The Nikon Z Plena 135mm f/1.8 for low light wildlife photography

ricardo00 · Monday at 4:53 PM

Hi all,
Just was wondering if the Nikon 135mm f/1.8 has been useful for photographing wildlife (in particular birds in flight) when there is very little light? My f/2.8 is just not enough when I need a higher shutter speed (1/800 and higher) for the owls near us when they take off at night (even when I turn the ISO up to 25,600. Tried looking at the Flickr Nikon 135mm f/1.8 group but don't see any pics of the type I want to take. Maybe the DOF is too narrow for such shots?
Thanks for any experience with this.
Richard

JAJohnson · Monday at 5:01 PM

There’s been some dialogue about Plena in the thread below. Perhaps there’s something helpful.

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

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,

bcgforums.com

John Navitsky · Monday at 5:04 PM

dof won't be too shallow.

the plena definitely can help in lower light, but the real question is if 135mm is long enough. i can't imagine many birds in flight where i'd reach for 135mm.

ricardo00 · Monday at 5:27 PM

John Navitsky said:
dof won't be too shallow.

the plena definitely can help in lower light, but the real question is if 135mm is long enough. i can't imagine many birds in flight where i'd reach for 135mm.

Some of our owls are "predictable" and have been using the 70-180mm. Have to crop some but am following them as they leave their sleeping perch. Below is an example of a barn owl that I used 90mm FL:

joe43 · Monday at 6:06 PM

I think it would work well if you are close enough to the birds. 135mm is pretty short for birds and birds in flight. My minimum is usually 300mm. Or a 85mm f1.8 if I can get real close.

Lance B · Monday at 7:03 PM

If you are close enough, then it will give you an extra 1 and 1/3rd of a stop of extra light plus whatever advantage there might be in T stops. However, if you have to crop more to get a decent sized image, then the advantage may be lost due to increasing apparent noise level.

BillW · Tuesday at 10:48 AM

I bought a Plena this month. I don’t expect to use it for birds in flight. It seems to me too short for most birds in flight work where I usually use 400 mm, 600 mm, 800 mm or sometimes even 1120 mm (800 mm PF + 1.4x TC).

I do hope to use the Plena for wildlife work, although I have not tried it for that yet. I’m going to take it to British Columbia next month for a trip focused on spirit bears. I think it might be useful for other large mammals. I plan to take it to Botswana on my next trip there. Not necessarily for close up portraits. More for an environmental portraits?

We had a close encounter with a pack of African wild dogs on my recent trip to Botswana. They were eating an antelope they had killed and it was well after sunset as we drove back to our camp. Very dark and the dogs were close. I had the Z 400 TC on one body and the Z 100-400 on my other body. The 400 was a bit long and the 100-400 was slow. The Plena might have been perfect. Wider and 1 and 1/3 stops faster than the 400.

And of course I hope to use the Plena for non-wildlife work.

ricardo00 · Tuesday at 12:10 PM

Thanks everyone for their responses. Not sure it is worth buying or renting for my use as everyone has noted, the focal length is a bit short for most bird in flight shots. For stationary owls, the f/2.8 is sufficient since I can use a slow shutter speed. For flying owls, the problem becomes the focal length. Oh well, guess there are some times one must just watch and enjoy and not try to get the shot.

nmerc_photos · Tuesday at 1:18 PM

as others have said, if you can get close enough - yes it's great

I have a friend who loves using the Plena 135mm for wildlife. he has some rather tame birds in his backyard.

In my personal world, I've used the Sigma 105mm f1.4 a lot for owls and white tail deer when I need extremely fast aperture. Your biggest limiting factor is how close you can get to your subjects.

ricardo00 · Tuesday at 2:11 PM

nmerc_photos said:
as others have said, if you can get close enough - yes it's great

I have a friend who loves using the Plena 135mm for wildlife. he has some rather tame birds in his backyard.

In my personal world, I've used the Sigma 105mm f1.4 a lot for owls and white tail deer when I need extremely fast aperture. Your biggest limiting factor is how close you can get to your subjects.

Thanks for your response. Hadn't heard of the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 but looks like it is almost as expensive as the 135mm and not made for the Nikon? So the 135mm Plena would be the way to go, just not sure the cost is worth the few times I might use it.
PS. Any chance your friend has posted any photos of birds with the Plena 135? Would love to see them.

Jerry Heitschmidt · Tuesday at 2:55 PM

FWIW, I tried the Nikon 105 f/1.4 for elk in the Smokies last fall and most of the time the elk were far enough away that environmental portraits were the best I could get. I did, however, manage to find some semi-free-ranging chickens, and it worked okay for them.

https://focused.smugmug.com/Animals/Smokies-2023/i-rz26fcn/A
https://focused.smugmug.com/Animals/Smokies-2023/i-JZbgVn4/A

One thing both lenses have in common is a soft fall off from the focal plane. It really does create a soft look when the subjects are relatively close. The question is, do you want that?

ricardo00 · Tuesday at 3:13 PM

Jerry Heitschmidt said:
FWIW, I tried the Nikon 105 f/1.4 for elk in the Smokies last fall and most of the time the elk were far enough away that environmental portraits were the best I could get. I did, however, manage to find some semi-free-ranging chickens, and it worked okay for them.
https://focused.smugmug.com/Animals/Smokies-2023/i-rz26fcn/A
https://focused.smugmug.com/Animals/Smokies-2023/i-JZbgVn4/A

One thing both lenses have in common is a soft fall off from the focal plane. It really does create a soft look when the subjects are relatively close. The question is, do you want that?

Thanks Jerry for your reply and posting some examples! Probably would prefer more of the animal then the soft fall off. I was all set to go rent the Plena 135 when I discovered the rental place near me has closed down. So now it requires a shipment fee, etc (from LensRentals). So less likely to try.

nmerc_photos · Tuesday at 4:04 PM

ricardo00 said:
Thanks for your response. Hadn't heard of the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 but looks like it is almost as expensive as the 135mm and not made for the Nikon? So the 135mm Plena would be the way to go, just not sure the cost is worth the few times I might use it.
PS. Any chance your friend has posted any photos of birds with the Plena 135? Would love to see them.

I usually don't pay attention to MSRP prices, just what I can actually buy the lens for. In my case I can pick up a Sigma 105mm f1.4 for $700, but the cheapest I see the Plena is around $2K.

for my use, I didn't think it was worth giving up 2/3 stop of light for "only" 30mm of reach. especially not at the cost of an extra $1.3K to do it.

YMMV

this is his instagram - most pics will either be the 400TC or 135Plena. I asked if he had a flickr so we could see EXIF, or if he had a separate gallery just for the plena

Tom Espo (@t.spo_images) • Instagram photos and videos

3,488 Followers, 1,804 Following, 732 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Tom Espo (@t.spo_images)

www.instagram.com

nmerc_photos · Tuesday at 4:11 PM

and not to derail your thread, but since you seem interested in the Sigma potentially - here's what I mainly use it for. whitetails in the fall. it's usually in a canopied area (not much light) and near dark (double whammy). I'm often shooting f1.4 and handholding as slow as possible. I am very pleased with the results for the price.