NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Akira on September 23, 2023, 02:48:13
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ro3iA1T3AM
A teaser of a new up-and coming lens.
135/1/8 with the perfectly smooth and circular bokeh?
-
guess new Z135/1.8 is extremely sharp, high resolution, low distortion, low CA
but,big, heavy, expensive
since I had the Sigma 135/1.8 art, I already had no more optical performance desire on 135/1.8, but the eye-tracking focus ;D
-
piano - piano! I feel like Nikon have made too many offers lately that I cannot refuse ;)
-
Plana? Plena! Opticus plenum ;D
-
Plana? Plena! Opticus plenum ;D
My bad! Plena. Thank you for the note! :o :o :o
-
guess new Z135/1.8 is extremely sharp, high resolution, low distortion, low CA
but,big, heavy, expensive
since I had the Sigma 135/1.8 art, I already had no more optical performance desire on 135/1.8, but the eye-tracking focus ;D
Yeah, SIGMA 135/1.8 looks nice. Apparently it is very well designed even without the software correction.
piano - piano! I feel like Nikon have made too many offers lately that I cannot refuse ;)
Daniel, sorry for your extra-expense. ;D
-
I wonder if the knurled ring right below the "Plena" logo would be the defocus control like the ones on AF DC Nikkors 135 and 105?
https://www.dpreview.com/news/3235833260/nikon-teases-a-mysterious-new-plena-lens-coming-on-sept-27th
-
As for me - new 105/1.2. 135 is flatting faces too much. LZ
-
105/1.2 would require a 95mm filter ... the lens previewed doesn't look that big. I'd say it is more likely to be the 135/1.8 that has been on the roadmap for some time.
The roadmap is currently showing outlines of only two new lenses, most likely a 135/1.8 and 35/1.2. Nikon haven't added any new lenses to the roadmap for some time so they may be abandoning it now they have a fairly complete range of lenses. So we might start seeing new lenses which were never on the roadmap such as a 104/1.4 - the lens shown in the preview looks a bit short for a fast 135mm lens?
-
A 135 mm f/1,8 with some sort of (advanced?) DC would be very interesting. I am sure Nikon will bring more Z lenses but not with the same pace they did since the coming out of Z-Mount. We might see Tilt/Shift lenses in the future.
Regarding Plena I still got no Idea why Nikon chose this name (although I got Latin teaching in School some decades ago)
-
Is Plena supposed to be above S-line?
-
Is Plena supposed to be above S-line?
Who knows
But I guess not - otherwise the 400 and 600 mm TC lenses would be Plena as well. I think it is more dedicated to a unique lens or little set of lenses (maybe 135 and 105 mm?)
-
I think the S-line lenses are already quite special.
That said I have only one so far. The 50/1.8. I have never had a normal lens with that wide open performance.
I was surprised with a portrait where I could see the interior of my living room in the eye. It is a head and shoulder portrait at f/1.8.
Non of my old 50mm Nikkors could do that. Maybe the 58/1.2 noct could come close at 1.8......who knows.....
So for me this 50/1.8 is my Plena lens :-) ......maybe I have got a very good sample. I hope so......
The next is if I have hit 100% sharpness at eye or a little more sharpness could be achieved.
But let us see what this Plena is for a lens.......probably another price level than the 50/1.8.
-
I suspect Plena is short for plenary such as a plenary session at a meeting which is intended for everyone to attend. The e may have more than one pronunciation. I (US English) would the same as in the word plenty and cent which seems different from the vid which was a bit hard to hear.
-
My first thought was that it was quite impressive they did a local promotion video,,, :o
Well I soon found out you all have to live with that Copenhagen was selected to shoot it in 8)
If the out of focus highlights are for real it's quite the lens for sure! Very even neutral Bokeh.
-
it should have be named Plenum ;-)
and unfortunately it appears not to be a DC lens - would have been nice if Nikon continued this unique tradition
https://nikonrumors.com/2023/09/25/confirmed-massive-nikon-nikkor-135mm-f-1-8-plena-lens-without-defocus-control-coming-this-week.aspx/#more-185946
-
So, it turned out to be a 135mm f1.8. :) Non-DC, but with almost the perfectly round bokeh.
https://www.nikon.com/company/news/2023/0927_lens_01.html
Some sample images from the Japanese official website:
https://www.nikon-image.com/products/nikkor/zmount/nikkor_z_135mm_f18_s_plena/sample.html
-
Here's the optical design. The still-mysterious SR element is on the forefront.
-
The MTF chart...what do you think?
-
It is a nice DX-lens ;)
-
11 aperture blades - Round out of focus Bokeh gives a very calm image and no vignetting, interesting features!
Utilizing the Z mount to next level - Plena S lenses, will there be an 105mm?
-
Obviously a well-thought out optical design. Not restricted to DX, by the way. The principle of design might mimic the latest 58/1.4 F ('Neo-Noct') to perform visually much more satisfying than what the clinical MTF graph might indicate.
