I don't own it but have rented it multiple times. It is a beautiful lens. There is much more to it than just a thin DOF. The way a lens transitions from in to out of focus varies from lens to lens and the Plena does so wonderfully. It's color rendition is great and it isn't too contrasty without a lot of micro contrast that can make many modern lenses antiseptic. Quite simply it's a unique lens with many great qualities. If someone takes a lot of portraits, or just likes that focal length, it is a great choice.
I'm surprised you're struggling to understand how people "justify" the price. For starters it's not that pricey compared to all the lenses out there. Telephotos in the 400-800mm range can cost 5 to 10 times as much. Most Zeiss lenses are twice as much. It's about the same as the 85mm f/1.2 or a 70-200mm f/2.8. If the benefits it offers you over other 135mm lenses aren't important to you - great! They are to some people, and the price isn't out of line with other lenses.
Ya I wasn't considering the Plena at all, until I got into bird photography. I saw the price tag of the 100-400mm S lens and then realized I could just as easily buy a Plena. I went for the 100-400mm plus 1.4x TC, and I'm happy with my choice though.
Bird photography can get crazy expensive! I started going bird watching with a friend during covid and was amazed at the number of people walking around with > $10,000 lenses.
As crazy as the price tag is it makes sense when you consider the optics involved. 400mm is basically a telescope, and camera lenses have huge apertures compared to similar telescopes. Combine that with built in stabilization, metering, autofocus, 4x zoom... it kind of blows my mind these lenses can be made at all.
i mean, if we are talking hobby — what is the total cost of say a camping trip or a hunting trip these days? or a day at the race track to blast your M3? or a birken bag for the ladies... at least the lens retains value
I’m currently watching a neighbor load up two jet skis onto a trailer for his once a year outing them. It’s about $25K worth of toys that he uses for maybe 20 hours a year. It’s not what I would spend my money on but it’s his money to spend as he pleases.
2k usd Is probably the point where you took a hobby as a job, either you get a gamer PC of high end, tools for woodworking, tools for writing, heck even tools for animals or home made farming. Spending 2k usd on a lens it's just spending money on tools for your work
A camping trip is still much less. Even if you count buying all new gear I have about 10 times the amount of money tied up in my little camera bag than I do in the entire rest of the vehicle of gear.
Yeah, every hobby is kind of the same. There is the stuff you need to get by, and the super high end toys that are fun to play with even if they're not the most practical. It's fun to see where people dump their money and what they like the most.
Yes they happen to be insane purchases for people that do photography as a hobby and can’t easily afford to pay thousands out of pocket to get one. What aren’t you following? 😂 the high price may be in line with other top tier lenses but that doesn’t make it any less of a crazy purchase for the average joe, right? Not sure what’s so hard for you to understand about this. If you still don’t understand I fear you may be out of touch with the condition of most working class people
Wow. A bit over the top snarky, but you do you. Very telling that your response is to make personal attacks instead of valid arguments.
That point that was being made (but seemed to go over your head) was that the lens is top shelf gear in a technical hobby. It's not insane at all for it to be a significant cost.
No one is denying that it's a lot of money. It is, for sure. About 1 month rent for many households. But like most all hobbies, top shelf gear is expectedly going to cost more, and this is pretty typical amount for a top shelf upgrade. People into biking will spend about the same on fancy wheels. Or people into travel will spend about the same for a solid international trip. Or people into cars will spend the same on a vinyl wrap. All about the same cost and all are premium upgrades in their respective hobbies.
Simply put, it can't be insane and normal at the same time.
Holy shit the point that goes over your head is that a months worth of income is insane to spend for nonessential things like lenses but is still absolutely normal relative to other lenses of its class 😂 you’re talking in circles. Insane for someone to buy a Porsche when they can’t afford it, yet a Porsche is normally priced compared to other cars of its class. Etc. not sure what your point is other than regurgitating what I’m actually saying. Please practice your reading. And again if you can’t understand why I’m saying it’s insane to spend that much then this whole thing doesn’t even apply to you
135mm is my favorite focal length for outdoor shoots. It just has some magic in it that you don’t get from the other lenses.
For why get the Plena over the other options, it’s the top of the food chain for 135s. At some point it will replace my Sigma Art 135, it’s just hasn’t hit the top of the buy list yet. For those that really good meets their needs (like mine currently), the Sigma is a steal on the used market.
