The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Oh no! 135mm f/2.0

Steen

Senior Subscriber Member
forget about the goods ...
1 vote for the "Get silly drunk tonight" suggestion :lecture:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Hey! That's not fair - I go all contrite and you try and snatch the Pinot Grigio from my very hand . . . actually, be my guest, as long as you replace it with a nice Sauvignon:)
You will all have to go to Islay, to drink the salty, smoked liquid of the Scotsmen. Only Laphroaig for you from now on :lecture:

--

Well, you lot, no consistency - Me? I'm totally consistent, 3 different systems, 9543 lenses 863 different cameras:shocked:

While you're thinking about nice 135mm lenses, why not get the Zeiss 135 f1.8?
I've been thinking about the Zeiss since I first tried it more than two years ago, but I have three F-mount bodies, and I was surprised about the sharpness of the Nikkor today, and..... the asking price is less than half that of the Zeiss :)
 

jonoslack

Active member
You will all have to go to Islay, to drink the salty, smoked liquid of the Scotsmen. Only Laphroaig for you from now on :lecture:
Well, okay, but if you're buying please could I have the Lagavullin

--


I've been thinking about the Zeiss since I first tried it more than two years ago, but I have three F-mount bodies, and I was surprised about the sharpness of the Nikkor today, and..... the asking price is less than half that of the Zeiss :)
But what about the microcontrast :ROTFL:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Lars, I believe very few owners of the 135 actually use the DC function. it's simply not very well implemented. Many never get on friendly terms with that lens at all, but there are some stellar results around as well. i will give it a few days anyway.

Thank you for the link.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Well, okay, but if you're buying please could I have the Lagavullin
Funny that you mention that. I've always considered Lagavullin a better whisky from an objective point of view. Still, I prefer Laphroaig :p

A friend of mine gave me a bottle of Ardbeg a few years ago. That was even better, but unfortunately (fortunately?) it isn't available here :(

Oh well, bedtime already. Rumour has it that there's work waiting tomorrow :sleep006:
 

jonoslack

Active member
Funny that you mention that. I've always considered Lagavullin a better whisky from an objective point of view. Still, I prefer Laphroaig :p

A friend of mine gave me a bottle of Ardbeg a few years ago. That was even better, but unfortunately (fortunately?) it isn't available here :(

Oh well, bedtime already. Rumour has it that there's work waiting tomorrow :sleep006:
I also rather like Bunnahabhain

There is a decent refresher course athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islay_whisky

Have a good snooze - I've got some work to do first.
 

Lars

Active member
Lars, I believe very few owners of the 135 actually use the DC function. it's simply not very well implemented. Many never get on friendly terms with that lens at all, but there are some stellar results around as well. i will give it a few days anyway.
Even without DC it is a good lens, but use of slight rear defocus gives it great bokeh, IMO. The trick to taking advantage of DC is to use it with almost extreme moderation, otherwise it becomes a soft-focus lens.
 

jonoslack

Active member
You are very welcome here, all of you :) ... c'mon, Jorgen, you cannot go to bed now :rolleyes:
Just a last message before the plane takes off (and I've never been to Denmark).
What's your address Steen?

p.s. I have a couple of bottles of Ardbeg with me (to tempt Jorgen).
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Ha! I've had a good night's sleep already, at least a half good night, while you guys have been fooling around on the internet. A waste of time if you ask me :angel:

Thank you for the sample, Osman. Superb subject isolation, also at a distance, is one of the abilities I'm looking for in this lens.

While sleeping, I've been trying to make a list of good reasons to buy the little, black thing, except for pure lust, which is of course reason enough. There are a quite a few, and particularly size, weight and the faster aperture compared to my "preferred" telephoto lens, the 80-200 AF-S, are compelling. I must admit that I like the general feel and look of the lens as well. The utilitarian design with white markings on black, with no gold, silver or red whatsoever, suits my taste well. That's not unimportant when silly buying decisions are going to be made :D

PS. I missed the plane to Copenhagen, but I'll take one in a few months to check how the next generation is doing. A new heir is preparing her arrival :)
 

wayne_s

New member
Buy the lens, pick up your lovely "passengers" in your gold-plated Porsche and celibrate at your home by drinking fine wine and taking lovely artsy nudes! LOL
 

Terry

New member
I'm sorry Jorgen,
I refrained from playing on this thread as long as possible having just sprung for the Zeiss 135 f1.8. I'm in love with that lens. If you like the 135, buy it you won't regret it and if you do, finding the link to the buy sell forum is a breeze.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I'm sorry Jorgen,
I refrained from playing on this thread as long as possible having just sprung for the Zeiss 135 f1.8. I'm in love with that lens. If you like the 135, buy it you won't regret it and if you do, finding the link to the buy sell forum is a breeze.
The Zeiss is one of the reasons why I have been holding back on the Nikkor so far. I simply don't like to buy a lens when I know that there's another, better one available. But the fact that I do use F-mount camera bodies every day, and that the sharpness, particularly at the corners wide open, was as good as I saw yesterday, I just have to admit that I won't see much difference during day-to-day photography. I'll miss out on the image stabilisation of course, but buying the Nikkor will cost me a third of buying the Zeiss plus an A700 body, even at today's prices. Add to that my passion for the S5, and the desicion shouldn't be too difficult, should it??
 

