Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
... I am using the Nikon 85 f/1.8G the Nikon DC 135 f/2.0 (just purchased) and the incredibly sharp Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8 which I just purchased new today to replace my other 180mm Nikon lens. I like having 2 of them...

Exactly!  Totally with you here... so funny i now have two copies of the amazing AF-D 180mm f/2.8... a fraction of the price of the oh so popular (and rather heavy 70-200mm VR II) this oft overlooked gem is feather light, razor sharp... so very small... it is now my go to... use it for sports/action also... see below... only caveat is a want of glass to protect the diaphragm in the rear... take care when it's uncapped... not best changing in a challenging environment... enough said... and yes it will flair (CA) when pointed directly into point source light but one easily works around this...

The DC 135 f/2.0 is magic... Was on a waiting list for six months to obtain mine... no other lens I've shot with has the potential to achieve such diversity of effects... Best yet it is razor sharp in the studio also... a lens of such wonderful versatility... see below... 

And yes the 85 f/1.8G is to be loved for it's incredible sharpness also being feather light as made it a lens of choice for location work... albeit my AF-D 85mm f/1.4 still is much loved for studio... seem to impart an esthetic that is difficult to explain...   

The AF-D 180mm for sports...


And the DC 135mm f/2.0 for beauty


So totally love what is possibly Nikon's finest fashion/beauty glass...

Thank you for sharing Benjamin... your wisdom is to be deeply respected...

Jim Lafferty wrote:
Nice shot. Interesting that you're doing nothing wider. I'm a huge fan of people like Akrans and Laurie Bartley (to say nothing of a ton of younger shooters working almost exclusively with a 24-70). My preference is for a much "closer" sense of things. How is it that you've decided to isolate and flatten a scene so much over everything else? Not a judgement statement, honestly curious.

I have several lenses for wider shooting. This is just my new approach to Fashion right now. I also have the excellent Nikon 24-120 VR f/4.0 lens as well as a 24, 28, 35 and 50mm fixed focal length lenses as well as the wonderful Tamron VC 70-300 lens. If you look at my portfolio at different stages, I have used lenses as wide as 16mm. It is just not in Fashion anywhere right now.

www.benjaminkanarek.com

Select Models wrote:
Impressive work BK... Nikon shooter also... love the 85 F1.8... but a zoom lens fanatic here... usually either super wide or super telephoto.   I find fixed focal length lenses little too restrictive.  What camera bodies are ya shooting with?  Thinking about upgrading (from the D600) to the D750 here...

Nikon D800's and shortly the D810. Only one as I am seriously concerned about moire for Fashion.

Thomas Van Dyke wrote:

Exactly!  Totally with you here... so funny i now have two copies of the amazing AF-D 180mm f/2.8... a fraction of the price of the oh so popular (and rather heavy 70-200mm VR II) this oft overlooked gem is feather light, razor sharp... so very small... it is now my go to... use it for sports/action also... see below... only caveat is a want of glass to protect the diaphragm in the rear... take care when it's uncapped... not best changing in a challenging environment... enough said... and yes it will flair (CA) when pointed directly into point source light but one easily works around this...

The DC 135 f/2.0 is magic... Was on a waiting list for six months to obtain mine... no other lens I've shot with has the potential to achieve such diversity of effects... Best yet it is razor sharp in the studio also... a lens of such wonderful versatility... see below... 

And yes the 85 f/1.8G is to be loved for it's incredible sharpness also being feather light as made it a lens of choice for location work... albeit my AF-D 85mm f/1.4 still is much loved for studio... seem to impart an esthetic that is difficult to explain...   

The AF-D 180mm for sports...


And the DC 135mm f/2.0 for beauty


So totally love what is possibly Nikon's finest fashion/beauty glass...

Thank you for sharing Benjamin... your wisdom is to be deeply respected...

Very nice captures by the way! :-)

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

I have several lenses for wider shooting. This is just my new approach to Fashion right now. I also have the excellent Nikon 24-120 VR f/4.0 lens as well as a 24, 28, 35 and 50mm fixed focal length lenses as well as the wonderful Tamron VC 70-300 lens. If you look at my portfolio at different stages, I have used lenses as wide as 16mm. It is just not in Fashion anywhere right now.

www.benjaminkanarek.com

I have been thinking about getting this lens.

