I prefer the look of the 200 F2, but for all the reasons you stated, the Plena is a great choice. I would love to see the Plena vs Zeiss 135mm F2. Used mine this weekend and loved the results of the in-focus shots.
another great vid. i was rooting for the 200mm, but theni caught myself--- i dont own the 200mm, but i have seen so many of your videos i felt like i do. thanks Matt.
I have both and I love both. The thing with the 200mm is that it's heavy. I could manage to do a 5 hour event with it, but... the plena is more convenient in that regard. However the images from the 200mm are simply unrivaled...
Great portraits all around, Matt! I'll go against the trend here and say that I prefer the more modern image quality of the 135 Plena for its colour rendition, 3-D pop, (micro) contrast and definitely for its sharpness and possibly resolving power that is in no way clinical, all of which make the 200 f2 look a bit old fashionedly mushy at times, especially in the shadows of back and rim light. Add to that the Plena's ability to easier include more background if wanted whilst still possessing a truly amazing bokeh and background obliteration capability, plus its superior portability and lower price, and there you go: Plena it is.
i own the 200 f2. i love it and probably will keep it forever as one of the F mount collections. the 135 plena is much more mobile and easy to pose and carry and bokeh is also nice. not as good but close enough. i look forward to add it to pair with z8. nice video.
Well, back for more - and smiling because I had the last comment 7 months ago. So I've now shot the 200mm f/2 for indoor sports (even though a zoom is more flexible) and outdoors for portraits - both wide open and stopped down (usually on a monopod on the Z9). I know why you fell in love with this lens. I can not really see myself getting the 135mm f/1.8 PLENA at this point unless things change, but, I was curious about a few things you didn't show or talk about in the video. 1: Did you miss the VR of the 200mm f/2 - and my image stopped jumping with VR on sport. 2. I found shooting the 200mm f/2 stopped down even to f/7.1 - with good distance to subject and subject to background - for environmental portraits - that the smooth transitions even at f/7.1 were surprising - and the background wasn't lost into a melted sea of butter. Your experience with the PLENA when stopped down that much? Background transitions as smooth and seamless? Thanks as always, Matt. You're still the only one to do this comparison that I know of. Cheers.
Of course it all depends on the usecase. For me personally I am a 85 guy and love my 1.2 but the Plena has a slightly different look - the only problem I have is, that I have to step back more often. I sold the 200 and regret it - until I got my Plena, which is so much more manageable.
If you want to use the full potential of these low f lenses you are gonna need a high mega pixel camera. When you take 1.8 at 135mm or 2.0 at 200mm photos you have to take some distance from your subject in order to keep it all in focus,and then crop your photos in post precessing to make subject fill the frame a bit more.(and not ending up with a small photo) So, if you have a 24-megapixel cam a 70-200 f/2.8 or 70-180 f/2.8 will work better for you
Just my opinion - but give me the more versatile 70 - 200 2.8 any day! With so much ending up as small images on social media, your average customer wouldn't know the difference between 1.2 & f4
Thanks for the review and also for including your opinion. I will say that something that the 200mm has for it is compression, if one wants to close the aperture and show the city behind it (think NYC from Jersey ) a 200mm will do better, but if I am going to close the aperture anyway I will probably grab the 70-200 f2.8 and be done with it. I will say for people like me, the plena at 2300$ is the opportunity to get a legendary quality lens for "cheap"
Hard to give my opinion on this since I only own the 200mm f2 (and had asked you to compare these two - so thank you). I agree with your analysis here - based on the movement of the image on the 200mm f2, size, weight, price - and the difference in images and when one might work better than the other. Since owning the 200mm f2 (based off of your love for it and my need for fast indoor prime with this focal length), I'd agree that based on the images I've seen thus far, the 200mm "cleans up the background" a bit more - for better or worse depending on ones desire to include or exclude it. I suppose I'll try one out at my local camera store (135mm f1.8 PLENA) and test it out for myself. It's also hard for me to justify having both and I've fallen in love with the images of the 200mm. Thanks for taking the time to do this, Matt. Thank Honey and Felicia as well.