It's heavy and likely expensive. Oh well.
-
MTF is outstanding to 15mm (DX image circle). Still excellent beyond that considering it is at f/1.8.
Close focus is 0.82m, which is relatively close for a 135mm, even slightly closer than the 85/1.2 gets. Max magnification is 0.2x (1:5), so will be good for closeups.
No LCD showing the focus distance or DoF scale. It seems Nikon has abandoned this feature, maybe most photographers don't find it to be useful.
-
Weight 995g and it will cost 2999 Euro over here in NL
-
personally, I don;t see the value of 2500USD
my copy is 1000USD, 1/3 of Plena and 250g heavier.
is anybody really care about how round the flare light spot is in background corner?
-
it is also sharp and high resolution wide open, focus fast
-
there is no onion circle as plena
-
different focus distance
-
nothing can complain on sigma 135/1.8 art optical performance except the weight. 8)Dam maybe it's my problem
-
Plena utilizes round Bokeh balls combined with a large image circle ie. minimize Cat's eyes from out of focus highlights,,,
Onion rings? I have not seen that in the high end of the Nikon Z S-line of lenses
-
Well in the 135 DC and 105 DC there no distinct swirly appearance but there is a strong swirl going on with the 105/1.4 and this may solve it while having very high MTF (compared to 105/1.4 or 85/1.2 the Plena's is very high indeed).
I find the swirl around the outer parts of the frame quite distracting and has been my main complaint about the otherwise excellent 105/1.4. In practice it doesn't bother me as much as it did when the lens was new.
-
cough ... 3k here ... I'm gonna contend with the 58mm Neon Not for a while
-
I like the concept and the dual motors. I've put one on order to check it out. I am a close-up photographer but still have my Zeiss 135mm 2.0, which is tack sharp. I might sell it for this lens.
The flood of light in the corners absent vignetting is special. The bokeh, as well. My guess is that this will be for me a favorite lens.
-
Seems an excellent lens :)
https://youtu.be/-Ab8ZfUNyLg?si=tDhFyWm_uDZSmIZV (https://youtu.be/-Ab8ZfUNyLg?si=tDhFyWm_uDZSmIZV)
-
No LCD showing the focus distance or DoF scale. It seems Nikon has abandoned this feature, maybe most photographers don't find it to be useful.
NIkon does not appear to have abandoned this feature systematically, and they started early with the 400/2,8 TC having no display. That does not look as a reaction to photographers feedback (who cares, those who dont need it just don't need to use it) but just as yet another erratic behavior of Nikon. Fortunately at least the Z9 displays it now. I sometimes like to manually prefocus long supertele lenses to a given distance, or use the lens for reading the actual distance to the subject.
Given the "Plena" lens I still find the name mischosen and not at all tempting- still not sure whether the lens itself is.
-
NIkon does not appear to have abandoned this feature systematically, and they started early with the 400/2,8 TC having no display. That does not look as a reaction to photographers feedback (who cares, those who dont need it just don't need to use it) but just as yet another erratic behavior of Nikon. Fortunately at least the Z9 displays it now. I sometimes like to manually prefocus long supertele lenses to a given distance, or use the lens for reading the actual distance to the subject.
Given the "Plena" lens I still find the name mischosen and not at all tempting- still not sure whether the lens itself is.
Circular out-of-focus discs to the outer areas of the frame and minimal cat's eyes is what I greatly prefer, and 135mm is my favorite focal length. I've been waiting for a better-autofocusing 135mm (than the AF DC 135/2 D F-mount lens) prime literally for decades. This goes to the top of the list for me. Pity that Nikon hasn't been able to achieve a similar effect at shorter focal lengths.
-
Circular out-of-focus discs to the outer areas of the frame and minimal cat's eyes is what I greatly prefer, and 135mm is my favorite focal length. I've been waiting for a better-autofocusing 135mm (than the AF DC 135/2 D F-mount lens) prime literally for decades. This goes to the top of the list for me. Pity that Nikon hasn't been able to achieve a similar effect at shorter focal lengths.
OK, you convinced me - i am tempted by the lens :-)
-
Circular out-of-focus discs to the outer areas of the frame and minimal cat's eyes is what I greatly prefer...
My AIS 105/4 micro has almost zero vignetting wide open and nicely circular out of focus discs. But those discs are only 1/3 the diameter of what is possible with the Plena :o
-
My AIS 105/4 micro has almost zero vignetting wide open and nicely circular out of focus discs. But those discs are only 1/3 the diameter of what is possible with the Plena :o
My thoughts exactly ;) I was looking at my sample of that lens 8)
-
Is there a known list of older Nikkors that can produce round discs background without cat eye effects wide open?
-
What we are discussing is why for my work this could be very important. I can always return it. And I will probably put my Zeiss 135mm 2.0, the original vesion, up for sale provided this new S version is sharp enough, which I am assuming it will be.