ShootRaw wrote:
Did someone say Nikkor 135mm F/2....@ 5.6

Untitled by shapethelight., on Flickr

Or 85mm 1.4G @ 2.8

Untitled by shapethelight., on Flickr

Beautiful images! Love them!

Ben

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

Nikon D800's and shortly the D810. Only one as I am seriously concerned about moire for Fashion.

Have you been experiencing 'moire' with your current setups?  I've noticed your images have a pretty shallow depth of field.  Here's a somewhat SDOF example... shot in Cabo on the beach with a 55-200 ED-VR... pretty decent results for a budget lens...

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

Beautiful images! Love them!

Ben

Thanks Man...

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Even though I have several Nikon lenses, I am now so pleased that I have what I consider to be my "Three Lens Powerhouse" trio for my exterior fashion photo shoots. I am using the Nikon 85 f/1.8G the Nikon DC 135 f/2.0 (just purchased) and the incredibly sharp Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8 which I just purchased new today to replace my other 180mm Nikon lens. I like having 2 of them...

John Fisher wrote:
Yeah, the Canon 85mm has always been my lens of choice.

We were chatting about Nikon lenses, mate. No offense to Canon anything, but we weren't discussing Canon lenses or lubricants in Ethiopia or sunscreen best-suited for Antarctica or anything other than the 3 lenses Ben found he liked best from Nikon for his Nikon bodies, and a few of us were "Yay" or "Nay"-ing with our supportive/etc posts.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
We were chatting about Nikon lenses, mate. No offense to Canon anything, but we weren't discussing Canon lenses or lubricants in Ethiopia or sunscreen best-suited for Antarctica or anything other than the 3 lenses Ben found he liked best from Nikon for his Nikon bodies, and a few of us were "Yay" or "Nay"-ing with our supportive/etc posts.

Silly me, I thought Ben was discussing focal lengths for fashion: (Quoting Ben) ".................as well as the wonderful Tamron VC 70-300 lens. If you look at my portfolio at different stages, I have used lenses as wide as 16mm. It is just not in Fashion anywhere right now."

Ben is currently shooting with Nikon cameras, he has used other brands before. But if it makes you feel more secure, Nikon is the best, their cameras are superior and their lenses are simply heads and shoulders above anything else available (except apparently, Tamron), and everyone should know this.

John
--
John Fisher
700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

John Fisher wrote:

Silly me, I thought Ben was discussing focal lengths for fashion: (Quoting Ben) ".................as well as the wonderful Tamron VC 70-300 lens. If you look at my portfolio at different stages, I have used lenses as wide as 16mm. It is just not in Fashion anywhere right now."

Ben is currently shooting with Nikon cameras, he has used other brands before. But if it makes you feel more secure, Nikon is the best, their cameras are superior and their lenses are simply heads and shoulders above anything else available (except apparently, Tamron), and everyone should know this.

John
--
John Fisher
700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
305 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

I'm not a fanboi or anything of that nature, John. I use whatever I have available that does the job right and simplest for me. I own Nikons because the lenses and speedlights are interchangeable. When I drove, I drove GM's - because I knew them, and learnt how to get the best mileage out of them with the lowest invested. (Why do Canadians say mileage when we scale our speed-limits in kilometers/hour? Beats my meat...) Of course someone with such longevity & success in the industry as Ben has used gear other than Nikon gear. But this particular thread he started was about some of the Nikon gear he has and uses, that he finds particularly potent for what he does. That's the topic of the forum, not street fashion with a canon lens that happens to be of the same focal length, not how much money I saved by shooting erotic boudoir for someone with an entry-level camera when I was miles from home and was too cheap to rent proper gear, nor any other reason.

The reason you thought my nose was out of joint over your post was because you thought me a fanboi, John Fisher of 700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110 in Miami Beach, Florida who I can call at 305 534-9322? Nopers. It was out of joint because I like Bens' posts, he starts a number of enjoyable threads in the fora. It's a shame when someone comes along in the midst of exchanges about one thing, and they toss-in a post opining about something that's barely related to the topic the thread was based on. I don't participate in fanboiism or any such debates.