This is a good comparo...I have a 200 f/2.0 and a Plena, and use the 135 for a variety of different assignments other than portraits...sports mainly. It is a phenomenal lens, and as you noted, the size and weight difference means the Plena will get out on more assignments. Having said that, the 200 remains the gold standard for portraits. Clearly one of the best lenses Nikon has produced. Well done.
I'm already shooting the Sigma 135 1.8 Art, it is awesome, but still cant be used as often as my 50 85 or 105mm lenses due to the extended working distance. In situations where 200mm could be used, a 70-200 2.8 FL would bridge the gap and offer more flexibility for less $ and if i don't need to communicate with the subject at all, my 300mm f4 would dissolve and separate the background while leaving budget for a whole other lens or a trip to go use them on! I'm not buying a Plena or 200 f2 even if side by side shows even the slightest advantage over the Sigma 135 1.8 Art and highly recommend it to anyone shopping this range.
@@bharathak9839 yeah. I don't have budget to migrate to Z mount right now. All my old lenses and camera are still F mount. I want both of the lenses for sure, but I can't afford 😄
Another great job Mr Granger! I can tell that you naturally compose with ease using the 200 and your just a great photographer on the 135. After seeing this I would choose the 135. The reason is, 135 you can crop down to 200 with all those megapixels but you cannot crop up with the 200. So you can (sort of) have the best of both worlds with the 135. I would say the 200 was the King in the (lower IQ sensor) past though.
what do you mean you cannot crop with the 200mm? you put your z9 on crop mode, and you get a 300mm f2 20mp+ image. cropping should never be a factor when deciding lenses, only when deciding camera bodies. I am sorry, but I found your argument nonsensical.
A minor point perhaps but the 200mm F2 is a discontinued lens as far as I know and the first generation is no longer supported by Nikon (but the VRII version still is). This being the case, the 135 has a longer life ahead of it but I do not think that the 200 F2 is unreliable, far from it as it appears to be very robust and was built for professionals to be reliable and dependable. I am considering getting a 135 for all the reasons you cite. It also means that I won't likely pick up a replacement F mount 105mm F1.4.
Good video. I own the 85/1.2 and the Plena, love them both. Do not own the 200/2, mostly due to cost and weight. I'm a senior and now I wish Nikon will make some smaller lenses. As long as IQ is good, it does not have to be ultimately the best (for me). There's a lot of tools I can use in post that can help. Being also the owner of the 24-70/2, 70-200/2, 400/4.5 and the 180-600, some smaller lens choices would be most welcome, for me anyway. Thanks again.
I hope they can make a fast 100mm with the specs of the 135mm. I was shooting a play the 135mm I had was way to big for my position. The 85mm was to short. I wished I had a 100mm. I didn’t do a zoom with an f2.8 because I wanted the shallow depth of field of an f2.0 lens.
Cool lens comparison, both have very good images of two beautiful models and Felicia with a wonderful smile. Very funny "Dinnsaur" joke, it's great to have a sense of humor. Great video.
Thanks for the samples. You nailed focus more on the 135 and overall the lens rendered greater sharpness, though I still prefer the images from the 200. They have much more organic look to them images and preserved subtlety in the skin details. The 135 almost seems too sharp the point it almost makes aliasing an issue. Pixel peeping of course. But the 200 sure is a chonker of a lens so I'd prob opt for the 135 to carry around.
Had 200 f/2 with my Z9 it was impractically heavy, it's more for niche or specific shoot. Been waiting for a baby 200 f/2 counterpart, thought of getting 105 1.4 F mount but tired of dealing with the FTZ adapter, I'll be getting the Plena.