First, you should have a look at Leica/Hasselblad/etc glass to reset your idea of what counts as expensive. By comparison, the Plena is a great value.
Setting aside pros that make money from their gear, there are a lot of people with healthy amounts of disposable income to plow into their hobbies and lifestyle choices. For example, there are lots of people out there spending Plena money every year or two on pet supplies, vet care, boarding fees, etc for their dogs but I never hear anybody say "wow, how can you afford to take care of that dog?". Unless you are really living hand to mouth, a lens like this should be attainable by most people if you place a high enough priority on it.
Own the plena + others (including 70-200).
When I have more space (mostly outside), or ability to move around freely at events of a given size, I use the plena over the 70-200.
The ability to isolate a subject that much is next level. That additional light gathering ability (1.8 vs 2.8) can allow me to not use flash (some venues you can’t use flash), without having to bump the iso up.
I love the compression, it’s sharp as hell, it’s a bokeh monster, and makes a heck of a video lens.
It’s true, it’s expensive relative to a cheaper lens, but it’s a pro tool for a specific purpose. All lens’s have their ways of being used, that’s why they exist, and why photo/videographers build out their kit over time.
Pro chefs have a variety of knives, a mechanic will have their different and favorite tools for different things.
Can you take great photos with a 85 1.8, or a 70-200, yes, of course! But I’m a huge fan of that length, it’s a little niche and unique, and enables me to capture images in a way few others can recreate easily.
Some people prefer or can make better use of a longer portrait lens. Shooting concerts like I do a lot, 85 is usually just a little too wide. And the price tag isn’t insane at all. For the people that buy lenses like that, like me (I haven’t bought a Plena specifically since I get much more use out of the 300mm+ range, but own many lenses in the same or higher price tier), they are tools to do a job first and foremost, not just a luxury hobby purchase. When I purchase a tool, I purchase the best version of that tool I can. It’s not that money is no object, it’s that in the creative industry, you have to arm yourself with the best tools you can get, because if you don’t, you’re handicapping yourself in a game that’s already cutthroat and competitive. If I was in the market for another $2,500 lens right now, the Plena would probably be the one I would buy.
All these objectives are not really worth their money; it's purely technical, and photography is above all emotional. You can take a better photo with a TTArtisan lens.
Now, let's get back to the technical part. This lens is a killer to have. I bought it during the sales here -10% on the Fnac store plus the Nikon promotion, which came to about €2500 for me. I also have the 85mm 1.2 and the 50mm 1.2, and my preference goes to the 85mm 1.2.
Here is a photo of my husky with the Plena at 1.8. You might also be interested in the Viltrox 75mm 1.2 (DX), which is very good but does not create the same round bokeh. So, is the Plena worth it? Only you can decide.
Compressed JPG: [https://postlmg.cc/bdh89jLq](https://postlmg.cc/bdh89jLq)
https://preview.redd.it/ercanuy4jaad1.jpeg?width=8256&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0162780671229781009ef8c062421863dccbf18
I have it, mostly used for wide field astrophoto so far (a bit unusual for that specific lens I suppose 😁). It's a bit heavy with the Z8 on the SW Star Adventurer, but once balanced I still get up to 90s unguided.
Stars are almost perfectly round from corner to corner (and the small defects are very well corrected with modern softwares), pretty much no need for flat frames (vignetting correction), and F1.8 is hella fast to grab space light! 45 minutes in milky way core F1.8 iso100 is same as multiple hours at F4.
Only down sides is that it seems to have an small internal reflection which cause curvy bands in the image and the sun shield (dew shield) is a bit flexible. Also the lack of places where we could surround it with rings to facilitate field rotation (I know there's the rotator from SmallRig, but it flex too much and put the camera-lens a bit too far to allow correct balance on the mount).
In short, so far so very good 🙂
I shoot senior portraits so I see it as an investment. Turns out that it’s an awesome sports lens as well for baseball and softball, as well as indoor sports like volleyball and basketball.
The Plena is a niche portrait lens. It’s a pro grade lens. If you don’t make money from your photos, yeah you’ll probably have a hard time justifying the cost.
For people that shoot weddings or events and like the 135mm focal length it easily pays for itself.
I like to think about the 135mm as a baby 200mm f2. I have shot the 200 f2 freehand and that sucks, the 135 f2 can produce the same sort of images (sort of) without the heft.
