hi, newbie with nikon 135/2.0 DC

[daocat]

And that's the only piece of equipment I own. I am seeking a d700 now. The next two lenses I hope to get will be Nikon 16-35/4 VR, and 50/1.4D.

I have some experience in film photography but none yet in digital. I am an old guy, retired USA ex-pat living in Thailand..

I bought the 135/2.0 first because I feel that the availability of this discontinued lens for purchase is going to get harder, and the price higher.

I like portraits.

I somehow got to this ClubSNAP site from an internet search engine and I have been combing it since then. What a great site.

 

[dreamseeker]

Welcome to Clubsnap!!!

 

[daredevil123]

And that's the only piece of equipment I own. I am seeking a d700 now. The next two lenses I hope to get will be Nikon 16-35/4 VR, and 50/1.4D.

I have some experience in film photography but none yet in digital. I am an old guy, retired USA ex-pat living in Thailand..

I bought the 135/2.0 first because I feel that the availability of this discontinued lens for purchase is going to get harder, and the price higher.

I like portraits.

I somehow got to this ClubSNAP site from an internet search engine and I have been combing it since then. What a great site.

Congrats on the purchase. It is an excellent lens. But get that body fast. A lens not used is a lens abused. And practice lots as the 135DC is not an easy lens to master. You might also want to consider the 85/1.4, if you love portraits. 50/1.4 on a D700 is more like a standard lens.

 

[daocat]

Sure, the 85/1.4, aka the cream machine is a beauty. But many think that a new Nikon 85/1.4 is on the way soon from Nikon,

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/07/19/n..._campaign=Feed:+NikonRumors+(NikonRumors.com)

and for sure an 85/1.4 is coming soon from sigma.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022015sigma85mm.asp

Also I am really hoping for the 16-35/4 VR, which uses up a lot of my lens budget, so it's an interesting issue how to cost effectively cover the range between 35mm-135mm. Most people go with a midrange zoom, for me I think a 50/1.4 might fit in nicely, and then see how they work out.

 

[Jed]

As far as I know, although in short supply, I don't think the 135 DC has been discontinued.

 

[Numnumball]

Welcome to CS

i have the lens too, it one hell of a sweet lens..

And its not discontinued, just short in demand

 

[ovaltinemilo]

Congrats on your purchase...what a great lens..Hope you could get the body soon and start shooting. All the best.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

And that's the only piece of equipment I own. I am seeking a d700 now. The next two lenses I hope to get will be Nikon 16-35/4 VR, and 50/1.4D.

I have some experience in film photography but none yet in digital. I am an old guy, retired USA ex-pat living in Thailand..

I bought the 135/2.0 first because I feel that the availability of this discontinued lens for purchase is going to get harder, and the price higher.

I like portraits.

I somehow got to this ClubSNAP site from an internet search engine and I have been combing it since then. What a great site.

welcome to clubsnap!
Wah... drool-worthy lens...
Yes, get that camera body asap. Go out and shoot shoot shoot!
You want to use the 16-35 as a walk-around, or for landscapes?
For walkaround, maybe (i stress maybe) a lens covering the 20+ to 70 range would be more versatile. But I think you know best what to get

 

[daredevil123]

Sure, the 85/1.4, aka the cream machine is a beauty. But many think that a new Nikon 85/1.4 is on the way soon from Nikon,

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/07/19/n..._campaign=Feed:+NikonRumors+(NikonRumors.com)

and for sure an 85/1.4 is coming soon from sigma.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022015sigma85mm.asp

Also I am really hoping for the 16-35/4 VR, which uses up a lot of my lens budget, so it's an interesting issue how to cost effectively cover the range between 35mm-135mm. Most people go with a midrange zoom, for me I think a 50/1.4 might fit in nicely, and then see how they work out.

Yes, a lot of us knows about the rumoured 85 from Nikon, as well as the one from Sigma.

