Nikon equivalent to the 135L

Hey, guys.. so I recently changed from Canon to Nikon. I bought 2 months ago a D750 to replace my 5d3 (at first it was hell trying to figure out the buttons and settings, but now its very easy) so I could practice before using it on a wedding. I replaced my most used lens (24-70, 70-200 and 135L) with the equivalent of Nikon except for the 135L (I replaced it with a 85 1.8) Although the 85 is nice it does not have the magic and quality I desire. My favorite Canon lens was the 135L and I wanted to know if you guys have had any experience with the Nikkor 135 DC and how it compares to the Canon one (if you have use both). I hace read some reviews saying it produces nice images but the AF is slow and the DC is not that great of a feature. Im also open to suggestions if you think theres other Nikon lenses that may produce similar IQ as the Canon.

Thanks in advance!

I purchased the 135DC hoping it would be the same as the 135L (I switched from 5d3 to D810). Unfortunately I just don't see it as being an equivalent, i was quite disappointed in the results. While the images were good, they just were that magical like the images I got on the 135L. I didn't mess around with the DC at all, so maybe I just didn't use it to it's full potential, but I still can't help but be disappointed.
There are rumors that Sigma is working on a 135 Art lens, if that's the case I would probably dump the Nikon in a heartbeat.

To be honest, it mainly just depends on how much of a "bokeh addict" you are. Canon shooters (and former Canon shooters) are usually known to have surprisingly passionate relationship with bokeh, for some reason, but to me it seems a bit hipster for bokeh to matter THAT much.

In other words, the Nikon 135 f/2 D is a fantastic lens, if you don't know what you're "missing" with the 135 L.

What should you do? Buy a 135 f/2 D used on Ebay for as cheap as you can find one in great condition, shoot with it for a while, and see what Sigma / Nikon do in the next 6-12 months in this range. Chances are a new 135 will come along, maybe even with stabilization, and you'll be able to sell off your old 135 f/2 D with minimal loss, to upgrade to the newer one.

As an alternate, if you're into macro work at all, the Sigma 150 2.8 EX DG and EX DG OS are both fantastic lenses in this range, decently sharp and gorgeous bokeh. You can find the non-stabilized version for as little as $400-500 on Ebay; really can't beat that price!

That was my biggest hang-up when I switch over to Nikon for the first time.

Short answer in my opinion...there isn't an equivalent if you need the 135mm at f2 with blazing sharpness, color and keeping the CA under control.


The Nikon 135mm f2 DC was such a let down. I bought two copies brand new and could never get that 'magic' I did from the 135L. The CA was TERRIBLE. Like unusable terrible. And it didn't clean up good.

That being said, I had MUCH better luck with the 105 f2 DC. That lens was magic. ALMOST 135L magic level =)

sourcehill wrote in post #17802038
That was my biggest hang-up when I switch over to Nikon for the first time.

Short answer in my opinion...there isn't an equivalent if you need the 135mm at f2 with blazing sharpness, color and keeping the CA under control.


The Nikon 135mm f2 DC was such a let down. I bought two copies brand new and could never get that 'magic' I did from the 135L. The CA was TERRIBLE. Like unusable terrible. And it didn't clean up good.

That being said, I had MUCH better luck with the 105 f2 DC. That lens was magic. ALMOST 135L magic level =)

Thats exactly the lens I replaced my 135L with.. although its not close to the perfection of the L Im happy with it.

I've had a Zeiss 135mm f2 ZE for my Canon camera and it blows away both the lenses from Nikon and Canon. If you're looking at getting this focal length, pick up the Zeiss.

For IQ, the Zeiss may well be better but for the same reason I don't have a Samyang 135 (which appears to be much more competitive against the Zeiss than its price gives it any right to be) the Zeiss is not an option for me.

This bad boy is my alternative...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CCwd​wS

I see you've picked up a 135 f/2. The 135 f/2 D Nikkor is probably the closest you'll get to a direct equivolent. Otherwise I'd suggest 3rd party. Either the Zeiss ZF.2 or Samyang/Rokinon in that regard.

I haven't shot any Zeiss lenses so would love to see some shots from that magical 135 which blows away 135L. Thanks in advance.

There are a handful of Zeiss lenses that are dramatically better than their Canon or Nikon counterparts. These:

Zeiss 21mm f2.8
Zeiss 35mm f1.4
Zeiss 85mm f1.4
Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar
Zeiss 135mm f2


In comparison to the similar lens offerings from other manufacturers, these are by far the best.

Again, that's fine if you don't want AF but useless if AF is important

I too come from a Canon stable and have the misfortune of knowing exactly how good the 135L is - currently I'm "living" with the Tamron 70-200 2.8, not the same but it will do until Sigma sort the 135 art.

It really is that good a lens - in fact long after I sold my Canon bodies I still had the 135L

Edit: Damn that was a mistake - for some reason I clicked on my 500px (not posted in an age) and could see the 135L shots a mile off....