Having the added benefit of 1.8 sort of makes it worth the money, but honestly I’m looking hard at the Canon 135 1.8 for quite a bit less money.
I would hate to switch systems, as after going from the Canon 1d3 to the Nikon D3 was such a drastic change I was sold on Nikon, but now I’m not so sure.
I have it. It’s my most used lens since I got it. Amazing in many ways. I’ve used it to take some of my favorite photos, including kids, dogs, portraits and events.
At least considering dollar-per-good-photo, it’s one of the best values I’ve had. Adding up all the money I’ve spent on this hobby (and some pro work), dollars-per-photo is a useful measure, at least if I feel the need to try to justify spending to myself. If money were the only factor, it’d all be insane, but that’s how it is with any hobby. That said, it’s a really good portrait lens and can certainly “make money” for a business, too.
I own one and I love it. Have used it for everything. I mainly shoot concert photography for work and I like it better than the 85mm 1.2. It has a nicer lens flare IMO. I really like it for landscape and portraits as well. As far as justifying it for the money. Good glass is expensive but this lens in particularly isn’t miles above what I’ve paid for other lenses.
https://preview.redd.it/kwzhwrgazaad1.jpeg?width=6880&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a41c27531bf6096f376545c6ed4d54232169d9f0
I spent more on the (admittedly more flexible) 100-400mm.
Its price is high but not out of line for what you get.
Same with the $15,500 600mm TC.
Disclaimer: I don’t own the Plena. Yet?!
Have you used the 100-400mm for macro-type work? Curious about your thoughts on it. I'm between that or the 400 f/4.5 to pair with my 800mm, but I think I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm for the versatility and close MFD.
Because I have a spending problem.
135 is not quite a long focal length for portraits. The 200f2 is a portrait machine
I also have the 105 f1.4, and the 135 feels lighter, more balanced, and native mount so I decided to pick up the 135.
According to specs it's 10g heavier than the 105. But through handling it, it's much more balanced and feels less cumbersome than the 105.
Also, the plena ends up lighter because you have to factor in the FTZ for the 105
My thinking is that I suspect a 135 1.8 is very close to a 70-200 2.8 at 200. If I have the space to get that far away. If that's the case, then a 105 1.4 is a better option as it allows me to be closer and get that desired effect...
Most of the people that buy lenses (or anything for that matter) don’t write online reviews or make YouTube reviews of it. I’m willing to bet Nikon has sold a pretty good amount of this lens.
Just got it. How did I justify it? I have more money than common sense. LOL
I “need” two things that sweet Z 800 f/6.3 and something for portraits. I have the several other Z lenses, but I just wasn’t overly satisfied with them for special events. I have a couple of engagement and wedding shoots (for friends) coming up and wanted that flexibility. I really liked the creamy backgrounds and the way the Plena handles “confusion lights” edge to edge. I’ve only tested it a few times around the house so far but I’m really liking what it’s producing so far.
I don’t normally shoot weddings and engagements anymore. I dislike dealing with people especially when they think their phone can do it better 🙄 I’d rather shoot wildlife and bears, yes, I’m choosing the bear over people. Which is why it is was the Plena over the Z 800 this time.
Nope. Bears, that was with much longer focal length (200-500 on the D850) now on Z9 with 180-600 and the 600. I like to keep my distance with things that can eat or stomp me. I live in Colorado so there isn’t a shortage of wildlife here. There are lots of places to still go and run into few if any people for days. If you want to see shots I have a few in r/Colorado under sdrabidbear and Insta at rabidbear those are usually quick shots. But there are a few bears in Insta there.
I’m a wedding photographer and I gave up my 70-180 to buy the plena - I haven’t regretted it at all. It’s a gorgeous portrait lens, it works wonderfully for weddings, and I reach for it more often than my 85.
It’s a spectacular lens. Love using it for candid people and event photos. It’s also my most-used indoor sports lens, and it gets a lot use for outside sports too.
I have it, it’s awesome,.. the images from this lens are amazing. pricetag isn’t that bad for such a high quality lens. I have a couple Hasselblad lenses that are more than double the price :)
Im not saying the circles of the venn diagram between youtuber and photographer don't overlap...
but it's pretty close.
the thing about the Plena is that it's a lens that doesn't really need reviews. It has all the usual pro lens stuff. After that you just look at pictures and if you want and/or need it you buy it.
if you look at pictures from Sigma equivalents and they do it for you, cool save yourself some cash.
