AF or MF

Randall Cottrell 10:05pm, 16 February 2009
i'm thinking of consolidating a lot of my gear and building an arsenal of primes.

the biggest purchase i'm eying up is the nikon 135mm f/2D.

this lens goes for over 1k new and i can't seem to find any new ones anywhere.

on the other hand, the older nikon 135mm f/2.8 mf lenses go for just a few hundo on ebay.

do you think the newer AF version is worth the extra $ over the older MF lens?

ebay search
JustinSinks 9 years ago
I guess thats up to you and your shooting style. Do you MF a lot? Or do you rely on AF?
Karl W. 9 years ago
well if your going to spend a few hundred you might as well go with the af, even though it's many more hundred. The glass I think would probably be more well suited to digital and you'll want to use that lens for band shots probably, so af would be really nice. "unless you become a focusing master"
Randall Cottrell 9 years ago
i'd be using it for portraits, mostly
Hambone Lewinski 9 years ago
AF/ MF? Fuggedaboutit. Go FF!

duluthiscool 9 years ago
portraits don't typically move to fast. at least... not as fast as a soccer game...

does that help?
Drew C 9 years ago
check out the 105 2.5... manual focus.. still relatively cheap and super sharp...
Randall Cottrell 9 years ago
is the 105 sharper than the 135mf?
Drew C Posted 9 years ago. Edited by Drew C (moderator) 9 years ago
a very respected nikon glass reviewer Bjorn Rorslett has his opinions here..

click lenses... then 'i know there is all to know' then find your way to the 'medium long' page...

as you will see the versions of 105 2.5's got 4.5's and 5's... 5 is of course considered about as good as it gets...

much higher marks than the 135...
Groups Beta