I have both, have used both, and I like both of them. I admit I have a soft spot for this focal length. For the most part at the same aperture the 3.5 has a bit more contrast, but you have to look really close to see it. The 2.8 has a softer feel to it, and better background seperation. (which I prefer for portraits). I wouldn't kick either one out of bed, but I might hug the 2.8 a little tighter.
Hi ZW, I have the Nikon 135 f3.5. I bought it in 1988 (I think?) when I bought it I was over the moon with excitement. I had no money really, however, I was able to negotiate a good price (sorry I cannot remember?) I had been shooting for years with a Miranda Sensorex and finally bought a Nikon f2a camera that came with a 24mm 2.8, so I needed a tele. This was my second lens for it. Always have a soft spot for this lens. However, recently I thought that I would buy a 2.8, however, I wanted a 2.8 the same size as my f3.5 so I bought the 135 E 2.8 version. It is small and for me beautifully built. The lens hood snaps beautifully into place. Love it! I have not shot them in way you have, but hopefully soon. Because the Miranda had a front shutter button that you squeezed, I found a lot of my Nikon shots were out of focus until I learned not to turn the camera when shooting. It took me a while to make the switch to the Nikon. I do wish that a camera company would bring back the front shutter button feature and I still miss the Miranda. Thanks for this video. Cheers
Agree on the 3.5. I own one of them I bought used in 86 to go with my F3HP. Today tested it on my D500and got some nice results. I will be taking it along with me on hikes when I normally just take the 12-24. Nice and small as I would never take my 70-200 on a long hike.
Thank you for the great review! I have the f/3.5 version, I had suspected as much because that lens contains fewer elements than the 2,8 version. Thanks, again.
Just won an Ebay auction this week for the 135 f2.8 and can't believe how nice it is. The images are super sharp, great color and have background separation that puts a lot of $1300.00 lenses to shame. If you can hang with manual focus - get one.
I agree, the f/3.5 looks a little better. Are you sure the focus was the same, was there some haze on the lens? I am sure you clean them. Are the elements different?
They are very similar optically. I mean ruined in the video the potential for some focus shifting on the 2.8 and I think it’s possible. No haze though. The 3.5 I think is a little more contrasty. Sharpness, maybe I’ll never know ha
Optically I believe the 3.5 has 4 elements and the 2.8 has five - that might explain the minor differences. I have the 3.5 and wondered about the difference myself, thanks for the video!
Probably right. Back not so long ago element count REALLY mattered. Recently pretty much everything is optically perfect, less character sure, but basically no flaws regardless of the amount of glass. Man, lenses used to be more fun. haha.
The Nikkor 135mm 2.8 has 5 elements in 4 groups,435 g, 64x83.5mm , the Nikkor 135mm 3.5 has 4 elements in 4 groups, 420g, 64x81.5mm, as you can see the weight and size is nearly the same, you get a lot of quality in both Lenses.
@@ZWadePhoto It s much easier today to design complicated Lenses because of advanced software. I remember from my many visits to the Hasselblad factory that the SWC Camera with the Zeiss Biogon 38mm T* was hand calculated, the stack of A4 papers of calculations was 1 meter high !
The 3.5 might marginally be a tad sharper, but, as is typically the case in photography, there are tradeoffs. You are losing a stop. vs. the 2.8 I have a 2.8 which I've used for many years, and I'd say that your composition and expositor will be noticed far more that any slight difference in the sharpness.
In 1982 there was 4 different Nikon 135mm Lenses, the Nikkor 135mm 2.0 US$885 at 860 g, 80.5x93.5mm, the Nikkor 135mm 2.8 US$413 at 435 g, 64x83.5mm, the Nikon E 135mm 2.8 US$186 at 395 g, 62.5x80.5 and the Nikkor 135mm 3.5 US$320 at 420g, 64x81.5mm, the Nikon E lenses was very cheap made, maybe the E stands for economic !? So the prices when new in 1982, there was not much difference and the size and weight of the two Lenses are very close, so it must be the image character that decides the choice, if the used prices is close of those two Lenses.
Ok so this is a old video but recently got a 135mm f2.8. It is a non ai version from 1975 but converted to ai afterwards. Stopped down a bit it delivers very fine pics. And maybe i will get the 55mm f2.8 micro ais. Very fine lenses from back then.😊
Thanks for the video. I own and use the Nikon Nikkor 135mm f2 AIS and the Nikon Nikkor 135mm f/3.5 AIS. At the same f/stops, mine are also very similar in performance.
No obvious différence on the screen. Vignetting on the blue foyers shots is extreme : you only commented sharpness which is not the only value if à lens
I see a difference on screen in color saturation, detail and contrast: I vignette how ever I want: in total I commented on sharpness, contrast, highlight control and others soooooo 🤷♂️ what do you want?
Generally you only need an adapter to shoot a lens on a different mount. F mount lenses will work on F mount cameras. There are a few exceptions here and there but they are few and far between. Set up "Non CPU Lens Data" in your menu and that will allow you to meter :) I used these both adapted to mirrorless with an FTZ, on a D780, and on a D610/D750 back in the day. Take care RedHell!