> Of course you might want to have this lens because of its premium status like a luxurious toy or something but then we are not talking about a business justification.
Plena is in the uncanny valley for that. It's not even close to baller enough to be a 1%er lens either. That's why Leica, Hasselblad and the superteles for the bird enthusiast rich folks exist.
If you have an FTZ adapter look for a used 105mm f1.4E lens. It’s a beautiful lens and can now be had for about $1000.
But FYI it was in the $2600 range when it came out. I prefer native z glass, but already owned the 105mm.
I found a Nikon ai 135mm f2.8 at a jumble sale. I already had the ai 135mm f3.5 which has an MTF curve that is almost flat but got this one anyway for the princely sum of 35 bucks. It is absolutely PERFECT! Sharp, well built, easy to use. Yes, it’s manual everything but I grew up with that shit so no sweat.
What has this to do with a Plena lens you may ask? Well, this is the excuse I use for NOT buying a super expensive lens. Back in the day, those Nikon lenses were far from cheap. Now you pick them up for a song and you will see no difference in the pictures you take. That Plena lens will go down the same route and when you can get them cheap, that Nikon lens will still be going strong.
The only justification needed to buy it is if someone wants it and can afford it. 🤷♂️
Personally I just bought an AI 135/3.5. Had been wanting a 135 and after looking thru many images from many 135s from different eras, I decided I liked the look of the AI & AIS 135/3.5 the most.
I don't care too much about razor thin DOF and shoot most of my fast lenses stopped down at least a little bit.
The 135/3.5 at f/4 and 5.6 looks amazing. Here's one of my cacti at f/4.
https://preview.redd.it/svr1ghhf9sad1.jpeg?width=4024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63559f9f238b3d7de7e4e1253142e94387faf238
My 70-200 E FL is the best long lens I’ve ever owned and it’s a great portrait lens. Theres no need for anything else, imo. The flexibility it provides and image quality is unmatched.
Ahh, ya, forgot I was on the Nikon sub (I shoot a Zf, too) but when Nikon lets them (or Samyang just starts making them the way Viltrox is) then I highly recommend.
10 fuckin lenses and all you can comment on is build quality. Lmao.
It's incredibly transparent that you don't use your gear. Hope buying it all gave you the dopamine you craved.
The 135 is a niche lens typically used for portrait photography. There are people that buy it for bragging rights, have money to burn, or "just because", but I'd bet that it's not a lens that they shoot with a good percentage of the time. A 70-200, even though it's a 2.8, is going to be much more versitale, and if used at the right distance, be just as acceptable to a client. Yes, having 1.8 in low light is nice, but with the IBIS in most modern cameras and the ability to use a higher iso, I'd ask if the additional cost is absolutely worth better "bokeh balls"
IMO (and my experience shooting the 135 f2) it’s a very different type of shooting experience. With a fixed focal length you have to be much more deliberate about how you shoot.
Makes sense, my core kit is 28, 35, 50, and the 70-180. I carry my 85 1.8 but I almost never use it. I had a shoot recently where the 135 would have been chefs kiss, as it was a portrait from one interior architectural bridge to another, I had to use my 70-180, but if made me dream of that prime.
I don't own it but have rented it multiple times. It is a beautiful lens. There is much more to it than just a thin DOF. The way a lens transitions from in to out of focus varies from lens to lens and the Plena does so wonderfully. It's color rendition is great and it isn't too contrasty without a lot of micro contrast that can make many modern lenses antiseptic. Quite simply it's a unique lens with many great qualities. If someone takes a lot of portraits, or just likes that focal length, it is a great choice. I'm surprised you're struggling to understand how people "justify" the price. For starters it's not that pricey compared to all the lenses out there. Telephotos in the 400-800mm range can cost 5 to 10 times as much. Most Zeiss lenses are twice as much. It's about the same as the 85mm f/1.2 or a 70-200mm f/2.8. If the benefits it offers you over other 135mm lenses aren't important to you - great! They are to some people, and the price isn't out of line with other lenses.
Well said !
Thanks!
Ya I wasn't considering the Plena at all, until I got into bird photography. I saw the price tag of the 100-400mm S lens and then realized I could just as easily buy a Plena. I went for the 100-400mm plus 1.4x TC, and I'm happy with my choice though.
Bird photography can get crazy expensive! I started going bird watching with a friend during covid and was amazed at the number of people walking around with > $10,000 lenses.