I actually find this particular lens very exiting as lenses go. No, it's not quite close enough, but for many things it is, since I am not a macro shooter, but a close-up shooter.
-
Is there a known list of older Nikkors that can produce round discs background without cat eye effects wide open?
I have not seen any such previous lens, with a wide aperture like this. All the mid teles that I've used produce pronounced cat's eyes (to varying degrees of distractiveness, but they all do it far more than the pics I've seen from the new 135). However, to give a fair test, we need to shoot the same subject in the same conditions.
-
Is there a known list of older Nikkors that can produce round discs background without cat eye effects wide open?
The new TTArtisan 100mm f2.8 seems to show no cat-eye/lemon shape. So, chances could be that the old Nikkor-T 105/4.0 would behave similarly, because they share the same simplistic triplet design.
-
Interesting to make a standard test setup with some light sources and try out various lenses.
I have the AIS 105/4 micro but not the 3-lens version.
The AF 85/1.4d could also be fun to test regarding this (it is the one I have).
I guess the Z 50/1.8 should quite well also. Used on a DX-body it is an ok "poor mans" portrait lens!
-
Is there a known list of older Nikkors that can produce round discs background without cat eye effects wide open?
The unassuming little 135mm f/3,5 looks near perfect in these regards - rounded bokeh balls in the periphery, and very slight vignetting.
-
I have a couple of those.
One of them a near mint 13.5 cm that got a damage to the filter ring during transport but optics still mint but not collectible anymore.....
I wonder about the 200 Nikkor-Q......if it is the simple optics that behaves nice regarding perfect circles......
-
The unassuming little 135mm f/3,5 looks near perfect in these regards - rounded bokeh balls in the periphery, and very slight vignetting.
You are adressing the old Nikkor Q 135/3,5 or later versions? (or maybe both if it does not matter)
-
My thoughts exactly ;) I was looking at my sample of that lens 8)
Of course because it’s a lens originally designed for use as a lens head on a bellows with movement: Bellows Nikkor 105 mm f/4 so has a larger image circle compared to other Nikon F lenses.
-
You are adressing the old Nikkor Q 135/3,5 or later versions? (or maybe both if it does not matter)
The one I tested is the AiS version.
I also later checked Richard Haw's site https://richardhaw.com/lens-repair-articles/ - apparently, the old Q has another optical design. Interestingly, Richard has posted no less than seven articles on different versions of the 135 f/3,5 (what a wealth of good information on his site!)
Another note: Richard Haw mentions a lot of flare on the older New-Nikkor 135 f/3,5 whereas I see very little of that on my AiS version. I suppose the coatings have been improved.
Still, of course, no comparison of any reasonable kind to the new PLENA. I only wanted to make a reference to the two aspects mentioned in earlier comments, about a relative lack of vignetting and round bokeh balls in the periphery.
Although I find the 135 f/3,5 a very well-behaved little lens, even wide open, it is of course nothing compared to the hugely impressive PLENA. Images from this one are something of the most mind-blowing I have seen (also, it has 4 times as many lens elements)
Another thing, and this is a very simple thought, maybe too simplified, regarding bokeh and cat's eye effects:
I believe there may be a relatively simple relationship between these effects and a small diameter of the front lens elements and the max. f-stop. Not a direct, linear relationship, but a co-variation that can perhaps be used as a guidance. Meaning, 52mm filter thread which is obviously restrictive for a lens like the 50mm f/1,2 may in fact be plenty big enough for other lenses with small f-stops like the 105 f/4 Micro or this 135 f/3,5.
Anyway, this was the reason I decided to check the 135 f/3,5. The new PLENA apparently has an 82mm filter diameter and I am sure that is an essential part of its magic.
-
These 4-lens designs (3 and 4 groups) may be sharp enough for portraits wide open.....and if they produce circular discs they may be a "poor mans" option for a Plena :-)
I can't justify for myself getting one (I buy some good wine instead and some matched Toshiba JFETs for my audio projects :-) ).......as I would use it very seldom. But I am impressed by the lens.
-
Compared to the 70-200/2.8S (89x220mm, 1440g) which is only 200 Euro less expensive, this 135/1.8 (98x139.5mm, 995g) has my preference. Very tempting to get one 8)
-
I can't justify for myself getting one (I buy some good wine instead and some matched Toshiba JFETs for my audio projects :-) ).......as I would use it very seldom. But I am impressed by the lens.
As I am not drinking wine, i am going to buy the lens instead ;-)
-
I could have purchased really many lenses for my wine budget during the years....and audio equipment :-)
Those class A amplifiers also burns a lot of heat but nice during the winter time.
The way a lens renders can be compared to how a good single ended class A amplifier sounds......or how good a nice complex wine tastes.