Terry

New member
The Zeiss is one of the reasons why I have been holding back on the Nikkor so far. I simply don't like to buy a lens when I know that there's another, better one available. But the fact that I do use F-mount camera bodies every day, and that the sharpness, particularly at the corners wide open, was as good as I saw yesterday, I just have to admit that I won't see much difference during day-to-day photography. I'll miss out on the image stabilisation of course, but buying the Nikkor will cost me a third of buying the Zeiss plus an A700 body, even at today's prices. Add to that my passion for the S5, and the desicion shouldn't be too difficult, should it??
That sounds like me rationalizing my switch from Nikon to Sony :ROTFL:
 

viablex1

Active member
I think your quite the handsome devil....you ole naster!!! LOLOL

just messing which you!!

you are a really great reference, I am buying that horseman accessory soon
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
You never can compare Nikkor to Zeiss lenses!

Already 10 years ago in the analog days I did comparisons between Leica and Zeiss and I must say I liked most Zeiss lenses better than Leica lenses. Especially I made this experience with the 1:2.0/180 APO from Leica compared to the 1:2.0/200 Zeiss (I think it was 200) - man the Zeiss lens was just so much better.

All the other Zeiss glass I owned (Hasselblad, Contax) just proved the same!

I currently do not own the 1.8/135, but I have no doubt it will be a similar stellar performer than it's "old" ancestors - forgive my English :angel:

Actually the Zeiss lenses and the positive reports here in the forum about the A900 made me switch from Nikon/Canon to Sony - will receive the cam and a bunch of lenses next week :cool: YEAH !!!
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
You never can compare Nikkor to Zeiss lenses!
Peter,
That's an interesting statement, and one that we could probably debate forever. Can we compare lenses at all, and what criteria make one lens better than another?

One can always claim some "Objective Truth", and say that lens A is better than lens B because so and so. That has been my opinion about the Zeiss vs. the Nikkor 135mm for three years now, after I bumped into the Zeiss by coincidence in a small camera shop in Georgetown, Penang and tried it on the lowly Sony A100. Most of the opinions that I created on that day probably still hold water, and have been confirmed by other photographers as well.

But there are other criteria too. My mother is probably of the opinion that any lens that will show her great granddaughter smiling, is a good lens :eek: Some of my non-photographing engineer friends will claim that a lens that has enough DOF to show the entire photo in focus, so that the serial number in the back of whatever technical installation I've taken a photo of, can be read. And my youngest son, who is 18 and rather cool :cool: would prefer the whole image to be out of focus (at least judging from the portrait of his foot or whatever on Facebook), as long as his friends know it's him.

Considerations like these, and including those holy, "objective" ones – particularly those – have made me hold back on that Nikkor for a few years now. The "truth" has been that the Zeiss is a better lens, period :lecture: And investing a couple of thousand dollars in a camera body only to be able to use it has been an obvious thing to do, at least if I could find the necessary monies available somewhere.

But I haven't, and then, by coincidence, I took a shot with the Nikkor that made me think that "hey, I can live with this, and I can probably take photos with this, that nobody would know came from the Nikkor and not from the Zeiss". And since the Nikkor is much cheaper, can be found second hand, is lighter and smaller, and not least; fits the camera bodies that I already have, I started wondering if those two or three thousand dollars couldn't be used for something that makes more sense.

More sense to me, that is. Like buying a Pentax camera and the Limited 77mm f/1.8, which in my absolutely, exclusively personal view is the best portrait lens in the 75-85mm range available from any optical wizard, a lens that is a size that would make me able to carry it anywhere, any time. And since the current price of a K20D plus the Limited is less than the Zeiss 135 alone, without a camera to mount it on (and the used Nikkor is half the price of the Pentax combo, but I'm cheating, since I own a few F-mount bodies already), the question of what is the best lens, the best lens for me, takes on another dimension.

The best lens for me is probably the one that sits on my camera the next time I go to Hanoi or to Oslo or across the street, at least if it features the optical qualities that I feel strengthen the message in my photos. I'm sure that I could take reasonable photos with a Noct or a Zeiss 135 as well, and some lenses are undoubtedly optical masterpieces. But the best photos are mostly taken by photographers who know the possibilities and limitations of whatever is mounted on the front of his or her camera, and utilizes those optical components in an optimal way.

So I don't really disagree with your statement, which I have even taken out of its contents, but I think it's fair to say that comparing lenses cannot really be done from an "ultimate" and/or "objective" point of view alone. There are too many elements in play here, and that includes my breakfast, which I will now make and consume :D
 
S

S.P.

Guest
You never can compare Nikkor to Zeiss lenses!

Already 10 years ago in the analog days I did comparisons between Leica and Zeiss and I must say I liked most Zeiss lenses better than Leica lenses. Especially I made this experience with the 1:2.0/180 APO from Leica compared to the 1:2.0/200 Zeiss (I think it was 200) - man the Zeiss lens was just so much better.

All the other Zeiss glass I owned (Hasselblad, Contax) just proved the same!

I currently do not own the 1.8/135, but I have no doubt it will be a similar stellar performer than it's "old" ancestors - forgive my English :angel:

Actually the Zeiss lenses and the positive reports here in the forum about the A900 made me switch from Nikon/Canon to Sony - will receive the cam and a bunch of lenses next week :cool: YEAH !!!
Do you have some examples to show us, Peter?

Thank you.
 
Top