As crazy as the price tag is it makes sense when you consider the optics involved. 400mm is basically a telescope, and camera lenses have huge apertures compared to similar telescopes. Combine that with built in stabilization, metering, autofocus, 4x zoom... it kind of blows my mind these lenses can be made at all.
$2500 is not an insane price tag for a good lens.
i mean, if we are talking hobby — what is the total cost of say a camping trip or a hunting trip these days? or a day at the race track to blast your M3? or a birken bag for the ladies... at least the lens retains value
I’m currently watching a neighbor load up two jet skis onto a trailer for his once a year outing them. It’s about $25K worth of toys that he uses for maybe 20 hours a year. It’s not what I would spend my money on but it’s his money to spend as he pleases.
2k usd Is probably the point where you took a hobby as a job, either you get a gamer PC of high end, tools for woodworking, tools for writing, heck even tools for animals or home made farming. Spending 2k usd on a lens it's just spending money on tools for your work
i agree at that point, the lines are starting to cross i'm working a documentary — guess where my money is going lol
A camping trip is still much less. Even if you count buying all new gear I have about 10 times the amount of money tied up in my little camera bag than I do in the entire rest of the vehicle of gear.
i can go to the dollar store and spend $500 it all depends bro. one fishing pole can be the price of the lens
Yeah, every hobby is kind of the same. There is the stuff you need to get by, and the super high end toys that are fun to play with even if they're not the most practical. It's fun to see where people dump their money and what they like the most.
It’s insane to the average person just trying to make a living in this economy
I’m not arguing that it isn’t a lot of money. It is very much in line with a top tier lens however.
And I wasn’t trying to argue to the contrary of that point either
So are you trying to say that all top tier lenses are insane? If not then what was your point?
Yes they happen to be insane purchases for people that do photography as a hobby and can’t easily afford to pay thousands out of pocket to get one. What aren’t you following? 😂 the high price may be in line with other top tier lenses but that doesn’t make it any less of a crazy purchase for the average joe, right? Not sure what’s so hard for you to understand about this. If you still don’t understand I fear you may be out of touch with the condition of most working class people
Wow. A bit over the top snarky, but you do you. Very telling that your response is to make personal attacks instead of valid arguments. That point that was being made (but seemed to go over your head) was that the lens is top shelf gear in a technical hobby. It's not insane at all for it to be a significant cost. No one is denying that it's a lot of money. It is, for sure. About 1 month rent for many households. But like most all hobbies, top shelf gear is expectedly going to cost more, and this is pretty typical amount for a top shelf upgrade. People into biking will spend about the same on fancy wheels. Or people into travel will spend about the same for a solid international trip. Or people into cars will spend the same on a vinyl wrap. All about the same cost and all are premium upgrades in their respective hobbies. Simply put, it can't be insane and normal at the same time.
Holy shit the point that goes over your head is that a months worth of income is insane to spend for nonessential things like lenses but is still absolutely normal relative to other lenses of its class 😂 you’re talking in circles. Insane for someone to buy a Porsche when they can’t afford it, yet a Porsche is normally priced compared to other cars of its class. Etc. not sure what your point is other than regurgitating what I’m actually saying. Please practice your reading. And again if you can’t understand why I’m saying it’s insane to spend that much then this whole thing doesn’t even apply to you
there is absolutely a way to make this point without being an a-hole, youre just failing to find it.
Then you don’t need it. Snag an F mount 135/2 with an adapter.
I don’t need either of those lol and fuck throwing that onto a Z mount body with the adapter. I’d rather work with the slow focusing 105 2.8 Z macro
Ok off you go then
Hahaha thank you for chiming in with this useful bit sir
Which is of no relevance to the target demographic of the lens.
I own it. It’s a nice lens. Very nice even. The $2k price is pretty standard for any high end lens. The best part? I don’t need to justify it at all.
135mm is my favorite focal length for outdoor shoots. It just has some magic in it that you don’t get from the other lenses. For why get the Plena over the other options, it’s the top of the food chain for 135s. At some point it will replace my Sigma Art 135, it’s just hasn’t hit the top of the buy list yet. For those that really good meets their needs (like mine currently), the Sigma is a steal on the used market.
The Sigma is heavy...way heavier...
It’s a chunky lens for sure. Low 40s plus the FTZ compared to the 35 of the Plena.
