Nikon announces the NIKKOR Z 135mm f/1.8 S Plena

[ISv]

Beautiful looking lens.

You also can say - terrible looking lens (question of taste!) and still to be in the very reasonable comments! So far, as I understand we can comment about the look of the lens much more confidently than "commenting" it's performance (if any one has an analysis of the performance - please post it)! I personally have no interest of this lens: not what I need!

Yes - I'm a Nikon shooter (as many folks know it in this Forum!). I have very good copy of the 200-500 Nikon zoom (but using mostly the 500 PF) but it's not even close to the abilities (huh, especially the weight and the MFD +more!!!) of the RF 100-500! It's what I personally need from Nikon (not because Nikon cares what I need ).
Anyway - lets talk with some facts, it may help the next generations of that particular lens (any company, no matter Canon or Nikon or even Sony) to get better!

 

[LSXPhotog]

I was generally happy with the EF 135/2, but used it much less after getting the 70-200/2.8 II and so sold it. I fear it would be the same with the 135/1.8, though I am considering getting the TS-E 135/4 before they disappear.

I loved that lens as well, and had to sell it along with my EF 70-200 to help fund the RF 70-200 purchase - of which, I have no regrets. I believe every lens should bring something unique to your bag and the TS-E 135 would certainly provide that if you have a use for it. It's hard to beat the compact 70-200.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It's hard to beat the compact 70-200.

Yes, I really like the RF 70-200/2.8. Compact, lighter and better IQ than the EF 70-200/2.8 II it replaced.

 

[danfaz]

Yes, I really like the RF 70-200/2.8. Compact, lighter and better IQ than the EF 70-200/2.8 II it replaced.

Same here. It has some really amazing falloff and silky smooth bokeh, as well.

 

[sanj]

You also can say - terrible looking lens (question of taste!) and still to be in the very reasonable comments! So far, as I understand we can comment about the look of the lens much more confidently than "commenting" it's performance (if any one has an analysis of the performance - please post it)! I personally have no interest of this lens: not what I need!

Yes - I'm a Nikon shooter (as many folks know it in this Forum!). I have very good copy of the 200-500 Nikon zoom (but using mostly the 500 PF) but it's not even close to the abilities (huh, especially the weight and the MFD +more!!!) of the RF 100-500! It's what I personally need from Nikon (not because Nikon cares what I need ).
Anyway - lets talk with some facts, it may help the next generations of that particular lens (any company, no matter Canon or Nikon or even Sony) to get better!

I read your comment twice. But could not understand it. It must be one of my slow days....

 

[Raindropdroptop]

I read your comment twice. But could not understand it. It must be one of my slow days....

Same.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

I was generally happy with the EF 135/2, but used it much less after getting the 70-200/2.8 II and so sold it. I fear it would be the same with the 135/1.8, though I am considering getting the TS-E 135/4 before they disappear.

Hey, more than a year later but did you ever get a tse 135? I did recently, december I think, and it was incredibly difficult to find a new one. I ended up finding a source on amazon and while I was skeptical, it turned out to be legit. I now have all the last canon tse lenses as well as the fuji 30TS and laowa. 15 and 20 Shifts.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hey, more than a year later but did you ever get a tse 135? I did recently, december I think, and it was incredibly difficult to find a new one. I ended up finding a source on amazon and while I was skeptical, it turned out to be legit. I now have all the last canon tse lenses as well as the fuji 30TS and laowa. 15 and 20 Shifts.

Nope, I decided to pass. Hope you’re enjoying yours!