toyota at the distances I shoot.
Click to expand...
You’re saying something. Makes sense
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top