-
Meper, a very nice summation of some of the important matters in life! ;D
I could have purchased really many lenses for my wine budget during the years....and audio equipment :-)
Those class A amplifiers also burns a lot of heat but nice during the winter time.
The way a lens renders can be compared to how a good single ended class A amplifier sounds......or how good a nice complex wine tastes.
-
The way a lens renders can be compared to how a good single ended class A amplifier sounds......or how good a nice complex wine tastes.
:)
+1000
-
I looked at my 135mm lens inventory. Quite a lot......
Two of them are f/2.8. The very old and large Nikkor-Q and then a later version but still non-ai. I think it is called "K-version". Quite compact and with built-in lens hood.
This version:
https://stephend.photo/nikon-nikkor-135mm-f28 (https://stephend.photo/nikon-nikkor-135mm-f28)
My looks almost mint! :-) no. 747598.
Stephen has made some tests images and I can see some round blur circles?
Could be a "poor mans" plena? .....maybe on DX sensor....
Now with the Z-cameras and F to Z adapters the non-AI nikkors have more value than before as they work as good as the AI/AIS versions.
Regarding lens rendering, class A audio amplifiers and wine I was lucky to get no. 1 of 1933 when the 2015 vintage was released a few months back! :-)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_5n-xKYrG8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_5n-xKYrG8)
The pixel shift does more than just create more pixels, is also discussed in the video, Ricci always has interesting information!
-
Thanks Fons.
The YouTube clip is a long one at 1hr 17mins. The pixel shift discussion goes on for 2 mins and starts around 10min 40sec into the clip.
He explains the resolution gains and enhanced colour options available versus the number of picture shift frames taken.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_5n-xKYrG8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_5n-xKYrG8)
The pixel shift does more than just create more pixels, is also discussed in the video, Ricci always has interesting information!
-
Nikkor-Q ::)
(https://richardhaw.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/haw_1155.jpg?w=2500&h=)
for a fraction of the price :o :o :o
-
This is the 135/3.5 Q-C variant when I had it out for a walk with my Z50 a long time ago. I was interested in the performance of the lens and took some various hand hold images.
I look forward to get a body with IBIS. This will make the old Nikkors much more usable. Especially I would like to know what Nikon's plan is for future DX-bodies regarding IBIS etc. before I go with a Zf......
I am impressed how well you can correct a lens using only four elements :-)
-
The old Bellows-Nikkor 135mm f/4 had beautiful bokeh balls ....
One has to pay a lot more to get the last degree of 'roundness' to the corner region :(
-
The new TTArtisan 100mm f2.8 seems to show no cat-eye/lemon shape. So, chances could be that the old Nikkor-T 105/4.0 would behave similarly, because they share the same simplistic triplet design.
Any lens with relatively long focal length, moderate-small aperture and compact optical unit should have low mechanical vignetting. It's like looking down a tube at a slight angle. If the tube is long, the rear opening will be greatly offset from the front opening, and the view through will be shaped like a cat's eye with strong mechanical vignetting. If the tube is short, the offset is much smaller resulting in low vignetting. That is why lenses like the old 105/4 micro, 135/4 bellows and Nikkor-T 10.5cm perform well in this area. The alternative is to increase the diameter of the tube, in other words a faster aperture lens. Even if mechanical vignetting is high at full aperture, it can be greatly reduced or eliminated by closing down a stop or two.
-
The old Bellows-Nikkor 135mm f/4 had beautiful bokeh balls ....
One has to pay a lot more to get the last degree of 'roundness' to the corner region :(
Yes, very nice samples, not far off full circle...
BTW, I would guess also the UV-Micro Nikkor 105mm f/4.5 belong to this list of lenses with almost circular OOF
Next question is how is the front OOF I recall the 105mm f/1.4 AF-S is quite good.
-
BTW, I would guess also the UV-Micro Nikkor 105mm f/4.5 belong to this list of lenses with almost circular OOF
Would need to test that out
-
Would need to test that out
Sure. It's purely based on the that the optical cell is relative compact and placed way to the front of the lens, away from the focus plane and the general superb performance of the lens regarding rendering and color transition.
Price is about 2x or 3x that of a Plena so the interest is maybe not there...
-
What about lenses made for much larger formats?
E.g. 6x6, 6x9 etc.?
Often enlarger lenses are quite compact?
-
Enlarger lenses are not designed for general photography, including subjects at distance. Some times, in particular with symmetric designs, they do passably outside their designated applications, but never better than standard lenses.
Large-format lenses typically have lower resolving power -- and slower speeds -- than optics for smaller format.
-
personally I don't think the round disc is such important out of center(70%), and in real world it's a little complex of bokeh disc perfomance. with same lense but different angles and distance...
if the plena selling at 1500-2000USD that will make more sense
-
same scene but different engle
-
all f1.8
-
the new generation 135/1.8 are already good enough on sharpness, resolution, bokeh...