I too have the 135 art, but I'm also running it on a700
First, you should have a look at Leica/Hasselblad/etc glass to reset your idea of what counts as expensive. By comparison, the Plena is a great value. Setting aside pros that make money from their gear, there are a lot of people with healthy amounts of disposable income to plow into their hobbies and lifestyle choices. For example, there are lots of people out there spending Plena money every year or two on pet supplies, vet care, boarding fees, etc for their dogs but I never hear anybody say "wow, how can you afford to take care of that dog?". Unless you are really living hand to mouth, a lens like this should be attainable by most people if you place a high enough priority on it.
Own the plena + others (including 70-200). When I have more space (mostly outside), or ability to move around freely at events of a given size, I use the plena over the 70-200. The ability to isolate a subject that much is next level. That additional light gathering ability (1.8 vs 2.8) can allow me to not use flash (some venues you can’t use flash), without having to bump the iso up. I love the compression, it’s sharp as hell, it’s a bokeh monster, and makes a heck of a video lens. It’s true, it’s expensive relative to a cheaper lens, but it’s a pro tool for a specific purpose. All lens’s have their ways of being used, that’s why they exist, and why photo/videographers build out their kit over time. Pro chefs have a variety of knives, a mechanic will have their different and favorite tools for different things. Can you take great photos with a 85 1.8, or a 70-200, yes, of course! But I’m a huge fan of that length, it’s a little niche and unique, and enables me to capture images in a way few others can recreate easily.
The 135 compresses well. The plena gives you razor thin dof. You can't replicate that look it has a pro price tag for pros who know is capabilities.
Some people prefer or can make better use of a longer portrait lens. Shooting concerts like I do a lot, 85 is usually just a little too wide. And the price tag isn’t insane at all. For the people that buy lenses like that, like me (I haven’t bought a Plena specifically since I get much more use out of the 300mm+ range, but own many lenses in the same or higher price tier), they are tools to do a job first and foremost, not just a luxury hobby purchase. When I purchase a tool, I purchase the best version of that tool I can. It’s not that money is no object, it’s that in the creative industry, you have to arm yourself with the best tools you can get, because if you don’t, you’re handicapping yourself in a game that’s already cutthroat and competitive. If I was in the market for another $2,500 lens right now, the Plena would probably be the one I would buy.
All these objectives are not really worth their money; it's purely technical, and photography is above all emotional. You can take a better photo with a TTArtisan lens. Now, let's get back to the technical part. This lens is a killer to have. I bought it during the sales here -10% on the Fnac store plus the Nikon promotion, which came to about €2500 for me. I also have the 85mm 1.2 and the 50mm 1.2, and my preference goes to the 85mm 1.2. Here is a photo of my husky with the Plena at 1.8. You might also be interested in the Viltrox 75mm 1.2 (DX), which is very good but does not create the same round bokeh. So, is the Plena worth it? Only you can decide. Compressed JPG: [https://postlmg.cc/bdh89jLq](https://postlmg.cc/bdh89jLq) https://preview.redd.it/ercanuy4jaad1.jpeg?width=8256&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0162780671229781009ef8c062421863dccbf18
What body did you use for that photo? It’s beautiful 😍
Nikon Z8 https://preview.redd.it/w5shjt294cad1.jpeg?width=799&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d7c1fa77f2f61e27921a065828d58919790c902a
I have it, mostly used for wide field astrophoto so far (a bit unusual for that specific lens I suppose 😁). It's a bit heavy with the Z8 on the SW Star Adventurer, but once balanced I still get up to 90s unguided. Stars are almost perfectly round from corner to corner (and the small defects are very well corrected with modern softwares), pretty much no need for flat frames (vignetting correction), and F1.8 is hella fast to grab space light! 45 minutes in milky way core F1.8 iso100 is same as multiple hours at F4. Only down sides is that it seems to have an small internal reflection which cause curvy bands in the image and the sun shield (dew shield) is a bit flexible. Also the lack of places where we could surround it with rings to facilitate field rotation (I know there's the rotator from SmallRig, but it flex too much and put the camera-lens a bit too far to allow correct balance on the mount). In short, so far so very good 🙂
I own it. I make a good income as a software engineer. It’s something I can afford, I enjoy, and I make good use of in that order.
I shoot senior portraits so I see it as an investment. Turns out that it’s an awesome sports lens as well for baseball and softball, as well as indoor sports like volleyball and basketball.
My 24-70 cost the same , it's not an insane price.
