KOK Yoon Lee said:
I don't own the 135/2 DC but I had it on loan for a while to play with. I love it on my D3. However, on my D200, I found it to be a beast as I can't hand hold it at slower shutter speeds due to its lack of VR and I found 200mm to be less useful. Wish I can get my grubby paws on the 105DC to try :-).

"grubby paws"......that will give you trouble handholding at lower speeds.

I don't own the 135/2 DC but I had it on loan for a while to play with. I love it on my D3. However, on my D200, I found it to be a beast as I can't hand hold it at slower shutter speeds due to its lack of VR and I found 200mm to be less useful. Wish I can get my grubby paws on the 105DC to try :-).

Just another idea, Niz:

1. Buy the DC 105 now, and save for the 60mm Micro someday (maybe try to buy a used one).
2. Buy the DC 105 and get a diopter for closer focusing.

I think if you're interested in creative fashion and portrait photography, you're going to have a lot of fun with the 105 DC. I also think you'll benefit from its faster, f/2.0 maximum aperture. Also, it's a unique lens that makes shallow-focus shots with ease. An f/2.8 lens on a DX body may not give you the shallow depth-of-field you're looking for.

My 105 DC is a bit of a conundrum. Yes, it's super-sharp at certain DC settings: f/2.0-f/2.8, with the defocus control ring set to 'F' (foreground defocus) at their "corresponding" f/2.0-f/2.8 settings. However. my particular copy is slightly soft with the defocus control ring set to either the neutral, or any of the BACKGROUND defocus ring f-stop settings. According to the Nikon literature, this is not how it's supposed to work.

But, I got such a good price on it (used), I figured I'd just keep it, because, at least I have a fast, super-sharp 105mm lens (albeit, at a particular setting only) for not too much money. Someday, I'll have Nikon take a look at it.

Niz said:
Thanks studio, I was also looking at the 105 DC, but I think If I go with the 105 I would rather have the macro so I can get closer to the subject and the VR would also help in low light. I haven't been able to read much on the 105 DC and if it is as sharp as they say the 135DC is then I might get that one too. Seems I have a lot to look at once I get the money together.

Just remember you can't get too close or you won't get 2.8 anymore, the lens breathes a lot and when you get down to 1:1 (way too close for portraits) you're at f/4.8.

Still working and practicing with this lens, it's a little long (for me) for indoor portraits, outdoors should be fine (unless you have a very large studio).

Thanks studio, I was also looking at the 105 DC, but I think If I go with the 105 I would rather have the macro so I can get closer to the subject and the VR would also help in low light. I haven't been able to read much on the 105 DC and if it is as sharp as they say the 135DC is then I might get that one too. Seems I have a lot to look at once I get the money together.

I've been looking at this same problem myself. The close spread between 85, 105, and 135 makes it a tough call especially on a tight budget. The route I've decided on, as I'm currently in D90 land but hope to go FX eventually, is to pick up a 85mm 1.4D in the short term especially since the new 1.4G will presumably push price further down. In the long term, once I've made the jump to a full-frame then I'd be looking to pick up a 135 or something else to get the longer reach.

Drab said:
Kittens, like flowers, photograph best when pressed flat and dried.

God, Drab! That's got to be the funniest thing I've ever heard you type! (Although, I think the OP would be better-served photographing dried kittens with a flat-field lens).

I just bought a 105mm DC-Nikkor f/2.0 myself. Since you also have a DX-body (I also own a D90 and a D7000), I would lean toward recommending the 105mm DC over the 135mm. But that's a personal preference. For DX, the 135mm just seemed a bit too long for me. However, I'm also planning to buy an FX body someday, so it was a tough call, choosing between the 105 and the 135.

Anywho, I bought the DC 105 just before xmas, and find that I really, really like that focal length on my DX body. It's a sweet length for head-and-shoulders portraits; plus, it's a whole stop faster than the 2.8 VR Micro.

Niz said:
The 105 might be what I get, but I like the idea of the extra length of the 135 making it pretty much a 200mm on my D90. I also like that it is a stop faster and the DC on it seems to be a pretty cool thing to blur out the background more. From everything that I have read and was told in my photo classes, you want a long lens to shoot portraits and fashion. So with that said I was looking to add a long lens to my set and was thinking between those two.

Now, I initially glossed over your second post. You make a VERY good point! Fashion and portraiture does look really good when shot with long, fast lenses. Having the equivalent of a 200mm f/2.0 lens would be pretty darned cool. Like I said, it was a tough call for me too.

For me, the decision point was the subject-to-camera distance required for full-body shots with either lens. I measured the distance required for a full-length shot with just the 105, and it was quite a ways (maybe 40-50 feet?), so I thought the 135 was probably too long for my purposes. Then again, I've seen pro photographers shooting fashion with 300mm-600mm lenses (the photographer had to use radios to communicate with his assistants/models).

The problem is, that NIkon makes three great lenses in very close focal lengths: the 85mm f/1.4, the 105mm f/2.0, and 135mm f/2.0. It's so damned hard to choose! And even harder to rationalize buying all three! But the short-tele is such a fun lens to use--it's hard to resist wanting all three!