I mean sigma art, sunyang,RF, GM 135/1.8, no doubt Z135/1.8 will be one of the best for portait and landscope.
-
I tried in total darkness to handhold an old Meyer-Optik 300/4 Orestegor. It was made to cover 6x6 and now I tried it on DX-sensor Z50.
I set iso to 40.000 and tried to handhold it with some defocused images of traffic signals to force blur circles. Not easy to handhold this heavy lens without VR.
But it gives an idea. Not bad I think?
-
When I do not defocus the scene looks like this.......but at 1/13 sec with no VR and handhold it is difficult with a heavy 300mm lens.
Iso 40000 with DX sensor it also to push the limits a bit but sensor has better night view than I have.
For pure documentation purpose it is usable.
-
Link to downloadable raw files, shot with Plena 135/1.8 AND Nikon Zf... (found on Nikonrumors).
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1-49QU9PpMhZ2bbbLeP3CKfhMyY9fSysZ
-
cat eye
ai 105/2.5
-
ai 135/3.5 full open
round in corner
-
ai 135/3.5 @D850 full frame ,no crop, full open
-
another interesting copy report
I have Jupiter 37AM 135/3.5 Sonnar with 15blades aperture , it is round in any stop
D850 full frame no crop, full open
-
then when I decrese the aperture a little, roughly at F4.5
magic comes, I can call it "f4.5 Plena" ;D
-
My Plena has shipped from B&H, right on time. Should be a day or so and I will be able to check it out.
-
I received my “Plena” and had to try it out for the round bokeh.
And that it does, really well.
It is sharp enough but not sharp like the Z 105mm S MC is sharp and does not stack as well as it might. My guess is it’s not made for stacking, but rather for single shots or what I call ‘short stacks’, stacks of only a few shots. Too many artifacts, unless there is something wrong with the lens. I will see.
However, soft bokeh it does in spades. And has lots of light.
Of course, I am just getting started.
It's a masterpiece of a lens. I just don't know how to use it yet. Maybe not for focus stacking.
-
Maybe everyone knows already but the new 135 f/1,8 lens does not combine with the Z teleconverters - I had not realized this before today
-
Yes, no teleconvert, which is fine by me. Hard to mess with this kind of lens, IMO.
Here are a couple more shots, the first a single shot, which is what the lens is designed for.
And the second a short stack, about four shots stacked.
Of course I can send it back to B&H, but so far it is way too interesting for that. I may just do single shots with it. What are your thoughts?
And I still have some Christmas lights in there, which is not usual for me, just to see how the bokeh is.
-
I like the second where the vase comes out well and Michael I do the same with my xmas lights ;-)
-
Here is a question. By accedent I had ISO at 640 and forgot about it when I took this shot that had three colored lights in it to test for bokeh. The three lights came out barred or stripped when nothing was in their way. And here is a shot with the same lights at ISO 64, which is normal. What caused this?
-
Shutter speed ... The power to the lights flicker at mains frequency, probably 60 Hz.
At 640 ISO shutter speed was short enough to capture 2 or 3 cycles separately, at 64 ISO with a slower speed everything would -- literally-- be blurred.
-
Shutter speed ... The power to the lights flicker at mains frequency, probably 60 Hz.
So, adjust the shutter speed. I never shoot at this ISO anyway. Just freaked me out. Yet, since you are the lens master, IMO, I believe you would really like this lens. Here is just a dirt simple shot with it.
I am, for the moment, abandoning focus stacking, This lens might revert me back to single-shot photography.
-
It is sharp enough but not sharp like the Z 105mm S MC is sharp and does not stack as well as it might. My guess is it’s not made for stacking, but rather for single shots or what I call ‘short stacks’, stacks of only a few shots. Too many artifacts, unless there is something wrong with the lens. I will see.
However, soft bokeh it does in spades. And has lots of light.
Of course, I am just getting started.
It's a masterpiece of a lens. I just don't know how to use it yet. Maybe not for focus stacking.
Well it is designed for portrait photography and such like, so it is should not be as razor sharp as a Micro Nikkor lens. I am not experienced with stacking and what it lacks there in comparison but this had definitely not been the main focus of design
-
I received my “Plena” and had to try it out for the round bokeh.
And that it does, really well.
It is sharp enough but not sharp like the Z 105mm S MC is sharp and does not stack as well as it might. My guess is it’s not made for stacking, but rather for single shots or what I call ‘short stacks’, stacks of only a few shots. Too many artifacts, unless there is something wrong with the lens. I will see.
However, soft bokeh it does in spades. And has lots of light.
Of course, I am just getting started.
It's a masterpiece of a lens. I just don't know how to use it yet. Maybe not for focus stacking.
looks sharp enough as a new lens ;D
-
looks sharp enough as a new lens ;D
well, you must know how it is. With a new lens we check to see what it can do and what it can't do easily. The Plena can do a lot, yet it's stunning quality is the huge image circle and the abundance of light and the fact that it is clear and sharp to the edges of the fram. THAT is not something I am used do. It is remarkable and makes me want to take photos of everything and anything. LOL.
