How is the Plena VS the 135 F2 DC?

I haven't made the jump to the Z system yet and one of the things I've really been dreading is losing AF on my 135 F2 DC. With the Plena out now I was wondering if there are any direct comparisons out there between the 2 lenses?

Back in the day I rented the Nikkor F2 and Sigma 135 F1.8 together and the Sigma while sharp seemed a bit too clinical. So I'm basically trying to figure out where on a scale between those two lenses the Plena would land. If anyone has any experience or examples it would be greatly appreciated.

Clinical and character are subjective terms. Only you will know if the Plena will meet your expectations. Do you have samples of your comparisons between the Nikon and Sigma? Knowing what other lenses you have in your gear list here would help too.

CA, flare, distortion, and OOF transitions are technical items than can be flushed out with testing and measurements. I'm pretty sure the Plena will easily outperform the DC2 for most users. You can make a clinical image artistic, but you can't make an artistic image clinical. Well, AI is changing that too. I loved my "rich character" push pull 35-70f2.8D, but the 16-80DXVR quickly replaced it once I took the time to compare them side by side. That is about the only time you'd notice any big difference, or even a client would notice.

All of the 135's will take nice images in the right hands. I generally prefer bokeh from the f-mount lenses, but I'd justify owning and keeping both rather than choosing between the two.

Let us know how you make out either way. Good luck!

--
SkyRunR
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
TIPS: Be kind, RT#M, use gear not signature, limit/shorten replies with quotes!
'The first casualty, when war comes, is truth' - Hiram Johnson (1866-1945)

CBR1100XX said:

I haven't made the jump to the Z system yet and one of the things I've really been dreading is losing AF on my 135 F2 DC. With the Plena out now I was wondering if there are any direct comparisons out there between the 2 lenses?

Back in the day I rented the Nikkor F2 and Sigma 135 F1.8 together and the Sigma while sharp seemed a bit too clinical. So I'm basically trying to figure out where on a scale between those two lenses the Plena would land. If anyone has any experience or examples it would be greatly appreciated.

Click to expand...

i would include the Sigma 135mm, may be cheaper and yield similar/close results to the Plena, but better results than the 135 DC. Plena is obviously better optically, but if you are considering the 135 DC...then i also would consider the Sigma at a much lesser cost to that of the Plena.

I doubt that there is a meaningful comparison.
Ultimately, this would be of little use, as the assessment is very individual.
In the sum of the objective criteria of good image quality, the Plena is undoubtedly currently the reference in 135mm for full frame.
Everything else, and this ultimately includes factors such as the effect of rendering as well as bokeh, are so individual in terms of perception that such comparisons are of little use unless you make them yourself.

I can't say anything about the 135DC, but the Plena is undoubtedly one of the best lenses, basically the best I've had the pleasure of using in over 40 years.
In my opinion it's worth every penny because it doesn't just have the modern side, resolution, extremely high level of optical corrections and all that directly at f/1.8, but the complete rendering, the quality of the sharpness transition, the smoothness in the bokeh, color reproduction, plus objectifiable factors such as resolution, contrast, freedom from abberation are absolutely world class.

In the end, the perception and also the perception threshold for details is very different, so you have to make up your own mind and judge for yourself.
A Sigma 135/1.8 with FTZ is undoubtedly much cheaper.
You can only find out for yourself how much extra a Plena is worth.
In my eyes it is worth it, but that is not universally valid.

The Plena is one of the few lenses that not only excels in the areas of resolution, consistency of resolution across the entire image field and the level of optical corrections, i.e. in the measurable, objectifiable criteria, but also combines this with a rendering quality and harmony that I have not yet encountered at this level.

These are just a few snapshots from the last days, the one of the cat even through a dirty window pane, but I think you can still see the quality, the look of the rendering.





That's the beauty of such thin DoF, in conjunction with such a smooth OOF rendering.
The "ugly" exposed aggregate concrete slabs from the 70s (lower left area), the visual outline of our red watering can in the top left corner, the green watering can (upper right), the blooming and faded lilac blossoms in the out-of-focus area, the garden hose are even suitable as a picturesque colorful blur backdrop.
Lenses like the Plena have a very good-natured side, almost like an eraser/laminating tool with regard to some disturbing image elements.



The picture is nothing special, but here too you can see how harmonious the rendering is



Of all the Z lenses I own, the Plena is the most perfect in terms of the harmony and quality of the rendering, the least clinical, the most organic looking, although it is also the Z-lens with the highest resolution measurements and I am only talking about Z primes in comparison.

That doesn't mean that you can't also get into situations where the Plena is sometimes too much of a good thing.
But overall, if the situation and the photographer are right, the lens is a masterpiece.
This is perhaps the most critical point about the Plena, the possibilities of this lens clearly exceed mine.

However, this also motivates me to go out and do justice to this world class tool.

It is no coincidence that Nikon has very self-confidently described the Plena as “better than S-line”.
Definitely a very special lens in the long Nikon history and they are very aware of that.
There is an interesting 3 part series on the creation of the Plena, which is ultimately part of the advertising campaign, but still worthwhile.
You get a better sense of how much heart and soul those responsible for the Plena project have put into this object and how proud they are of the result and quite rightly so.

