I recently acquired the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II “super lens.”  After shooting mostly with prime lenses over the past couple years I feel a sense of power holding it in my hand.  It almost screams, “I can shoot anything!”  I also own the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC lens which is a very specialized portrait lens with some unique capabilities (see below).  I love it for different reasons mostly related to its unique rendering of subjects and it’s dreamy qualities.  Because it overlaps the focal length range of the 70-200 many people make the decision to own one or the other.  With the advent of these powerful zooms the primes in that range have been neglected and forgotten by many.  I was recently asked by another 135 owner whether I felt he should sell his 135mm f/2 and 180mm f/2.8 and replace them with the 70-200. The size, weight, and cost differences are obvious.  The 70-200 is relatively heavy, very expensive, awkward to carry, and draws stares but otherwise is highly regarded as a piece of glass that does everything well.  Autofocus is very fast, the vibration reduction is fantastic and can give you sharp shots at very slow shutter speeds, and the overall consensus is that it is very sharp wide open.  The 135 on the other hand is light and convenient to carry by comparison and costs about $1000 less.  The opinions on this lens however vary greatly. It is one of the oldest lenses in the Nikon line up and was designed during the film days. Due to its unique design (which includes the defocus control ability) it can have issues on modern DSLR’s. Many reviewers claim that it is one of Nikon’s sharpest lenses while others are extremely frustrated by it (mostly due to focus issues) and claim that it is soft below f/4. I have certainly experienced frustration with mine in the past (which may be the subject of a future post) but I am currently very happy with it and love the results I get from it. It can produce beautiful, dreamy images that few other lenses can match. However, to help fully answer the original question I decided to setup a couple tests to show the optical differences between the two and to see what one might be losing by having only one or the other. My main goal was to compare sharpness (to see whether the “soft” label applied to the 135 was justified) and also the character of out-of-focus backgrounds. This post is part one. See part two here which is a bit more interesting in my opinion.

This first test was done to show the character of out-of-focus highlights (a Christmas tree). All the photos were taken with a D700 on a tripod at the apertures indicated and ISO 200. The shutter speed varied to get correct exposure and the 70-200 was zoomed to 135mm (verified in Lightroom). Take a look and I’ll give you my findings below. Captions are below each image.

PausePlayPlayPrev|Next

70-200mm VR II at f/2.8

135mm f/2 DC at f/2.8

135mm f/2 DC at f/2

My conclusions:

• The 70-200 clearly demonstrates a high degree of contrast
• The out of focus highlights start to show the shape of the aperture blades at f/2.8 on the 135 lens (which is expected as it is stopped down) but the circles are larger in the 135mm image.
• There’s quite a difference between f/2.8 and f/2 on the 135. I’d hate to give that up.

See part two for my final assessment which includes a better test of subject sharpness and also character of a “normal” out of focus background.