But personally, I prefer all AF, AF-D lenses. The less electronics in the lenses, the longer they will last. Plus the G lenses do not come with aperture rings, which makes them unusable on some of my old film cameras, except the F4.

 

[daocat]

Thank you daredevil123. I just went to your blog "Confessions of Sensory Addict". What great photos you have there. Interesting that I recall photos taken with a Nikon D90 and a Nikon D300s, but I didn't see any with a Nikon D700. Yet that wonderfull first picture was taken with a Tokina 11-16/2.8 lens, so you know the UWA.

Thank you Numnumball for your post. Even before I became a member of ClubSNAP I had seen some great photos by you because of the fun thread you started:

http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=610828&page=6

I wanted to post my lens on that thread, but I guess I must have taken at least one photo to do that.

Thank you Jed. I just went to your site, "Essence of the moment" and what a great site.

You three, to me, are photographers. I am a photographer wanna be.

But I will stand by my statement that the Nikon 135/2.0D has been discontinued, although I should restate it as, "in my opinion, the Nikon 135/2.0D has been discontinued".

The Lens is still on the official Nikon site. There has never been an announcement from Nikon about it being discontinued. So it has not been discontinued. But, this lens, which, since it became a D version in 1995, has tended to be made by Nikon in separate batches, has not seen a new batch since June 2009. When a new one for sale appears on Amazon it listed at a price higher than list price, and tends to be sold within days.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list...?ie=UTF8&qid=1280151575&sr=1-29&condition=new

On Ebay recently, it tends to sell new only at prices higher than list price. I have visited all of the biggest online camera shops in US, and none of them have a new one for sale. etc, etc. My point? In my opinion anybody who intends to buy this lens in the future would do well buying it now. I did.

Thanks again.

 

[allenleonhart]

welcome!

 

[daredevil123]

Thank you daredevil123. I just went to your blog "Confessions of Sensory Addict". What great photos you have there. Interesting that I recall photos taken with a Nikon D90 and a Nikon D300s, but I didn't see any with a Nikon D700. Yet that wonderfull first picture was taken with a Tokina 11-16/2.8 lens, so you know the UWA....

You three, to me, are photographers. I am a photographer wanna be.
....

I do not own a FF digital camera. So far I only shoot DX format. I know the advantages of FX, but I have a lot of other priorities in life that prevent me from going fullframe, especially when such a move will mean I have to get quite a number of new lenses as well. So cropped factor it is for me for the time being.

And I am not a photographer. I am just a wanna-be, just like you.

And also, thanks for visiting my blog.

 

[cleonbus]

Welcome to CS

 

[daocat]

I have followed the market on the Nikon 135mm f/2.0D DC almost daily for the past month, and today was interesting in that Adorama is offerring the lens, gray market, on Ebay for US $1,329.95 ( S $1,812), and they claim to have 8 copies available!

http://www.adorama.com/Catalog.tpl?page=il_refine_search

I have been reading about the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VR. The reviews have not been good, but they haven't been gosh awefull either. In Bangkok that lens sells, gray market, for $676 Singapore dollars, compared to the Nikon 16-35/4 VR at $2,158 Singapore dollars, authorized Nikon dealer. That's more than 3 times as much for the Nikon with less reach, slower speed, larger, and heavier. Of course I would prefer the Nikon. But hmmmmmm.

Will try to not worry too much about lenses until I have a camera.

 

[ZerocoolAstra]

Firstly, the 16-35VR is a Nikon lens.
But most importantly it's useable on an FX camera, whereas the tamron 17-50 is not.

 

[Numnumball]

I have been reading about the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VR. The reviews have not been good, but they haven't been gosh awefull either. In Bangkok that lens sells, gray market, for $676 Singapore dollars, compared to the Nikon 16-35/4 VR at $2,158 Singapore dollars, authorized Nikon dealer. That's more than 3 times as much for the Nikon with less reach, slower speed, larger, and heavier. Of course I would prefer the Nikon. But hmmmmmm.