The original prototype of the Plena, an absolute monster, is also on display there.
In the end, the challenge was to downsize this monster without sacrificing performance.
In other words, to keep looking for new solutions to significantly improve the weight and dimensions without compromising the optical qualities.

Beautifully stated. My reply elsewhere in this thread will be nowhere as good...

So here I am, writing something after Nebido's excellent reply. Oh, this isn't going to go well LOL.

Disclaimers: I have shot the 135 DC, used to own the 105DC, and know those lenses pretty well, but it was a while ago - D700 era, so 2010ish. That's a while ago and thus I do think you need to take what I write with a few grains of salt for that reason, but I will proceed anyway.

I own the Plena.

I am extremely picky.

I've used a lot of lenses since I started this in '77, in all formats, all brands.

The Plena might just be the best lens I've ever used, which is saying quite a bit given my history with a lot of glass. It was better than I expected, and I expected *a lot*.

But - is it the right lens for you? I'm not sure. That's what I'll dig into next.

First off, other than the 2 "DC" lenses, Nikon has not again revisited the concept of allowing the end user to adjust the spherical aberration correction. So even as great as some of the modern era glass is, if this "adjustability" is extremely important to you, then I think you know your answer, right?

The DC lenses at the time - film era - were *monsters* for portraiture, some of the very best, if not "the best" portraiture lenses in that film era. All lens design involves trade offs, and often designers might "tune" a lens towards a specific use case. Quite likely in the long history of Nikon lenses, the two DC lenses were tuned "more" towards portraiture than anything else they've made. There were better landscape lenses, although stopped down both were more than decent.

So what's changed since those days? Obviously the advent of digital, which required a change in how lenses were designed somewhat, as film and a sensor have different characteristics as the receiving end of the optics. We have a lot more resolution today, we look at images differently today, we might even print much larger today, and all of that IMO means the image quality of todays lenses *has* to be better than lenses of old.

The "issue" for some is that the flaws of older glass might be perceived as "character" - and this isn't a binary thing - it's a gradient thing - it's not as simple as "perfect lens" vs "character lens", and if you personally value the character of the DC lenses highly, then you might not like *any* of the modern excellent lenses even if some of them are monsters as portrait lenses as well. That's the part none of us can answer, and it will depend on you, and also a bit on whether you can accept that lens design has moved forward and that the requirements are different today. I can't answer that for you. I don't care for lenses that are heavily flawed to a point where people scream "character" because to me, a lenses job is to transmit the subject - beautiful, ugly, average, "clinical", whatever the subject/scene/light is, to the lens without imparting a lot of negative qualities onto the image. Other folks might want the lens to impart some qualities that are negative in some ways but positive in others, and of course, to varying degrees of magnitude.

So the DC lenses were quite soft wide open and near wide open, had a lot of axial CA, which unfortunately negatively impacts the "honest" / "natural" view because it means as you go OOF, the color changes and even when that is subtle, to me (in my current thinking) it reduces the honesty/transparency of the lens. But others might not be as sensitive to it. The DC lenses also were tuned away from high frequency MTF resolution at close distances, as are some modern lenses to a different level, in order to gain a more pleasing look for portraits and to offer excellent OOF transitions. All lenses involve tradeoffs again - and while modern lenses offer less, no lens is perfect. And of course you could adjust the SA correction, so you could change the front and back bokeh with the dial. You don't have that with the Plena.

With the Plena, I think it's best to start with this: There are very few "bad" 135mm primes from the major players. If you're willing to overlook build quality issues and corners, even the cheap Samyang 135 will produce very nice images. So within the context of 135mm lenses, it (to me anyway) is the subtle stuff that makes the difference. Whether the subtle aspects are worth the price - another story, everyone has a different answer. And it's the subtle aspects that also are the differentiator between two excellent 135's, where it might be one isn't universally and absolutely "better", but just equal in different ways.

So the Plena manages the science of lens design (extremely well corrected) but with IMO an impeccable sense of "balance" in terms of the various (we're getting technical here) resolution frequencies in classic MTF terms - no one part of the range, from coarse to mid to fine to extra fine structures, is overemphasized, perhaps more so than any other lens I've seen. So that's a long, grammatically poor sentence with a lot of tech talk in it, but it relates to the "art" aspect of lens design at the end. This means you might run into lens that on initial glance is more contrasty, or more "bite", but it may not be as honest. This sense of balance is why many consider the Plena to be the perfect *marriage* of the science of lens design and the art of lens design. The lens is as sharp as possible - nothing really is realistically sharper in terms of resolving detail, but at the same time, there is something utterly natural and honest about it - it doesn't impose itself on the subject in a negative way, and allows what you're photographing to shine, but it doesn't screw up anything either. It's never "clinical" (honestly, few lenses really meet that description and it's over-used), and it's never "in your face". Combine an incredibly, world class level of honesty/transparency with minimal vignetting and IMO some of the best bokeh of *any* mid telephoto, and you can see why most owners of the lens love it. It is an amazing portrait lens, and it's an amazing landscape lens. That right there is sometimes tricky to pull off, but it does both.