Great equipment video as always, Matt. I also wanted to mention, off topic, that you're looking great what with being still all slim and trim and especially with the cool hat. It's almost as cool as the horned hat. 😎
I love the 200 f2... the rendering and the pop...wow...the depth perception within the sharp part (DOF) is way greater than the rather "flat" looking sharp part of the Plena... I think It comes down to the count of the elements used 13 vs 16... and probably all the corrective optimizations of the elemnts that kill CA and such... while doing so they kill the contrast/clarity within the depth of field, the 3d pop goes away...... thats why the 135 f2 or the even older 180 f2,8 really shine .... All faults of the old lenses go away if you stop them down a bit, and putting your subject a little ( and it is really only a few feet!) they still render better pictures....
This was a predictable result after the 85mm vs 105mm vs 135mm comparison. The Nikon 200mm f/2 is one of the most specialized lenses. A half-dozen to a dozen years ago, it made sense for portraits. Since then, the 105mm f/1.4E, the 70-200mm f/2.8 S, and now the 135mm f/1.8 Plena make it less unique. Its real strength is indoor sports. The only thing it does for someone like me is to keep the Plena off my wish list. 😂
this is very pointless.sigma 135 can have harsh bokeh at full body distances. best cheap option witout this flaw would be an adapted samyang 135 1.8 FE. or wait & see what the viltrox will do
Of course it can, as long as you are ok using manual focus. I have a Z6II, a ZF and a Z9, and quite many AF-D lenses, and they do indeed work very well on the Z-bodies, in MF mode. Especially on the ZF with its eye-detect MF mode. @@vincentvdb3151
Nikon z 135mm is waay too clinical, i still prefer the look of nikon afs 58mm or 105mm f1.4 that has a lot of character in terms of rendering, especialy the bokeh
All of your 200mm f/2 photos are shot at 1/400th of a second, and none of them are sharp. All of the "comparable" photos from the 135mm are shot at 1/1250th to give the impression the lens is that much sharper. You can see it in the eyebrows that you weren't even close to taking sharp photos with the 200mm f/2. If you can't handhold a lens, use a monopod instead of trying to bull sheet people into buying the 135mm --- which is probably what you intend.
… I am surprised how unattractive the 135 mm images are. They look empty and cold next to the beautiful portraits produced by the 200/2. The 135mm is another triumph of artless rendering by Nikon technicians.
_Z911422.nef (200) and _Z911503.nef (135) shows what i was looking for : The plena has the edge over the 200. Same size of circles of comfusion at this distance, less vignetting, transitions are smoother. Also the 200 struggles on double structures. her left arm is not blured: it's doubled. the 135 doesn't do this. the 105E doesn't do this either. I think my 200 will go. the plena is the new 85 GM that never got its spirit into the 135 GM because "muh sharpness".
PINK FRIDAY DEALS: geni.us/PinkFriday
Sample Files: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/200vplena
NIKON Z EXPERT SETUP GUIDE: geni.us/ZFguide
I prefer the look of the 200 F2, but for all the reasons you stated, the Plena is a great choice. I would love to see the Plena vs Zeiss 135mm F2. Used mine this weekend and loved the results of the in-focus shots.
Brilliant Video. Just what i was looking for. Intend holding onto my 200f2 many years to come 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
another great vid. i was rooting for the 200mm, but theni caught myself--- i dont own the 200mm, but i have seen so many of your videos i felt like i do. thanks Matt.
I have both and I love both. The thing with the 200mm is that it's heavy. I could manage to do a 5 hour event with it, but... the plena is more convenient in that regard. However the images from the 200mm are simply unrivaled...
Great portraits all around, Matt!
I'll go against the trend here and say that I prefer the more modern image quality of the 135 Plena for its colour rendition, 3-D pop, (micro) contrast and definitely for its sharpness and possibly resolving power that is in no way clinical, all of which make the 200 f2 look a bit old fashionedly mushy at times, especially in the shadows of back and rim light. Add to that the Plena's ability to easier include more background if wanted whilst still possessing a truly amazing bokeh and background obliteration capability, plus its superior portability and lower price, and there you go: Plena it is.
i own the 200 f2. i love it and probably will keep it forever as one of the F mount collections. the 135 plena is much more mobile and easy to pose and carry and bokeh is also nice. not as good but close enough. i look forward to add it to pair with z8. nice video.
Well, back for more - and smiling because I had the last comment 7 months ago. So I've now shot the 200mm f/2 for indoor sports (even though a zoom is more flexible) and outdoors for portraits - both wide open and stopped down (usually on a monopod on the Z9). I know why you fell in love with this lens. I can not really see myself getting the 135mm f/1.8 PLENA at this point unless things change, but, I was curious about a few things you didn't show or talk about in the video. 1: Did you miss the VR of the 200mm f/2 - and my image stopped jumping with VR on sport. 2. I found shooting the 200mm f/2 stopped down even to f/7.1 - with good distance to subject and subject to background - for environmental portraits - that the smooth transitions even at f/7.1 were surprising - and the background wasn't lost into a melted sea of butter. Your experience with the PLENA when stopped down that much? Background transitions as smooth and seamless? Thanks as always, Matt. You're still the only one to do this comparison that I know of. Cheers.
Russel Crowe is the Plena. Great comparison! Thanks for doing this. Got the Plena after your review.
Of course it all depends on the usecase. For me personally I am a 85 guy and love my 1.2 but the Plena has a slightly different look - the only problem I have is, that I have to step back more often. I sold the 200 and regret it - until I got my Plena, which is so much more manageable.
Oooh I've been waiting for this shootout, awesome 👏🏻
135mm is one of my favorite focal lengths. You took some amazing pictures Matt!!
If you want to use the full potential of these low f lenses you are gonna need a high mega pixel camera.
When you take 1.8 at 135mm or 2.0 at 200mm photos you have to take some distance from your subject in order to keep it all in focus,and then crop your photos in post precessing to make subject fill the frame a bit more.(and not ending up with a small photo)
So, if you have a 24-megapixel cam a 70-200 f/2.8 or 70-180 f/2.8 will work better for you
Just my opinion - but give me the more versatile 70 - 200 2.8 any day! With so much ending up as small images on social media, your average customer wouldn't know the difference between 1.2 & f4
I bet the plena in crop mode is just as good visual... I own both 180mm and the 200mm
Not sure if I'm gonna buy the 135 but it's heavy on my mind
Thanks for the review and also for including your opinion. I will say that something that the 200mm has for it is compression, if one wants to close the aperture and show the city behind it (think NYC from Jersey ) a 200mm will do better, but if I am going to close the aperture anyway I will probably grab the 70-200 f2.8 and be done with it. I will say for people like me, the plena at 2300$ is the opportunity to get a legendary quality lens for "cheap"
Hard to give my opinion on this since I only own the 200mm f2 (and had asked you to compare these two - so thank you). I agree with your analysis here - based on the movement of the image on the 200mm f2, size, weight, price - and the difference in images and when one might work better than the other. Since owning the 200mm f2 (based off of your love for it and my need for fast indoor prime with this focal length), I'd agree that based on the images I've seen thus far, the 200mm "cleans up the background" a bit more - for better or worse depending on ones desire to include or exclude it. I suppose I'll try one out at my local camera store (135mm f1.8 PLENA) and test it out for myself. It's also hard for me to justify having both and I've fallen in love with the images of the 200mm. Thanks for taking the time to do this, Matt. Thank Honey and Felicia as well.
This is a good comparo...I have a 200 f/2.0 and a Plena, and use the 135 for a variety of different assignments other than portraits...sports mainly. It is a phenomenal lens, and as you noted, the size and weight difference means the Plena will get out on more assignments. Having said that, the 200 remains the gold standard for portraits. Clearly one of the best lenses Nikon has produced. Well done.
Do you still think 200mm creates better images compared to plena. (Leaving aside weight, handling and distance)
@@bharathak9839 Better is subjective. I really like the look the 200 delivers. But better? Eye of the viewer.
I know nothing about either lens but we know to trust your judgement. Thhanks.
I'm already shooting the Sigma 135 1.8 Art, it is awesome, but still cant be used as often as my 50 85 or 105mm lenses due to the extended working distance. In situations where 200mm could be used, a 70-200 2.8 FL would bridge the gap and offer more flexibility for less $ and if i don't need to communicate with the subject at all, my 300mm f4 would dissolve and separate the background while leaving budget for a whole other lens or a trip to go use them on! I'm not buying a Plena or 200 f2 even if side by side shows even the slightest advantage over the Sigma 135 1.8 Art and highly recommend it to anyone shopping this range.
This was an amazing shoot. I love the performance of both lens. However, I would choose the 135mm
Great video and she is so incredibly toned 🤩🤩🤩
I gotta say, your 'big and bloated' comment gave me a good chuckle😂😂😂 good video.
200 f2 is still my forever wishlist and wishful thinking 😄
Do you still like to have 200mm over plena ?
@@bharathak9839 yeah. I don't have budget to migrate to Z mount right now. All my old lenses and camera are still F mount. I want both of the lenses for sure, but I can't afford 😄
Thank you for this video and amazing effort 🎉
Another great job Mr Granger! I can tell that you naturally compose with ease using the 200 and your just a great photographer on the 135. After seeing this I would choose the 135. The reason is, 135 you can crop down to 200 with all those megapixels but you cannot crop up with the 200. So you can (sort of) have the best of both worlds with the 135. I would say the 200 was the King in the (lower IQ sensor) past though.
what do you mean you cannot crop with the 200mm? you put your z9 on crop mode, and you get a 300mm f2 20mp+ image. cropping should never be a factor when deciding lenses, only when deciding camera bodies. I am sorry, but I found your argument nonsensical.
A minor point perhaps but the 200mm F2 is a discontinued lens as far as I know and the first generation is no longer supported by Nikon (but the VRII version still is). This being the case, the 135 has a longer life ahead of it but I do not think that the 200 F2 is unreliable, far from it as it appears to be very robust and was built for professionals to be reliable and dependable. I am considering getting a 135 for all the reasons you cite. It also means that I won't likely pick up a replacement F mount 105mm F1.4.
Good point. Cheers
Good video. I own the 85/1.2 and the Plena, love them both. Do not own the 200/2, mostly due to cost and weight. I'm a senior and now I wish Nikon will make some smaller lenses. As long as IQ is good, it does not have to be ultimately the best (for me). There's a lot of tools I can use in post that can help. Being also the owner of the 24-70/2, 70-200/2, 400/4.5 and the 180-600, some smaller lens choices would be most welcome, for me anyway. Thanks again.
So, i you would buy 1 lens between the 85 and 135 what would be?
I hope they can make a fast 100mm with the specs of the 135mm. I was shooting a play the 135mm I had was way to big for my position. The 85mm was to short. I wished I had a 100mm. I didn’t do a zoom with an f2.8 because I wanted the shallow depth of field of an f2.0 lens.
Cool lens comparison, both have very good images of two beautiful models and Felicia with a wonderful smile. Very funny "Dinnsaur" joke, it's great to have a sense of humor. Great video.
Thanks for the samples. You nailed focus more on the 135 and overall the lens rendered greater sharpness, though I still prefer the images from the 200. They have much more organic look to them images and preserved subtlety in the skin details. The 135 almost seems too sharp the point it almost makes aliasing an issue. Pixel peeping of course. But the 200 sure is a chonker of a lens so I'd prob opt for the 135 to carry around.
Had 200 f/2 with my Z9 it was impractically heavy, it's more for niche or specific shoot. Been waiting for a baby 200 f/2 counterpart, thought of getting 105 1.4 F mount but tired of dealing with the FTZ adapter, I'll be getting the Plena.
Enjoy
Nikon 200mm f2 is the best 👌🏾 😅
Such a great video!
Great equipment video as always, Matt. I also wanted to mention, off topic, that you're looking great what with being still all slim and trim and especially with the cool hat. It's almost as cool as the horned hat. 😎
Hahaha. Thank you Gene. Appreciate it mate
I love the 200 f2... the rendering and the pop...wow...the depth perception within the sharp part (DOF) is way greater than the rather "flat" looking sharp part of the Plena... I think It comes down to the count of the elements used 13 vs 16... and probably all the corrective optimizations of the elemnts that kill CA and such... while doing so they kill the contrast/clarity within the depth of field, the 3d pop goes away...... thats why the 135 f2 or the even older 180 f2,8 really shine .... All faults of the old lenses go away if you stop them down a bit, and putting your subject a little ( and it is really only a few feet!) they still render better pictures....