Will try to not worry too much about lenses until I have a camera.

u r comparing apple to orange.:nono:

if really wan to compare, it will be the FX rdy Tammy 17-35mm f2.8-f4 agst Nikon 16-35mm Vr f4

 

[shelomoh]

Well looks like you are just about all set.

Yes you got a great lens. D700 will definitely compliment that.

Other lens to consider (in case, you are still not satisfied) are:
24mm f/1.4 (some times you do not just want head shots or shoulder shots, at least full length), 50mm f/1.4 D or G (for waist and up), 85mm f/1.4 (for shoulder and and up) and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2. In case you have to shoot from far.

I have both the 85mm and 50mm. At f/1.4, the bokeh of 50mm is just not as good as the 85mm.

Not forgetting for portraiture, you have to get your lighting and light stand, ... etc.

 

[daredevil123]

Well looks like you are just about all set.

Yes you got a great lens. D700 will definitely compliment that.

Other lens to consider (in case, you are still not satisfied) are:
24mm f/1.4 (some times you do not just want head shots or shoulder shots, at least full length), 50mm f/1.4 D or G (for waist and up), 85mm f/1.4 (for shoulder and and up) and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2. In case you have to shoot from far.

I have both the 85mm and 50mm. At f/1.4, the bokeh of 50mm is just not as good as the 85mm.

Not forgetting for portraiture, you have to get your lighting and light stand, ... etc.

Actually, on a full frame camera like D700, I think 50-85mm is more suitable for full body, 85-105mm for half body, and 105-135 or even till 200 for head/shoulders shot. If you shoot 24mm, you really have to be care how you place the body parts (sound so CSI), if not, you will get wide distortions.

And yes, bokeh of 85/1.4 is much better than 50/1.4. The price is also correlated to the quality. But the 50/1.4 is already quite good. The longer the focal length, the more you will be able to throw background off-focus, with the same aperture and subject/background distance.

 

[daocat]

Zerocoolstra: you are right, I stand corrected, that Tammy is for crop camera only.

Numnumball: you are right, I stand corrected on the comparison.

Shelomoh, daredevil123: I agree with you both, better bokeh in general with 85/1.4 vs 50/1.4.

Thank you shelomoh for your list of lenses; great list. Actually there will be no more physical lenses for me for a while due to money issues. But it's just fun to think what would be a great next lens.

How about this, for a full frame camera you may either have only 50mm and greater or you may have 50mm and less. Dividing the world into two groups, the teles and the wides. I am a tele. So many threads like Numnumballs (his is the best I have seen on it), generally are just for fun to speculate. For me since I spent so much on my first lens which one lens turned out to be for real.

Last one: you get only one zoom, 16-35, 35-75, or 70-200?

OK, any more questions and I might be accused of begging to keep my thread going.

Again, thank you and nice group here.

 

[jaRv1s]

Zerocoolstra: you are right, I stand corrected, that Tammy is for crop camera only.

Numnumball: you are right, I stand corrected on the comparison.

Shelomoh, daredevil123: I agree with you both, better bokeh in general with 85/1.4 vs 50/1.4.

Thank you shelomoh for your list of lenses; great list. Actually there will be no more physical lenses for me for a while due to money issues. But it's just fun to think what would be a great next lens.

How about this, for a full frame camera you may either have only 50mm and greater or you may have 50mm and less. Dividing the world into two groups, the teles and the wides. I am a tele. So many threads like Numnumballs (his is the best I have seen on it), generally are just for fun to speculate. For me since I spent so much on my first lens which one lens turned out to be for real.

Last one: you get only one zoom, 16-35, 35-75, or 70-200?

OK, any more questions and I might be accused of begging to keep my thread going.

Again, thank you and nice group here.

if i were to get only one zoom... I'll get the Wide Angle... add a 50 prime, and 105mm macro or 200mm macro would do...

according to the salesman of my regular shop... DC lenses are still in production... but it's almost like make on order basis... only produced in small batches and having unbelievable long lead time...

hope this helps...