But - will you prefer it to your DC lens? If you are strongly tied to that lenses look, you might be put off with the wide open sharpness and lack of CA, as the Plena won't automatically make every subject beautiful because of an optical flaw or spherical aberration haze. At the same time, as Nebido says, the Plena is so damned good it makes you WANT to find situations to use it - it's a hard thing to explain until you've used one for a while.

As for the Sigma 135/1.8 Art - I've shot it, and I think while it's very good, like most 135mm lenses are, it misses the subtlety of the very best 135mm lenses like the Plena and the Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar, the latter not as sharp wide open as the Plena, but equally capable at the intermediate apertures with a somewhat different rendering style that is a little bit more forceful in a subtle way. The Sigma is a bit more plain in rendering, and the flare resistance isn't that amazing. I love some Sigma Art glass - mostly the 40 art, but find the 135/1.8 Art a bit overhyped compared to the Plena or the Zeiss. In general, over time, I find I respect the Sigma art glass more than I love it. Things like the 85/1.2S or the Plena, I absolutely am in love with. And the 105/2.8S MC micro ain't far behind - all three of those are utterly world class glass with few peers. I'd almost go as far to say that those three lenses are a reason enough to own a Z body, even if you shoot something else. Glass matters a lot to some of us, and those three are amazing.

Good luck with your evaluation if you can find one to borrow or rent, which is what you'll have to do, me thinks.

I only speak from the POV of someone who did own the 135 DC F2 and now do own the Plena

I presume the Plena is technically better and if anothermike says it is, then it is. Good enough for me.

The Plena is sharper.

But I like the images from both. I sold the DC to upgrade gear a while back, but if I owned them both now I think I would keep both

thayes15 said:

I only speak from the POV of someone who did own the 135 DC F2 and now do own the Plena

I presume the Plena is technically better and if anothermike says it is, then it is. Good enough for me.

The Plena is sharper.

But I like the images from both. I sold the DC to upgrade gear a while back, but if I owned them both now I think I would keep both

Click to expand...

I Used the F mount, manual focus version...beautiful contrast and colors. but the Plena is pretty much perfect, and having a native Z mount is much nicer

agreed

MILES better is short answer!!

The Sigma 135mm 1.8 ART and Zeiss 135mm f2 (Manual focus) are a notch down again.

Great shots. Brilliant write up!

The Plena is the most perfect lens I have ever used. It is simply gives gorgeous results.

Another brilliant write up, Mike!

Really, really beautiful rendering.

If only I could justify buying one, but alas . . .

Thanks for all the replies!

I have a friend with the plena and with his examples so I've been impressed with it. Just I like to get as close to possible with my current work as possible, and was hoping to see some examples just get that rough idea before I'd get to the point of renting a Z8/Plena.

Years, and years back I have some posts on here where I talked about some lenses having an X factor which is mostly what I mean by character, something which is adding a small but not transformative artistic flourish. I definitely have lenses on both sides of the fence between that and the more direct representative side of things. And as has been said both definitely have their purposes and fans.

But even without the direct comparison reading and seeing more Plena examples is making the question harder still.

Just to fill in the backstory: due to health issues I had to move the bulk of my work to m43 which surprisingly has actually worked out. But with portraiture I miss some of my Nikon glass so I'm hoping to move at least that portion of it back into it. Grabbing a D810 or D850 to replace my aging D750s would be the easy move but having used face/eye detect now and just the freedom that allows in a portrait session by removing AF as variable to worry much about is a hard thing to give up.

CBR1100XX said:

e of things. And as has been said both definitely have their purposes and fans.

But even without the direct comparison reading and seeing more Plena examples is making the question harder still.

Click to expand...

--
Thanks for your help, Michael

A friend of mine was singing at the Road Runner Cafe. Perfect venue to try out my Plena last year.

















I also took the Plena to Zoolights last winter. Mostly used shorter lenses though.







I never shot the DC lenses. I also never had a lens this good before.

--
Phoenix Arizona Craig
www.cjcphoto.net
"I miss the days when I was nostalgic."

PHXAZCRAIG said:

A friend of mine was singing at the Road Runner Cafe. Perfect venue to try out my Plena last year.









I also took the Plena to Zoolights last winter. Mostly used shorter lenses though.



I never shot the DC lenses. I also never had a lens this good before.

Click to expand...

Those first shots got me thinking of a lot of the work I did with the old DC lens, here's 2 examples:

I have an AF-DC Nikkor 135mm & love it & can use it via the adapter with my new Z9, but it is very heavy & a characteristic I like (at the age of 61) is the Plena is so much lighter in weight, as are all the Z series lenses when compared with the F camera series lenses. For what you are getting they are also cheaper. I am seriously thinking of buying a Plena after having tried it out. On the bokeh front it reminds me of my Zeiss 100mm Macro ZF.2 lens, which I still enjoy using when not stacking images.

The image of the statue is the 135mm f2 DC at f2

The image of the man at the traffic light is with the Plena 135mm at f 1.8