Comments on: Nikon AF DC Nikkor 135mm f/2.0D lens discontinued

By: acarodp

acarodp — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:18:47 +0000

I actually gave it a little more research. The lens stayed in production for 19 years, not 18, between D and non-D version, starting in October 1990. According to serial numbers ~25000 units were produced. For comparison, roughly 61600 AF 85 1.4 have been produced, which is obviously more, but by less than a factor of 3. for comparison, 7500 AF 28 1.4 (the one discontinued a while back and going for foolish prices on ebay) have been produced in total. The worshiped-by-everybody 200mm f2 VR is somewhere around 4200 pieces. At this rate, it would reach 14000 pieces in a career such as the one of the 135 DC (19 years). All the version of the 300 2.8 AF (starting in 1986) have reached together 44000 units, which is production rate just somewhat higher than the 135 DC. And still I would say nobody would pretend the 300 2.8 is a lens “nobody uses”). Each the long fast tele lenses above 300mm is in the ~5000 or less range, all AF versions taken together (and all these changed sometimes significantly between versions, while the 135 DC only gained the “D” designation in the process).

By: jberk

jberk — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:10:54 +0000

b&h now lists the lens as backordered

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:14:20 +0000

So because every professional you’ve assisted doesn’t use one, that means no one does?
Ever since i got my hands on one last year, i’ve bumped into 3 people using this lens, 2 of them professional photographers and one of those 2 a wedding photographer.
I myself am a serious amateur, and have used this lens for landscapes, portraits and architecture photography.
I’ve used many Nikkor lenses, some dating back to 1971, and this is definitely in the top 3 sharpest lenses i’ve ever used.

poo

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:08:17 +0000

Lucky me: I’ve got a copy and love it!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:41:31 +0000

i fail to see the benefit of an un-sharp lens regardless of the application….. this sharp talk is nonsense.. now if we all used film then it would have some merit….

By: kristupa saragih

kristupa saragih — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:26:23 +0000

uhmm yeah…forgot about that…how about make it faster or combine it with other prime and call it AF-S 180/2.8G ED IF VR Micro…

and I hope 14-24 is not replacing 17-35…I really hope they will update 17-35 too…:D

By: acarodp

acarodp — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 07:42:39 +0000

Anybody who uses primes and wants a fast medium telephoto lens would want to use it. Not everybody does since it is a fairly expensive lens (I got a very lucky deal, an used one in quite good conditions for ~600 euros, but new, according to amazon, it is 1300-1400, after all not so out of reach). Keep in mind it is the only AF prime in the Nikon lineup between the 105 and the 180. On DX, it does the job of a 200 f2 on fx, and even new it is cheaper and a lot smaller. One should not look at the DC feature and label it a specialty portrait lens, the DC is a plus (of questionable utility if you ask me) on what is an awesome, razor-sharp and fast 135mm. In fact, I do not do portrait, and do not use it for portrait. I guess it is the less commonly used of the two DC, the 105 being an “easier” focal length.
This said, Nikon introduced this lens in 1991, before the 105 DC, before the AF 85 1.4, before the 28 1.4 that was retired some years ago because “nobody was buying it” (in that case, it was true, since I believe they produced 2 or 3000 of it only).18 years in production is a pretty long life for a lens “nobody uses” don’t you think?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:24:48 +0000

Both 85 f/1.4 on DX and 135 f/2 on FX are really close in terms of angle of view and DOF.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:21:23 +0000

Besides the obvious well-heeled, amateur, tech nerd, gear collectors, do any real photographers use these? Every single professional photographer I have assisted who uses a Nikon uses either the 80-200mm or 70-200mm for portraiture. My feeling is that a lot of people who are into gear like the idea behind this lens, but few people are using or buying it, hence it’s deletion.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:58:55 +0000

Thanks Martin!

By: PHB

PHB — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:57:00 +0000

No way would the replacement be DX. Once you get above 50mm there is really no major penalty to producing a full frame coverage lens over a crop-frame. Maybe the front element could be 5mm narrower, its not enough to bother with.

The replacement is not going to be a 77mm filter in any case, so why worry?

By: Martin

Martin — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 22:03:07 +0000

Admin, I admire you for running this blog. So many grumpy people treating this blog like their personal toilet.

I think it’s a privilege to read, whatever you write, and I’m sure a lot of people think the-same

By: kristupa saragih

kristupa saragih — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:12:44 +0000

well, you can always use photoshop to soften sharpness…but you can’t use photoshop to sharpen soft image…besides, it would be more useful to have sharp lens than soft lens.

By: monty11

monty11 — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:10:33 +0000

Well the photographer might want a sharp portrait lens but the client will definitely not want her(his) picture taken with one

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:11:15 +0000

I have to agree with andrej, I wish they would come out with almost a new line… some of their lens are amazing… but with nikon its either a 2000 dollar lens of beauty(or more expensive) or a 600dollar (or less) expensive piece of mediocre glass… its bothersome. I wish they had like a 70-200mm f/4 or maybe if they renwed their 80-200mm f/2.8. and some of the ones andrej mentioned would work as well… maybe its time ?

By: John Dosy-Doe

John Dosy-Doe — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:02:42 +0000

I agree on the first part, but partly disagree on the latter. Nikon introduced the 24-70/f2.8 and the 14-24 f/2.8 last year. Both geared towards pros. I do think Nikon is targeting the consumer market more aggressively because that’s where the bulk of their revenue comes from. This simply misdirects their focus on getting newer pro lenses out. I think all new pro lenses will be targeted towards FF sensors and focus their Dx lenses mostly on the consumer market.

Or maybe they will shock us all like they did with the D3…who really knows?

By: acarodp

acarodp — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 10:45:56 +0000

The 135 DC is dead, hail to the 135 DC!

It would appear that most of those who write here have never used this fantastic piece of glass. Sharp wide open? the 135 DC is definitely sharper at f2 than the 70-200 2.8 VR is a 2.8, and by an embarrassing margin (this on DX). In fact, too sharp for portrait already. Since I was so lucky to find one used for a pretty good price, it has become one of my favorite lenses. Built like the famous tank, with a reasonably fast AF despite being screwdriver type, and with a fantastic out of focus rendition. AF apart, there is really not so much to improve: Purple Fringing Longitudinal CA are its main faults, but the Zeiss-Sony 135 1.8 is a good proof that LoCA is not going to go away very easily in these fast long lenses (I guess it is even worse in the Sony than in the 135 DC), no matter how much ED glass you throw in. If they drop the DC thing (not very useful), make it AFS (granted), cut PF and possibly LoCA and keep the Bokeh and the build quality as they are now, they can get another masterpiece.

By: Bonzo

Bonzo — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 09:58:14 +0000

hehe, I don’t want DC, caused problems anyway on DX cameras with front/back focus

By: rdrrr

rdrrr — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:47:06 +0000

They discontinued it because no one was buying.. In the time of economic crisis they will probably make some DX plastic lens, more affordable.. So maybe something like 90/1.8 AFS DX (135 equivalent).

By: blago

blago — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 06:27:38 +0000

I’d love to se an AF-S 135/2G N IF ED on my D300. no VR for me , thanks Nikon