Talk me into or out of DC lens. Lusting for 135.2.DC

Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
2,221
Location
San Antonio TX
Most say that photography is about skill and our eyes and so on. OK, agreed. But...
Good glass does something extra.
My 70-200 and 85.1.4 keep giving me that something extra.
Hence my lust for more good stuff.
The question...Am I right in lusting for a DC lens given the above presumption?
The 135DC,I think, I'd like, given how much time I spend in the 120 to 150mm range when the VR's mounted.
The 105....I don't know...does it give me anything the 85.1.4 doesn't??

It may be all in my head but I think I'm better with primes, but then, in my head where it all needs to start anyway.

Thanks, Vernon
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
994
Location
Alabama
Hey Vernon, the purpose of this forum is to infect you with LLD, not cure you. We have found that once you mention a new lens, it's all over. 8)

Good luck in your research. :lol:

Frank
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
2,221
Location
San Antonio TX
Too late, I'm shedding virions as I type.

Cure....hah!

I'm infected with a virulent strain already.

I know I'm gonna buy one but which?
The obvious answer is but both and become a vector for the infection of others.
 
R

Removed User 2

Guest
I used to love 135mm with film. With the 1.5 crop, I now love the 85mm lens. I always thought the 135mm range on a ff was best portraits.

However, if you find yourself always being at 120-150mm on a 1.5 crop, then the 135mm is for you! :D
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
1,729
Location
Tennessee
Vernon this REALLY the wrong place to cure LLD.
You said you have the 70-200mm and 85mm, what other lenses do you have?
You might want to look at something in the 28-70mm range if you are empty there.
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
2,221
Location
San Antonio TX
I've got the 17-55. Of course it's a terrific lens but I shoot more people than wide and I've got the 12-24 Nikkor for wide. I'm constantly wishing for a titch more reach when I have the 15-55 mounted.
Done again I'd perhaps consider the 28-70 as a better match for my style and a better compliment to the 12-24. The FF thing has never worried me(much).
But, hey, I'm kidding myself. If I had a 28-70 and upon reading the heaped on accolades for the 17-55 I'd want one of those too.
I have the ranges covered adequately.Hence, my interest in acquiring a couple of primes.

BTW the spell-cow thing(nice as it is) doesn't think Nikkor is a word!
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
vernon t said:
Done again I'd perhaps consider the 28-70 as a better match for my style and a better compliment to the 12-24. The FF thing has never worried me(much).
But, hey, I'm kidding myself. If I had a 28-70 and upon reading the heaped on accolades for the 17-55 I'd want one of those too.
You've just identified the root cause for your problems, Vernon. You're paying too much heed to the herd. "Heaped on accolades" don't mean squat if the focal length doesn't suit your style.

Blaze your own path, pilgrim, and if you're ultra susceptible to outside influence, stop reading the forums. Most of the "common knowledge on them is BS anyway.

Jmho.
 
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
871
Location
Vienna, Austria
Vernon,
regarding your LLD. I feel with you ....

Every time I leave home with my camera, it comes installed with the 17-55/2.8. Great all around lens.

Two things are different vs . 84/1.4 and 105/2.
1) Bokeh and flare is better with both prime lenses.
2) it gives you 17mm without removing the lens (no dust&dirt on the sensor)

enjoy your new lens,
Andy
 
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
4,084
vernon t said:
Most say that photography is about skill and our eyes and so on. OK, agreed. But...
Good glass does something extra.
My 70-200 and 85.1.4 keep giving me that something extra.
Hence my lust for more good stuff.
The question...Am I right in lusting for a DC lens given the above presumption?
The 135DC,I think, I'd like, given how much time I spend in the 120 to 150mm range when the VR's mounted.
The 105....I don't know...does it give me anything the 85.1.4 doesn't??
Vernon :


I have the 105mm DC f/2, and it's a sweet lens, to be sure. It's good for those times when you need just a bit more distance than the 85mm f/1.4 (which I shoot with as well), but don't want to go to a further range. IMHO, if you have the 70-200mm AFS/VR, the 135mm DC might be too much overlap.

And, FWIW, the DC feature is truly all it's cracked up to be. I shot photos of a friend for her to use in a Valentine's Day card, and I was able to get that 'forties glamour look to the photos without smearing a lens filter with vaseline, and much more to the point without the cleanup !!! The DC feature gives an incredibly creamy feel to the photos, and the bokeh is, again IMHO, every bit as nice as the 85mm f/1.4, although it's a different bokeh.

In your place, I'd borrow a DC lens and shoot with it for a day or two. If I were in San Antonio, I'd let you use mine, but the closest I'm getting to there these days is Odessa...


John P.

P.S. If Nikon ever comes out with an 85mm DC, it would be an absolute killer for this kind of digital shooting. In the interim, there's the 105mm DC.
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
79
Location
Houston, TX
I won't try to talk you out of it. I use the 135/2 as a general travel telephoto - very light & compact. Everybody notices something special about shots taken with the lens, and most even realize what it is - the defocussed region. I rarely actually use the DC feature - the lens does a fine job on its own.
Shot @ f/2:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom