Zeiss or Nikkor?

Which one out of those two lenses?

  • Zeiss 135mm f/2

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Nikkor 105mm f/1.4

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • Total voters
    4
Yousef Al-Nassar

Yousef Al-Nassar

Suspended / Banned
Messages
9
Name
Yousef
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello there guys, I'm new here and I just wanted to ask for your opinion.

I have read a lot of reviews about the Zeiss 135mm f/2 and the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 and I can not decide which one to get.

I am aware of both lenses' s features, but I just want to know which one you would go with and why?

Thanks
Yousef
 
Last edited:
Well according to DXOmark the Zeiss is slightly sharper, however only just and i think the F1.4 is where id go...
 
I was lucky enough to try a Nikon 105/1.4 for a shoot and results were stunning. Sharp wide open with lovely fall off. My only experience at 135 was with the Canon 135/2 and Nikon 135/2DC and the new Nikon 105 seemed superior in every way. If I see one used at a decent price I'll be buying.

Is the Zeiss 135/2 not manual focus? Wouldn't work for me on a DSLR.
 
in that case Nikkor all the way, i can only take so much manual and a £1600 quid one No thanks...
 
I suppose it depends on whether autofocus is important. If used for portraits etc I would personally prefer to have the option of autofocus if I was paying as much as either of these lenses cost, as you can always manually focus the 105 but can not autofocus the Zeiss. Not in the same price level but also manual focus is the Samyang 135 f2. Not a fancy name or anything like that but surprisingly excellent but not on par with the Zeiss based on the lens tip comparison.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I would get an f/2.8 Macro instead (Nikon 105, Sigma 150, etc)... they can do macro, and I have about zero use for super wide apertures w/ longer FL's.
Click to expand...
Thanks!

Would you reckon I save up for a Nikon 200mm f/2 or save up for either one of the Zeiss 135 f/2 and 105mm f/1.4?
 
Yousef Al-Nassar said:
Thanks!

Would you reckon I save up for a Nikon 200mm f/2 or save up for either one of the Zeiss 135 f/2 and 105mm f/1.4?
Click to expand...
For what purpose?
Honestly, IMO if you are considering spending that kind of money on something of a specialty lens, then you ought to know what you need and why.
 
sk66 said:
For what purpose?
Honestly, IMO if you are considering spending that kind of money on something of a specialty lens, then you ought to know what you need and why.
Click to expand...

Portraiture, wildlife and general low light situations. I'm seeking optimal image quality.
 
paulcamcas said:
Not for me. Even with focus peaking and auto-magnification I missed focus too often with the A7R + Zeiss 50 Loxia. On the D810, I'd have no chance at all.
Click to expand...
Assuming that you have time to focus manually with the A7 and you still can't do it reliably sorry but you're the problem not the gear. I agree about the DSLR though even with back screen live view.

IMO mirrorless is the way to go for manual lenses unless the detail is large and clear and easy to see through the ovf and accurate focus is therefore possible. With mirrorless it's possible to manually focus much more accurately with a magnified view, assuming you have the time to mf. If you have the time it's like macro at a distance.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
For what purpose?
Honestly, IMO if you are considering spending that kind of money on something of a specialty lens, then you ought to know what you need and why.
Click to expand...

Sometimes people just want something.
 
You'll have to go a long, long way to beat a Nikon 135mm f2 DC lens for portraiture. The oft forgotten fact about this beauty is it's fully corrected for skin tones.

Not one of your options but one I feel you should include.
 
For wildlife I would personally avoid a manual focus lens and, depending on what you mean to shoot the 105 might not be long enough. I have no idea whether you can use teleconverters on them either. I looked at the 135 dc for ages, but just wondered whether if was any cop on a d8XX type body as there are loads of mixed opinions on it.
 
Forget manual focus for wildlife and low light.
The FL should *always* be chosen for the perspective/composition as a secondary consideration... for most wildlife none of them are really long enough. For portraiture the perspective (subject distance) and composition come first, typically something between 85-200mm effective. As far as optimal image quality is concerned, there are a lot of other factors that come before ultimate lens IQ... and working at f/1.x is generally problematic.

I own a Zeiss 85/1.4 (on FF), but it is my least used lens. If I were you, I would probably go for a 70-200/2.8 +TC's for occasional wildlife use.
 
chuckles said:
You'll have to go a long, long way to beat a Nikon 135mm f2 DC lens for portraiture. The oft forgotten fact about this beauty is it's fully corrected for skin tones.

Not one of your options but one I feel you should include.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm not particularly fond of that lens any more. It's not corrected for digital, which is much more demanding than film was (CA, etc).
 
Yousef Al-Nassar said:
Thanks!

Would you reckon I save up for a Nikon 200mm f/2 or save up for either one of the Zeiss 135 f/2 and 105mm f/1.4?
Click to expand...
I had the 200mm f2.0 VR up till last year it's a stunning piece of glass and it rewarded me with some beautiful images.
The downside for me was the weight though so I let it go as I still have the 135mm f2.0 DC and 85mm f1.4 I would personally go and look at the 105mm f2.0 DC and the 135mm f2.0 DC if it's portraits your mainly looking to shoot. You can always put a converter on to increase the focal length :)
 
sk66 said:
Forget manual focus for wildlife and low light.
The FL should *always* be chosen for the perspective/composition as a secondary consideration... for most wildlife none of them are really long enough. For portraiture the perspective (subject distance) and composition come first, typically something between 85-200mm effective. As far as optimal image quality is concerned, there are a lot of other factors that come before ultimate lens IQ... and working at f/1.x is generally problematic.

I own a Zeiss 85/1.4 (on FF), but it is my least used lens. If I were you, I would probably go for a 70-200/2.8 +TC's for occasional wildlife use.
Click to expand...

I shoot wildlife with my 70-200mm f2.8 vr2, and by low light I mean minimum daylight, were I can still manage manual focusing. I can definitely live with anything from weight and cost and build quality, as long as image quality is top notch. Thanks though :)
 
Phiggys said:
I had the 200mm f2.0 VR up till last year it's a stunning piece of glass and it rewarded me with some beautiful images.
The downside for me was the weight though so I let it go as I still have the 135mm f2.0 DC and 85mm f1.4 I would personally go and look at the 105mm f2.0 DC and the 135mm f2.0 DC if it's portraits your mainly looking to shoot. You can always put a converter on to increase the focal length :)
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't mind the weight, as long as sharpness, clarity, colour rendition and bokeh ... etc, is great.
 
Yousef Al-Nassar said:
Personally, I don't mind the weight, as long as sharpness, clarity, colour rendition and bokeh ... etc, is great.
Click to expand...
Well all three of those lenses are capable of the results your after money and weight no problem the afs200mm f2.0 VR just be aware of he working distance you will need especially indoors or in a studio.the VR is definitely a asset with size and weight and works really well.
Then there is also the new Nikon AFS 105 f1.4 ?
Your really spoilt for choice to be honest and the Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art appears to be getting some great revues!
Decisions decisions ! I don't envy your position :( But wish you all the best with your shopping around :)(y)
 
sk66 said:
Personally, I'm not particularly fond of that lens any more. It's not corrected for digital, which is much more demanding than film was (CA, etc).
Click to expand...

It's an older design that's for sure - but nothing gives that extra bit of Bokeh and is controllable.

As for CA - I agree, I just a have preset in LR for such an occasion. I had the same doubts as you but find that, in the majority of cases CA, is never a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top