If you'd like to dig a deeper hole, feel free to rebut. Although derailing threads from their actual topic is technically against the forum rules here. Which I suppose is loosely related to my initial post where I quoted you - your post which only very loosely related to the topic of the thread. Yeesh! All this talk about looseness, and it's not even time for Last Call yet!

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
I'm not a fanboi or anything of that nature, John. I use whatever I have available that does the job right and simplest for me. I own Nikons because the lenses and speedlights are interchangeable. When I drove, I drove GM's - because I knew them, and learnt how to get the best mileage out of them with the lowest invested. (Why do Canadians say mileage when we scale our speed-limits in kilometers/hour? Beats my meat...) Of course someone with such longevity & success in the industry as Ben has used gear other than Nikon gear. But this particular thread he started was about some of the Nikon gear he has and uses, that he finds particularly potent for what he does. That's the topic of the forum, not street fashion with a canon lens that happens to be of the same focal length, not how much money I saved by shooting erotic boudoir for someone with an entry-level camera when I was miles from home and was too cheap to rent proper gear, nor any other reason.

The reason you thought my nose was out of joint over your post was because you thought me a fanboi, John Fisher of 700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110 in Miami Beach, Florida who I can call at 305 534-9322? Nopers. It was out of joint because I like Bens' posts, he starts a number of enjoyable threads in the fora. It's a shame when someone comes along in the midst of exchanges about one thing, and they toss-in a post opining about something that's barely related to the topic the thread was based on. I don't participate in fanboiism or any such debates.

If you'd like to dig a deeper hole, feel free to rebut. Although derailing threads from their actual topic is technically against the forum rules here. Which I suppose is loosely related to my initial post where I quoted you - your post which only very loosely related to the topic of the thread. Yeesh! All this talk about looseness, and it's not even time for Last Call yet!

You are nitpicking!  I understood that he was just talking about the focal length of the lens that he was using.  You are the one derailing the thread!

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
We were chatting about Nikon lenses, mate. No offense to Canon anything, but we weren't discussing Canon lenses or lubricants in Ethiopia or sunscreen best-suited for Antarctica or anything other than the 3 lenses Ben found he liked best from Nikon for his Nikon bodies, and a few of us were "Yay" or "Nay"-ing with our supportive/etc posts.

That's okay, it is still an 85 with similar bokeh effects. John is a gem of a "Lad"

Here is another sample with the Magical Nikon AF 180 shot again at f/2.8 with the background closer to the subject. The 180 has been a real career changer for me and as a result I have been getting clients that in the past would not have considered me. No kidding...

There is something very vintage in the rendition of the 180, that even though it is being used on a Digital body, the output and bokeh is quite different than that of lets say the 70-200 VR f/2.8 version shot at 180mm wide open. Perhaps due to more simple lens element configuration. It is a lens that was originally designed in Germany in 1936 by Leitz and adapted into a more modern formula by Nikon in 1970(not including the rangefinder version from 1953) and eventually into this most recent incarnation..

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/180mm-history.htm

Select Models wrote:

Have you been experiencing 'moire' with your current setups?  I've noticed your images have a pretty shallow depth of field.  Here's a somewhat SDOF example... shot in Cabo on the beach with a 55-200 ED-VR... pretty decent results for a budget lens...

Yes I have even with the D800. But only in the studio for a couple of changes and that was easily fixed in Camera Raw even before importing the selection in to Photoshop.

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
That's okay, it is still an 85 with similar bokeh effects. John is a gem of a "Lad"

Here is another sample with the Magical Nikon AF 180 shot again at f/2.8 with the background closer to the subject. The 180 has been a real career changer for me and as a result I have been getting clients that in the past would not have considered me. No kidding...