Thanks for all the help. I do want to test out both the 135mm and the 105mm when I get the money to see which one I like better. I have tried out the 105 once before and liked it. Right now I'm using a 28-70 2.8 at 70mm on my D90 for all my studio work. It works for now and does the job, but I really want some more length to get back more away from the model/subject. The 105 might be what I get, but I like the idea of the extra length of the 135 making it pretty much a 200mm on my D90. I also like that it is a stop faster and the DC on it seems to be a pretty cool thing to blur out the background more. From everything that I have read and was told in my photo classes, you want a long lens to shoot portraits and fashion. So with that said I was looking to add a long lens to my set and was thinking between those two.

Hi Jerl,

Terrific summary. Thanks!

My best,

Mike

I have the 135DC, and I find it a great lens for what it is. It's very sharp, even wide open with minimal other optical aberrations, other than longitudinal chromatic aberration which almost all fast lenses have. On my D90 it can autofocus fast enough to track action. Build quality is good; up to the 1990's Nikon professional standard. The hood is also very good- you can pull it out and screw it to lock it, and it also has a hidden side effect that I've never seen anyone talk about- the hood is exactly the right size to fit 77mm filters on the end; you don't even need to screw them in, the felt lining holds them in slightly (I wouldn't shake the camera or point it straight down though).

I find a great lens for shooting people at distance, particularly at low light (like at concerts and other events)- I prefer rather than the heavier and more expensive 70-200VR, since it's a stop faster, and prefer it over the 85/1.4 since it's long enough to shoot head shots from a few feet offstage (with DX). Unlike the 200/2, it's also easily hand-holdable and won't attract unwanted attention. I also use it for portraits and other posed pictures of people. I know some say that it's "too long" but I prefer to trust my own eyes on this one. Of course this is all just my opinion- yours will likely be extremely different.

As far as disadvantages goes, it only stops down to f/16, not f/22 like modern Nikon lenses, and closer focusing would always be appreciated. On high contrast subjects, the longitudinal aberration is very noticeable, and can't be corrected easily in post production. With the kenko 1.4 TCpro, it works, but the autofocus slows down a lot and becomes less reliable; also the spherical aberration increases dramatically, but can still produce decent images. The lens also requires you to flip a ring to switch from AF to MF, which is can be annoying when I want to MF (which is not that often). Many people also complain about the focus calibration. For me, the focus at close range is very accurate for me (less than 0.5mm on a controlled target). At low light conditions, it can back focus slightly by a inch or two at 10 feet, but this is easily compensated for.

The "DC" feature (used to control foreground and background focus blur shapes) is very subtle, and doesn't really add or subtract much from the lens. If Nikon removes the feature from future lenses, I wouldn't worry about it- you won't miss too much. Having the control is still nice, and makes for some interesting effects, not just the soft focus effect (which looks horrible most of the time, IMO)

Everyone has different sees and shoots differently, and will have different expectations of their tools, so I expect I am a in a small minority with my opinion here. After all, there is a reason why not many 135DCs are made.

As far as recommendations go, here is what I'd say
- 105VR has far better availability, since they're made and sold in large volumes
- 105VR has more use in practical applications, since it can focus to 1:1 and has VR
- 105VR also auto-focuses on the lower tier of camera, and has easy manual focus override
- 135DC has a larger aperture, and can thus through the background out of focus more. The DC can change background shapes slightly to improve this effect (this is what people refer to as the good bokeh of this lens)
- 135DC has an aperture ring for compatibility with manual focus cameras (this is important for me since I still use those)
-neither lens has a tripod collar (135DC is heavy enough that the balance is off a little when I use a tripod, not sure abut 105VR)
-both lenses give similar viewpoints- if 135 is too long, 105 won't be much different
- other lenses you might want to consider for a portrait: 50/1.8 (or 1.4 D or G), 85/1.8 (or 1.4), or the 70-200 VR (I or II). All have different pros and cons. You might want to consider renting a couple before picking one out.

NikoDoby said:
Don't forget the flowers and kittens.

Kittens, like flowers, photograph best when pressed flat and dried.

No I'm not Ken Rockwell, but I was his sensei back at the Photo Monastery ;-)

NSXType-R said:
I'm waiting for summer to come so I can start shooting bugs and macros.

Don't forget the flowers and kittens.

Super Shooter said:
Who is Ken Rockwell? I've never heard of him but the 135 f2 is one of Nikon's best lenses. I prefer it over the 105 for portraits.

He's a guy with very strong opinions.

135mm DC is supposed to be a good lens, it would be way too long for portraits for DX too.

I just got a 105mm macro, it's a bit tough to do anything other than head shots.

I'm waiting for summer to come so I can start shooting bugs and macros.

Super Shooter said:
Who is Ken Rockwell?

http://tinyurl.com/5ux8tg8

Who is Ken Rockwell? I've never heard of him but the 135 f2 is one of Nikon's best lenses. I prefer it over the 105 for portraits.

I do not have it, but i have heard others say it is very nice and very sharp. It was actually the first lens I was planning to buy.

The main blog said it was being discontinued as the DC could be done in post, in favour of a straight 135 f2 (no DC).

I would say that 135 would be too long for portraits on DX, but OK on FX.

I really liked the 85 1.4D after renting it last week, but the wife says no. The 85 1.4G must be VERY nice. and 85 is probably still OK on DX.

So I have been reading up on some different lenses for portrait lenses and found this one. I was at first looking at the 105mm 2.8 macro, but this 135mm seems to have awesome reviews and the DC ring seems like it would be a great thing to add to the photo on head shots and just portraits in general. Does anyone have this lens and us it? Is it really as great as Ken Rockwell says it is?