Nikon 135 5,6 performance and alternatives

**Luca Merlo** · 1-Dec-2007, 15:12

I own a Nikon 135/5,6 and I am quite happy of its performance when shooting 4x5 B&W. I know that this is quite a "controversial" lens since some people like its performance and some others consider it quite a "poor quality" lens. I was wondering if there is any better alternative to this lens in the same range of focal 120-135 for B&W. What I am looking is also quite a light lens.....

**Ted Harris** · 1-Dec-2007, 15:24

Luca,

I can't recall hearing any call that lens poor quality. The lens is a plasmat design and generally speaking, a plasmat from any one the 'big four' will perform about the same as one from any one of the others. I have noticed a very slight bit less contrast in the Nikon v. the Schneider or Rodenstock but it disappears if you stop down the Nikkor a half stop. So, no, unless you want to go with the Rodenstock Sironar-S which is in another league, keep the Nikkor. You won't notice any difference in a Sironar-N, Schneider Apo Symmar (don't know about the L) or Fuji CMW. The Sironar-S is smaller but AFAIK the others are about the same size.

**Brian Ellis** · 1-Dec-2007, 18:10

I've never heard that this lens is anything but excellent. I owned one and convinced myself that the 135 mm Rodenstock APO Sironar S would be a better choice after reading a magazine article that extolled the virtues of the Sironar S. So I sold the Nikon and bought the Rodenstock. I haven't seen any difference in performance, the Nikon is an excellent lens, I'm sorry I sold it.