-
well, you must know how it is. With a new lens we check to see what it can do and what it can't do easily. The Plena can do a lot, yet it's stunning quality is the huge image circle and the abundance of light and the fact that it is clear and sharp to the edges of the fram. THAT is not something I am used do. It is remarkable and makes me want to take photos of everything and anything. LOL.
if the light is more sharp on what you took，the photo/lens will become more sharp ;D
-
if the light is more sharp on what you took，the photo/lens will become more sharp ;D
I know sharpness and lenses pretty good by this point. It is what it is, sharp but not sharp like a macro lens.
-
Does the aperture open up all the way or did they make a 1.4 lens and then just call it a 1.8 where aperture does not open up fully?
The lens has no vignetting at full aperture ( 1.8 )according to the advertising. Maybe the reason also for no cat eye effect?
I just looked at images taken with the 0.95 Z Noct. It has a lot of cat eye effect when looking at official images.
-
Does the aperture open up all the way or did they make a 1.4 lens and then just call it a 1.8 where aperture does not open up fully?
The lens has no vignetting at full aperture ( 1.8 ) according to the advertising. Maybe the reason also for no cat eye effect?
I just looked at images taken with the 0.95 Z Noct. It has a lot of cat eye effect when looking at official images.
The larger image circle is why there is not more vignetting. And the eleven-blade aperture. My interest, originally, was that it was not really a lens for focus stacking, and I continue to look into that.
I find that if I make a short stack, in the following case, just stacked the area from front to back of the main flower, stacking works OK. It punctuates the flower, but leaves the background bokeh alone. Not too bad.
And I know this is not what the Plena was designed for. I will be getting around to that as I can.
-
That is "ok"......very "3D like".
-
Does the aperture open up all the way or did they make a 1.4 lens and then just call it a 1.8 where aperture does not open up fully?
The lens has no vignetting at full aperture (1.8 ) according to the advertising. Maybe the reason also for no cat eye effect?
I just looked at images taken with the 0.95 Z Noct. It has a lot of cat eye effect when looking at official images.
Usually, to make a lens free of mechanical vignetting (which causes the cats-eye effect), the front and rear lens elements need to be large, so they won't clip peripheral light rays. However, if the designer goes to the effort of making large diameter lenses, they may as well make the lens faster - the marketing people like this because you can sell a faster lens at a higher price :)
So you end up with a faster lens with cats-eye effect and vignetting at full aperture, but with more even rendition when stopped down. Most lenses are like this, I imagine the cats-eye effect of the Z Noct largely goes away by f/1.2 or f/1.4. The Plena largely eliminates cat-eye at full aperture partly because it has a relatively long focal length - the narrow field of view means that even peripheral rays are not entering at much of an angle so are not clipped going through the lens. Also, the Z lens mount is very big - this enables the rear element to be very large, fully covering the sensor, while the front element can be normal size (for a lens of this type).
-
It's a quite special lens.
-
100% crop
-
Do you think this lens will be good for wedding portraits?
I am mostly thinking about full size portraits of the "wedding pair".
Maybe 135mm is a bit long for this.
I have been "hired" next spring for this and maybe I will have a FF-Nikon body at that time.....
Probably my old Nikkor AF 85/1.4 D can do the job......now I have it....
-
Do you think this lens will be good for wedding portraits?
I am mostly thinking about full size portraits of the "wedding pair".
Maybe 135mm is a bit long for this.
I have been "hired" next spring for this and maybe I will have a FF-Nikon body at that time.....
Probably my old Nikkor AF 85/1.4 D can do the job......now I have it....
135 mm would probably be too long for this purpose; you might have some issues communicating with the couple at that distance. But you could get some nice background blur. ;-)
85/1.4 D would be manual focus only on a Z camera, but other than that it's a great lens. I would use it with a DSLR to get the AF working.
-
Ok, I will go with the AF 85/1.4 D with adapter.
I know that the focus points turns green when focus is reached.
So manual focus is doable. I also have the Z 50/1.8 and the Z 40/2.
I can read all the Zf feedback. Will see if that is the new FF for me.
It can give some nice clean images I am sure with nice details in a white wedding suit even in full sunshine......I hope.....as pictures will be outdoor.
But I will prefer overcast to have nice soft flat light. I have time to practice also using a flash outdoor.
But I just realized this is a "Plena thread".
Yes, Plena could give nice blurred background and is sharp enough for portraits at 1.8 :-)
-
135mm suitable for landscape,
for portrait photograph, the distance required not good for cummication with the model.
it's good to capture the model from a far distance.
-
Sigma 135/1.8 art
-
.
Photos posted here by Michael Erlewine do a good job of showing the terrific characteristics of this new lens.