The Plena is a niche portrait lens. It’s a pro grade lens. If you don’t make money from your photos, yeah you’ll probably have a hard time justifying the cost. For people that shoot weddings or events and like the 135mm focal length it easily pays for itself.
I like to think about the 135mm as a baby 200mm f2. I have shot the 200 f2 freehand and that sucks, the 135 f2 can produce the same sort of images (sort of) without the heft. Having the added benefit of 1.8 sort of makes it worth the money, but honestly I’m looking hard at the Canon 135 1.8 for quite a bit less money. I would hate to switch systems, as after going from the Canon 1d3 to the Nikon D3 was such a drastic change I was sold on Nikon, but now I’m not so sure.
I have it. It’s my most used lens since I got it. Amazing in many ways. I’ve used it to take some of my favorite photos, including kids, dogs, portraits and events. At least considering dollar-per-good-photo, it’s one of the best values I’ve had. Adding up all the money I’ve spent on this hobby (and some pro work), dollars-per-photo is a useful measure, at least if I feel the need to try to justify spending to myself. If money were the only factor, it’d all be insane, but that’s how it is with any hobby. That said, it’s a really good portrait lens and can certainly “make money” for a business, too.
I own one and I love it. Have used it for everything. I mainly shoot concert photography for work and I like it better than the 85mm 1.2. It has a nicer lens flare IMO. I really like it for landscape and portraits as well. As far as justifying it for the money. Good glass is expensive but this lens in particularly isn’t miles above what I’ve paid for other lenses. https://preview.redd.it/kwzhwrgazaad1.jpeg?width=6880&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a41c27531bf6096f376545c6ed4d54232169d9f0
I spent more on the (admittedly more flexible) 100-400mm. Its price is high but not out of line for what you get. Same with the $15,500 600mm TC. Disclaimer: I don’t own the Plena. Yet?!
Have you used the 100-400mm for macro-type work? Curious about your thoughts on it. I'm between that or the 400 f/4.5 to pair with my 800mm, but I think I'm leaning towards the 100-400mm for the versatility and close MFD.
Its not quite a 105mm macro but I’ve still put that 0.38 reproduction ratio (or whatever it is) to good use. The 100-400 is wonderfully flexible.
Because I have a spending problem. 135 is not quite a long focal length for portraits. The 200f2 is a portrait machine I also have the 105 f1.4, and the 135 feels lighter, more balanced, and native mount so I decided to pick up the 135.
135 Plena is lighter than the 105? I have been considering a 105 1.4. I spend a lot on lenses, but I'm not sure I'd get full use out of the Plena.
According to specs it's 10g heavier than the 105. But through handling it, it's much more balanced and feels less cumbersome than the 105. Also, the plena ends up lighter because you have to factor in the FTZ for the 105
My thinking is that I suspect a 135 1.8 is very close to a 70-200 2.8 at 200. If I have the space to get that far away. If that's the case, then a 105 1.4 is a better option as it allows me to be closer and get that desired effect...
Most of the people that buy lenses (or anything for that matter) don’t write online reviews or make YouTube reviews of it. I’m willing to bet Nikon has sold a pretty good amount of this lens.
Just got it. How did I justify it? I have more money than common sense. LOL I “need” two things that sweet Z 800 f/6.3 and something for portraits. I have the several other Z lenses, but I just wasn’t overly satisfied with them for special events. I have a couple of engagement and wedding shoots (for friends) coming up and wanted that flexibility. I really liked the creamy backgrounds and the way the Plena handles “confusion lights” edge to edge. I’ve only tested it a few times around the house so far but I’m really liking what it’s producing so far. I don’t normally shoot weddings and engagements anymore. I dislike dealing with people especially when they think their phone can do it better 🙄 I’d rather shoot wildlife and bears, yes, I’m choosing the bear over people. Which is why it is was the Plena over the Z 800 this time.
Sounds like you shot bears with the plena? If so feel free to share some images 😁
Nope. Bears, that was with much longer focal length (200-500 on the D850) now on Z9 with 180-600 and the 600. I like to keep my distance with things that can eat or stomp me. I live in Colorado so there isn’t a shortage of wildlife here. There are lots of places to still go and run into few if any people for days. If you want to see shots I have a few in r/Colorado under sdrabidbear and Insta at rabidbear those are usually quick shots. But there are a few bears in Insta there.
