# BEWARE: This thread will result in a serious case of poorness.



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

I cannot tell you how dangerous this thread and the section it is in is.

You have to see for yourself. Nikon only I'm afraid.

http://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=261618

I am in no way responsible for this.


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

... it's only how much? 

sorry, I can keep my fingers to myself on that one, the next on my list is the 50-135/2.8 SDM, which is around £1000 new.....

Bret


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

Oh i know it's a fortune but :doublesho:argie:.

Next on my list is a 135 f2.8 EYEMIK completely manual focus lens for £20 as it's all i can afford. What i want is an 85mm f1.8/4 but anything 85mm is STUPID money.


----------



## Pezza4u (Jun 7, 2007)

Those photos are awesome but the cost of that lenses! :doublesho

I can't even afford a 35mm f1.8 one ATM!


----------



## The_Bouncer (Nov 24, 2010)

I'll stick with my Sony DSC V1 - perfect for what I want it for :thumb: - take good pics and shutter spreed is awesome


----------



## johnnyguitar (Mar 24, 2010)

Hell's bells that is a nice lens.
I daren't look at how much it costs but assume from the responses I can't get one in Argos.


----------



## Mick (Jan 23, 2010)

for anyone curious enough as to rough costs, look no further!


----------



## alan hanson (May 21, 2008)

jesus, appreciate what it does, and i suppose its like a 7k tub of wax to some dealers but wow i didnt think lenses could get that expensive


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

3k is reasonable, really; dropping 1k on a lens is *not* an issue - the 2.8IS 70-200 from Canon is around 1.5 and - as I said - I'm looking at a 1k lens next and the one following on from that is either a 300/f4 at 800 or a 60-250 at 1.5k. A Pentax 200* macro - which is not available new - might go for even more.

@gruff: Decent 85s are very hard to come by, I agree - try the samyang, it has decent reviews. Yes, it's MF, which means you can forget people photography at anything below f8 as they move too much with the minimal DoF, but the rest should be pretty damned tasty.

This is where I like my Pentax lenses - my M 135/3.5 cost me €50 and it's tack sharp when focussed properly. The 28 is even better;









^^ from my 9-year-old, with the K10D, out of the window, prefocussed 28/3.5 at f8.

Don't discount the older stuff, just because it's manual!

Bret


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

I started with a manual nifty, i'm not discounting them.

I'm hoping the 135 will give me some perspective on a longer focal length at f2.8-3.5 which my 55-200 (which i think is fubar-ed anyway) can't give me. I have a feeling it will be too long but we'll see. 

I'm not worried about manually focussing, i want decent subject separation, lovely colour rendering and beautiful OOF areas. That costs no matter how you focus the lens. The Samyang is £250 (which i know is not a lot for glass. But, It's still a lot).


----------



## bretti_kivi (Apr 22, 2008)

Gruffs said:


> I started with a manual nifty, i'm not discounting them.
> 
> I'm hoping the 135 will give me some perspective on a longer focal length at f2.8-3.5 which my 55-200 (which i think is fubar-ed anyway) can't give me. I have a feeling it will be too long but we'll see.
> 
> I'm not worried about manually focussing, i want decent subject separation, lovely colour rendering and beautiful OOF areas. That costs no matter how you focus the lens. The Samyang is £250 (which i know is not a lot for glass. But, It's still a lot).


I'm pleasantly surprised by some of the portraits in the originally linked thread, as they are more natural than I would have thought.

135 is a great length to have in the bag. If I've got it right, the FoV is around the same as your fingers in a C shape at arms length. 2.8 vs 3.5 is only half a stop and I don't think you'll ever use it wide open (old lenses tend to improve more significantly than their newer counterparts as you stop down towards f8) so if there's a cost factor, go for the slightly slower lens.

The 135 will give you the seperation and OOF, but and older one might not give you the colours you want as time may have taken its toll on the coatings.

You *can* also do landscapes with a 135 - this was with mine:










Mifsuds have a couple of used Nikon MF 135s in - did you comb the used departments yet?

Bret


----------



## Ebbe J (Jun 18, 2008)

Next glass update for Nikon SHOULD be the 135 F/2, nearly everything else has been updated now, including the 200 F/2. 

I have the 35 F/1.4G and the 85 F/1.4G, both very good lenses, but I'm considering to get the 24 F/1.4G too, it's a great focal length for cars and landscapes.


Kind regards,

Ebbe


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

bretti_kivi said:


> I'm pleasantly surprised by some of the portraits in the originally linked thread, as they are more natural than I would have thought.
> 
> 135 is a great length to have in the bag. If I've got it right, the FoV is around the same as your fingers in a C shape at arms length. 2.8 vs 3.5 is only half a stop and I don't think you'll ever use it wide open (old lenses tend to improve more significantly than their newer counterparts as you stop down towards f8) so if there's a cost factor, go for the slightly slower lens.
> 
> ...


Lovely landscape image ^^.

I am not expecting much from this EYEKMIK if I'm honest. It's an evaluation of the focal length more than anything. I know that the AF-S 35mm f1.8 is cracking as i have it. It is just a bit intrusive for anything less than 3/4 portrait but it is lovely as a general lens.

I'm looking for that sort of quality in a longer focal length really. I don't want to spring for a Nikkor 135 if i really should have bought the 85.

The 70-200/2.8 would suit me fine but that is mega bucks. But, Until i start making money out of this, I'm going to have to make do.


----------