I do not own the Plena, but I do own the Zeiss ZF 135mm f/2 Milvus lens. Wouldn't it be interesting to see the new Plena in head to head shoot outs with the Zeiss 135 Milvus and with other premium 135mm lenses?
Here's a link ( https://www.flickr.com/photos/yogitan/53265437140/in/pool-14869264@N21/ ) to photos taken of the same subject using both the new Plena and the older Nikkor 135mm DC lens. Maybe it's my old eyes, or maybe it's my inferior monitor, but I don't see much difference between these two images - do you???
-
Here are a couple more shots, the first a single shot, which is what the lens is designed for.
.....
And I still have some Christmas lights in there, which is not usual for me, just to see how the bokeh is.
I'm curious about the lowest Xmas tree light in the two images you posted Michael.
Whilst they don't displease me, something about these (and not the others in each image) seems off centre. I have attached crops of each.
Of course, the lights themselves may be unusual......
Meanwhile, the single unstacked shot of the vase on its own is breathtaking. The curve lets your eye wander up and down the planes of focus
-
Not sure if these will help.
I have both the Plena and the earlier Zeissf/2.0 version of the 135mm, not the Milvus.
The shots are marked by the file names.
_Z7R6399-2-Plena-1.8-Single
_Z7R6400-2-Plena-5.6-Single
_Z7R6458-2-Zeiss-2.0-Single
_Z7R6401-2-Plena-Stack (59 layers)
To me, the comparison is moot. I bought the Plena for the lack of vignetting and clarity of the whole frame.
ARROW shows what I was focusing on.
-
.
Thanks for posting the above comparison images. Even though I own the Zeiss 135/2 lens, after studying the images you posted, I have to admit that overall I do find that I prefer the Plena image.
You said that the Plena has "lack of vignetting and clarity of the whole frame." I really didn't notice any vignetting in the Zeiss image; nor did the Zeiss image lack clarity of the whole frame. To my eye, I preferred the Plena image because I thought it had the better looking background blur, AND I preferred how the Plena rendered the subject (sharper, more 3D like pop, better contrast).
I'd certainly trade my Zeiss 135 lens in a heartbeat for the Plena.
-
.
Thanks for posting the above comparison images. Even though I own the Zeiss 135/2 lens, after studying the images you posted, I have to admit that overall I do find that I prefer the Plena image.
You said that the Plena has "lack of vignetting and clarity of the whole frame." I really didn't notice any vignetting in the Zeiss image; nor did the Zeiss image lack clarity of the whole frame. To my eye, I preferred the Plena image because I thought it had the better looking background blur, AND I preferred how the Plena rendered the subject (sharper, more 3D like pop, better contrast).
I'd certainly trade my Zeiss 135 lens in a heartbeat for the Plena.
You have to actually see the Plena image. It is very bright compared to what we are used to. It has a very nice effect.
I am using it as I use the lenses I have. I have to learn to use it for its own sake. A new kind of lens, IMO.
-
Like something magic.
-
.
Beautiful image SHEN_HUI, thanks for sharing it.
How is the auto focus on this lens?
How is the manual focus on this lens? How long is the focus throw? I do hope that this is not one of those new lenses with "focus by wire".
-
piano - piano! I feel like Nikon have made too many offers lately that I cannot refuse ;)
Feel like: Rent a new house to store the stuff you buy and do not use???
-
The PLena reminds me of the 200mm/2.0 rendering with less compression
-
So, adjust the shutter speed. I never shoot at this ISO anyway. Just freaked me out. Yet, since you are the lens master, IMO, I believe you would really like this lens. Here is just a dirt simple shot with it.
I am, for the moment, abandoning focus stacking, This lens might revert me back to single-shot photography.
Of all that I have seen the character is pretty similar to my 1.4/105E ... differences are: a) no vignetting and b) round bokeh balls, no cat eyes ... as a Zf fan now I am looking more in the light lens to carry always arena. I aleary got several fillings of heavy and expensive glass.
-
Of all that I have seen the character is pretty similar to my 1.4/105E ... differences are: a) no vignetting and b) round bokeh balls, no cat eyes ... as a Zf fan now I am looking more in the light lens to carry always arena. I aleary got several fillings of heavy and expensive glass.
Frank, there is a major argument in favor of the Plena though. While the 105/1.4E has more or less the same weight (slightly more w the FTZ) it is extremely front heavy. The Plena, even on smaller bodies like the Z6/7, balances very nicely and subjectively it feels significantly lighter. Since I am facing a loss of dexterity this is a major advantage. YMMV :)
I can post comparison shots of the 105E with the Plena if desired.
-
Of all that I have seen the character is pretty similar to my 1.4/105E ... differences are: a) no vignetting and b) round bokeh balls, no cat eyes ... as a Zf fan now I am looking more in the light lens to carry always arena. I aleary got several fillings of heavy and expensive glass.