There is something very vintage in the rendition of the 180, that even though it is being used on a Digital body, the output and bokeh is quite different than that of lets say the 70-200 VR f/2.8 version shot at 180mm wide open. Perhaps due to more simple lens element configuration. It is a lens that was originally designed in Germany in 1936 by Leitz and adapted into a more modern formula by Nikon in 1970(not including the rangefinder version from 1953) and eventually into this most recent incarnation..

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/180mm-history.htm

I have the 1970-1981 180 lens.  I haven't used it for a long time.  I'll use it next month.
You have inspired me. 

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Here is another sample with the Magical Nikon AF 180 shot again at f/2.8 with the background closer to the subject. The 180 has been a real career changer for me and as a result I have been getting clients that in the past would not have considered me. No kidding...

There is something very vintage in the rendition of the 180, that even though it is being used on a Digital body, the output and bokeh is quite different than that of lets say the 70-200 VR f/2.8 version shot at 180mm wide open. Perhaps due to more simple lens element configuration. It is a lens that was originally designed in Germany in 1936 by Leitz and adapted into a more modern formula by Nikon in 1970(not including the rangefinder version from 1953) and eventually into this most recent incarnation..

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/180mm-history.htm

My camera shop has asked me a few times about buying a used 180 from them, but I've always passed. It piqued my interest in the lens, however. This example-photo combined with your opinion has furthered my interest! I have a Sigma 150 2.8 (non-OS version), and that's the lens is change-up for the 180. You've renewed my interest in it!

EDIT: I traded-in the 150 2.8 today for some studio-gear I needed, a Beauty Dish, a good Head, and a boom-style extension for lighting/reflecting/cutting from above my subjects. The 180 2.8 is still on my list!

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
FACEBOOK
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site)
       
“The vilest deeds – like poison weeds – bloom well in prison air; it is only what is good in man that wastes & withers there.”
~Oscar Wilde

Chester Nguyen wrote:
85mm always my favorite. I've been into Simga 85 1.4 for a long time, totally satisfied with it. But due to recent budget, i'm thinking of the 85 1.8G Nikon, i'd like to give it a try along with my 50mm 1.8G.

If you try the Nikon 85, you won't regret it at all It's a real dynamite lens!

Chester Nguyen wrote:
85mm always my favorite. I've been into Simga 85 1.4 for a long time, totally satisfied with it. But due to recent budget, i'm thinking of the 85 1.8G Nikon, i'd like to give it a try along with my 50mm 1.8G.

My 85mm 1.4G is my go-to lens...@ 3.2...
Untitled by shapethelight., on Flickr

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
I have to add, I have a new Love in my Life...My Woman won't be pleased but it has to be my New Nikon DC 135mm f/2.0 lens on my D800...

I have been unfaithful...

how is your Nikon sponsorship discussion coming along? 



(https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st19130340)

r T p wrote:



how is your Nikon sponsorship discussion coming along? 



(https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st19130340)

Been to busy to even go further with them. Perhaps in the New Year.

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
I have to add, I have a new Love in my Life...My Woman won't be pleased but it has to be my New Nikon DC 135mm f/2.0 lens on my D800...

I have been unfaithful...

I love 135mm and wouldn't mind having the extra stop. I keep waiting for Nikon to come out with a new 135mm - preferably with 1:1 macro capability.
I noticed the 135 2.0 has that focus-blur tech that Nikon released for awhile - it always sounded so gimmicky to me...

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

I love 135mm and wouldn't mind having the extra stop. I keep waiting for Nikon to come out with a new 135mm - preferably with 1:1 macro capability.
I noticed the 135 2.0 has that focus-blur tech that Nikon released for awhile - it always sounded so gimmicky to me...

Oh no..it is not gimmicky. In fact it is a patented design that works. If I shoot at f/2.0 I set my lens blur control to match the f stop at 2B for (back) and the background goes even milkier.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/135mm-f2-dc.htm

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Oh no..it is not gimmicky. In fact it is a patented design that works. If I shoot at f/2.0 I set my lens blur control to match the f stop at 2B for (back) and the background goes even milkier.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/135mm-f2-dc.htm

Now I'm intrigued - I'd always dismissed (I think 2 if I remember right) the lenses with this technology. With any luck I can find someone renting it (arghh Calumet gone), so I can play with it.