I borrowed a 135mm /2.0 D AF DC from a friend, and boy is this a nice lens! I enjoyed playing with it for an afternoon, and using the de-focus (more a focus plane-shift control, really) was fascinating.
So I take a look-see, and notice there's also a 105mm version of this lens. I note that these are relatively old lenses (from 2006 and 2001, apparently), and neither has AFS or VR. Intriguing.
Has anyone compared these two lenses back to back? Any differences (other than focal length)to note?
(I already have a 105/2.8 G ED-IF Mico VR, so I was more interested in the 135 DC, unless it's noticeable worse.)
The 105 is said to be sharper, although frankly the 135 seems sharp enough for me. I have the 135 and I have no interest in having the shorter version.
The lenses are quite old designs. They date from 1990 (135/f2) and 1993 (105/f2), although they were updated in the mid-2000's to include D functionality. Otherwise, mechanically and optically, they're from the early 90's.
I've never found the 135/f2 to be lacking in terms of focus speed, although objectively it's probably not a quick lens. I personally have only found a lack of VR a couple of times. My portrait work is usually done in either daylight (when f/2 is far and away sufficient to get good shutter speeds) or with flash.
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
I had both until I replaced them with the Zeiss 135/2. I could not see any difference optically between these two lenses. As already stated, pick the focal length that works best for you. I preferred the 135mm focal length, as it provides a bit more telephoto compression and subject isolation. On the other hand, the 105 is lighter and a bit smaller, and works better in tight quarters.
Looking at your lens line up (some nice glass there!) the 135mm looks like the right fit for AF primes. I love mine and have the 105 Micro and 85 f1.4 going down the line which seems to cover the bases nicely.