Nikon developed a special software called OPTIA, short for Optical Performance and Total Image Analyzer, to assess the character of lenses by measuring all the optical aberrations. The "Neo Noct" AF-S 58mm f1.2 was the first lens developed with OPTIA.
I guess that the characters of lenses, especially those of fast standard and short/mid tele lenses have been more tightly controlled in the design process. I wouldn't wonder if the characters of 104/1.4 and the Plena would look similar.
-
" The "Neo Noct" AF-S 58mm f1.2 "...
You probably mean the 1,4/58 AFS G, Akira ?
Nikon never reached f:1,2 for an AFS Nikkor in F mount...alas !
-
Frank, there is a major argument in favor of the Plena though. While the 105/1.4E has more or less the same weight (slightly more w the FTZ) it is extremely front heavy. The Plena, even on smaller bodies like the Z6/7, balances very nicely and subjectively it feels significantly lighter. Since I am facing a loss of dexterity this is a major advantage. YMMV :)
I can post comparison shots of the 105E with the Plena if desired.
ymmv...I see that my beloved Z 1.2/50S does not balance well on the Zf compared to two days worth of shooting in Paris (end of November) with the Z6. The rougher surface and deep handgrip of the Z6 help compared to the weight distribution and sleek surface of the Zf
Plus, something else. In the film days I took a lot of 135 shots on the zoom I had for my OM-1 and with the 2.8/135 Ai.
Later I got the F4 and immediately bought the 1.8/85 AF-D ... since then I am hooked to 85mm for portraits.
The 1.4/105 E was a deviation in that route for super charming portrait work in the studio and thousands of happy customers in that field. And it was a treat for nature shots too.
-
" The "Neo Noct" AF-S 58mm f1.2 "...
You probably mean the 1,4/58 AFS G, Akira ?
Nikon never reached f:1,2 for an AFS Nikkor in F mount...alas !
You're right. My bad! I did mean AFS 58/1.4G. Thank you for the correction.
-
You're right. My bad! I did mean AFS 58/1.4G. Thank you for the correction.
The neo noct is my favourite portrait lens on the D500,,, a very great lens on FX too
-
Season's colors - not perfect in the corners but very close
-
The neo noct is my favourite portrait lens on the D500,,, a very great lens on FX too
58mm is the perfect focal length for the portraits on APS-C format, too.
-
Here is the direct comparison with the 105mm/1.4E
100% crop, top right corner. 1/100 sec, f1.8
-
Thank you! That is an unexpected big difference in bokeh ball size! I guess that the 105mm would have to be wide open to get close?
ISO is 2200 and 3200 so not equal
-
Thanks Erik. I actually believe the ISO difference is of no importance here. Higher grain should actually smoothen the appearance.
Here is the f/1.4 vs f/1.8 of the 105mm/1.4E, minimal improvement IMHO. Maybe slightly rounder, better defined cat eyes...
-
I would still like some discussion of the Plena lens if there could be some.
-
Certainly Michael. Bokeh is only one aspect, certainly a big step forward. Even the comparison to high end, fairly recent F glass is astonishing. Let's keep in mind that this lens is very new, not many units have been shipped. Not many users have acquired it yet due to its speciality and elevated pricing. I got one since I received a very special deal on a used once copy, and because I am a Nikon nerd....
-
Certainly Michael. Bokeh is only one aspect, certainly a big step forward. Even the comparison to high end, fairly recent F glass is astonishing. Let's keep in mind that this lens is very new, not many units have been shipped. Not many users have acquired it yet due to its speciality and elevated pricing. I got one since I received a very special deal on a used once copy, and because I am a Nikon nerd....
Well, what do you think of it?
-
personally I don't think the round disc is such important out of center(70%), and in real world it's a little complex of bokeh disc perfomance. with same lense but different angles and distance...
if the plena selling at 1500-2000USD that will make more sense
It does sell now for the price you requested: https://www.e-infin.com/eu/de/item/13641/nikon_nikkor_z_135_mm_f/1,8_s_plena_objektiv
-
Here is the direct comparison with the 105mm/1.4E
100% crop, top right corner. 1/100 sec, f1.8
The example comparison in Wally's post between the Plena 135 f/1.8 and the 105 f/1.4 is misleading, as the focus point is not well controlled. This has a great influence on the bokeh ball diameter.
If the back ground is at a fixed distance behind the sharp subject and the sharp main subject is imaged with the same magnification (or field of view in the sharp plane) , then shorter focal lengths can emerge as producing larger bokeh balls than longer lenses. I have computed such a comparison in a thread at
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/thoughts-about-bokeh-ball-diameter.4818228/
with apparent bokeh ball size referred to the plane of the sharp subject. (The constant imaging ratio of 1:15 refers my numbers given in that post to the ball diameter at the sensor. However, I find it more convenient to compare ball size to the photo motif size, thus my presentation)