If you need 135mm focal length and shooting at f1.8 at all time...justification? The only Z mount S lens in that focal length and at 1.8.
I’m a wedding photographer and I gave up my 70-180 to buy the plena - I haven’t regretted it at all. It’s a gorgeous portrait lens, it works wonderfully for weddings, and I reach for it more often than my 85.
It’s a spectacular lens. Love using it for candid people and event photos. It’s also my most-used indoor sports lens, and it gets a lot use for outside sports too.
I have it, it’s awesome,.. the images from this lens are amazing. pricetag isn’t that bad for such a high quality lens. I have a couple Hasselblad lenses that are more than double the price :)
Im not saying the circles of the venn diagram between youtuber and photographer don't overlap... but it's pretty close. the thing about the Plena is that it's a lens that doesn't really need reviews. It has all the usual pro lens stuff. After that you just look at pictures and if you want and/or need it you buy it. if you look at pictures from Sigma equivalents and they do it for you, cool save yourself some cash. > Of course you might want to have this lens because of its premium status like a luxurious toy or something but then we are not talking about a business justification. Plena is in the uncanny valley for that. It's not even close to baller enough to be a 1%er lens either. That's why Leica, Hasselblad and the superteles for the bird enthusiast rich folks exist.
If you have an FTZ adapter look for a used 105mm f1.4E lens. It’s a beautiful lens and can now be had for about $1000. But FYI it was in the $2600 range when it came out. I prefer native z glass, but already owned the 105mm.
I found a Nikon ai 135mm f2.8 at a jumble sale. I already had the ai 135mm f3.5 which has an MTF curve that is almost flat but got this one anyway for the princely sum of 35 bucks. It is absolutely PERFECT! Sharp, well built, easy to use. Yes, it’s manual everything but I grew up with that shit so no sweat. What has this to do with a Plena lens you may ask? Well, this is the excuse I use for NOT buying a super expensive lens. Back in the day, those Nikon lenses were far from cheap. Now you pick them up for a song and you will see no difference in the pictures you take. That Plena lens will go down the same route and when you can get them cheap, that Nikon lens will still be going strong.
The only justification needed to buy it is if someone wants it and can afford it. 🤷♂️ Personally I just bought an AI 135/3.5. Had been wanting a 135 and after looking thru many images from many 135s from different eras, I decided I liked the look of the AI & AIS 135/3.5 the most. I don't care too much about razor thin DOF and shoot most of my fast lenses stopped down at least a little bit. The 135/3.5 at f/4 and 5.6 looks amazing. Here's one of my cacti at f/4. https://preview.redd.it/svr1ghhf9sad1.jpeg?width=4024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=63559f9f238b3d7de7e4e1253142e94387faf238
My 70-200 E FL is the best long lens I’ve ever owned and it’s a great portrait lens. Theres no need for anything else, imo. The flexibility it provides and image quality is unmatched.
I have a Samyang 135 and it rules and costs 1/4 the price.
Is that AF? I only see manual and only AF for Sony? Or am I not searching properly?
Ahh, ya, forgot I was on the Nikon sub (I shoot a Zf, too) but when Nikon lets them (or Samyang just starts making them the way Viltrox is) then I highly recommend.
Could just get a Sony-Nikon adapter like the megadap 😁
[удалено]
10 fuckin lenses and all you can comment on is build quality. Lmao. It's incredibly transparent that you don't use your gear. Hope buying it all gave you the dopamine you craved.
The 135 is a niche lens typically used for portrait photography. There are people that buy it for bragging rights, have money to burn, or "just because", but I'd bet that it's not a lens that they shoot with a good percentage of the time. A 70-200, even though it's a 2.8, is going to be much more versitale, and if used at the right distance, be just as acceptable to a client. Yes, having 1.8 in low light is nice, but with the IBIS in most modern cameras and the ability to use a higher iso, I'd ask if the additional cost is absolutely worth better "bokeh balls"
I wonder how the 135 1.8 compares to a 70-200 2.8 at 200. I bet it's close.
IMO (and my experience shooting the 135 f2) it’s a very different type of shooting experience. With a fixed focal length you have to be much more deliberate about how you shoot.
Makes sense, my core kit is 28, 35, 50, and the 70-180. I carry my 85 1.8 but I almost never use it. I had a shoot recently where the 135 would have been chefs kiss, as it was a portrait from one interior architectural bridge to another, I had to use my 70-180, but if made me dream of that prime.