135mm in DX mode is 202mm! 🤔 Yes DX has a megapixel mentality but I would be very interested to see that comparison.
Just crop the samples files 👍🏼
This was a predictable result after the 85mm vs 105mm vs 135mm comparison. The Nikon 200mm f/2 is one of the most specialized lenses. A half-dozen to a dozen years ago, it made sense for portraits. Since then, the 105mm f/1.4E, the 70-200mm f/2.8 S, and now the 135mm f/1.8 Plena make it less unique. Its real strength is indoor sports. The only thing it does for someone like me is to keep the Plena off my wish list. 😂
Can you do a comparison real world shoot with the Nikkor Z 70-200mm F2.8....Nikkor F mount 70-200mm F2.8 and the new Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 Sport
Not much point comparing 3 different Mount lenses… very few people in all systems
Did you find the plena any sharper than the Z 85 or 50 1.2?
Is there much difference between focus Speed with the plena and 200 f2?
not a big difference
Nice session, was this location Cheung Chau?
Yes it was!
Can you do a shoot with similarly attractive guys?
Yep, I have done plenty of them. They tend to get much fewer views;
czcams.com/video/YKkDyj5t83o/video.html
Hi can you do sigma 135 vs Plena 135 ?
I will see.
@@mattgranger Thank you
this is very pointless.sigma 135 can have harsh bokeh at full body distances. best cheap option witout this flaw would be an adapted samyang 135 1.8 FE. or wait & see what the viltrox will do
@sebastiencaudmont8445 Thx for opinion, you don't have to watch it !
matt could you review the 200mm mikro nikkor f4 afd???? has some great bokeh that one 😍😍
It won't work on the Z cameras that lens unfortunately. The adapter doesn't have a built-in AF screwdriver motor.
AF-D lenses can't be attached to a Z mount body, not even with the FTZ ;-)
Don't have access to that lens sorry.
Of course it can, as long as you are ok using manual focus. I have a Z6II, a ZF and a Z9, and quite many AF-D lenses, and they do indeed work very well on the Z-bodies, in MF mode. Especially on the ZF with its eye-detect MF mode. @@vincentvdb3151
Nikon z 135mm is waay too clinical, i still prefer the look of nikon afs 58mm or 105mm f1.4 that has a lot of character in terms of rendering, especialy the bokeh
Nothing come close to 200mm f2.
A year ago I would have agreed.
except Sigma Art 105mm f1.4 😇
All of your 200mm f/2 photos are shot at 1/400th of a second, and none of them are sharp.
All of the "comparable" photos from the 135mm are shot at 1/1250th to give the impression the lens is that much sharper.
You can see it in the eyebrows that you weren't even close to taking sharp photos with the 200mm f/2.
If you can't handhold a lens, use a monopod instead of trying to bull sheet people into buying the 135mm --- which is probably what you intend.
Not my intention at all
Then you should send in your 200mm f2 for repair@@mattgranger --- because one of the internal elements has shifted.
… I am surprised how unattractive the 135 mm images are. They look empty and cold next to the beautiful portraits produced by the 200/2. The 135mm is another triumph of artless rendering by Nikon technicians.
Suggest to invest the money for the Plena 135mm better into BTC. Next year you can buy 10 of the Plena from the gain you make :)
Haha. Nope
_Z911422.nef (200) and _Z911503.nef (135) shows what i was looking for : The plena has the edge over the 200. Same size of circles of comfusion at this distance, less vignetting, transitions are smoother. Also the 200 struggles on double structures. her left arm is not blured: it's doubled. the 135 doesn't do this. the 105E doesn't do this either. I think my 200 will go. the plena is the new 85 GM that never got its spirit into the 135 GM because "muh sharpness".