The Viltrox AF 135mm f/1.8 LAB Z Mount: Better Than Nikon’s 135mm?

The Viltrox AF 135mm f/1.8 LAB Z Mount: Better Than Nikon’s 135mm?

Viltrox lenses are a better choice than Nikon’s Z-mount native lenses. There, I said it. And this is coming from someone who has used Nikon for 40 years and may even be somewhat of a “fanboy.” I’ve been impressed with Viltrox lenses for a few years now—and own three—but the new Viltrox AF 135mm f/1.8 LAB full frame is a whole new level of impressive.

When Nikon announced their 135mm f/1.8 Plena, I did a little day-dreaming and drooling. At the same time. It’s an absolutely fabulous lens, the only Nikon lens for the Z system that I really desired. I could see myself using it for video work, in particular. But I couldn’t justify the huge $2,500 price tag for the number of times I would use it.

A year or so later, having got over my fantasizing of a fast 135mm, along comes the Viltrox AF 135mm f/1.8 LAB full frame. Now my interest has been reignited. LAB is a new line of uncompromising premium lenses from Viltrox that sit above their PRO lens range.

Those lovely folks at Viltrox sent me one. To say I was impressed is an understatement. The second you slide off the sexy black box lid, peel away the plastic wrap, and hold it, you know you’ve got a premium lens in your hands. It feels as good as Nikon’s Plena. A Plena weighs 995 g, and the Viltrox is a little heavier at 1,265 g. I can live with that. Both use 82mm filters, which pleases me as my best filters are all 82mm, and I don’t like using step-down rings if I can help it.

So the Viltrox 135mm feels as well built and reassuring as the Nikon 135mm. But how does it perform? I don’t have a Plena to do a side-by-side comparison, but I’ve played with the Plena, so I’m familiar with it—but that doesn’t matter anyway. What’s important is taking Viltrox’s 135mm out and about and using it in real-life situations, and looking at the results.

Testing the Viltrox 135mm LAB f/1.8

A 135mm lens is perfect for tight portraits, still life, and wildlife. For me, I use this focal length for travel and landscape. It’s great for picking out building details or a lone tree in a field.

I’m late to the party with this lens review because I wanted to live with it for a couple of months and use it for a variety of scenarios—from food, portraits, to outdoor action.

My first priority was to test the autofocus, paired with my Nikon Z6 III. I was keen to see how the eye tracking performs in tricky low light or backlit scenes, and how the lens performs for close-up photography such as food or picking out flowers in a field.

The lens, working with the camera’s eye tracking, did a superb job. OEM lenses are said to perform the best with focus tracking, but this lens handled a variety of conditions as well as any of my native Nikon Z-mount lenses.

Wide open, shooting into the sun with eye focus tracking.

The Viltrox 135mm, shooting wide open, worked a treat with the Nikon Z6 III. This dog was really moving, and the tracking kept up.

Autofocus eye detection worked flawlessly in tricky lighting conditions.

Shooting wide open at f/1.8, the image quality is incredible. The corners are sharp, and there’s no noticeable vignetting—something that is common when shooting with fast lenses at their widest aperture. As for distortion, I didn’t really notice anything.

The sweet spot for sharpness appears to be around f/4. Although at f/1.8 and f/5.6 it performs incredibly well and remains very good to f/11. This is the kind of lens I doubt you would use beyond f/5.6. I certainly wouldn’t, because this lens is all about separation of your subject from the background. We want a lovely creamy blurred background, and this lens delivers it in spades.

Out-of-focus backgrounds are certainly beautifully rendered, and bright highlights are smooth circles that impress at f/1.8 to f/2.8, thanks in part to the 11-blade aperture. They start to be less buttery beyond f/4.

Background blur renders beautifully.

The Viltrox 135mm f/1.8 is a good lens for capturing details, with a minimum focal distance of 0.72 m—slightly better than Nikon's 135mm minimum distance of 0.82 m.

In a studio, the Viltrox 135mm becomes a useful lens for food photography.

The main appeal of a 135mm lens for me is for video work. There are a few thoughtful features on this lens that cater to videographers and filmmakers, which I appreciate.

There’s the ability to select manual focus, and although you won’t pull focus on a focus-by-wire lens as well as you would on a helicoidal cine lens, there is a second FN (function) button on the lens that allows you to set A and B focus points and toggle between them with minimal focus breathing. It’s a little fast, so it works best if you’re shooting 60 or 120 frames per second and slow the clip down in post.

The lens also features a de-click switch for the aperture ring, should you need smooth aperture racking—something Nikon’s native 135mm doesn’t have.

What I Love

  • The Viltrox 135mm feels good to hold and operate. You can feel the quality, and this gives one confidence.

  • Sharpness is virtually faultless.

  • The dust and weather sealing is superb.

  • The lens comes with a long hood, flocked inside, and featuring a rubber front edging—a thoughtful detail.

What I Don’t Like

With other Viltrox lenses, you can go to their website to download the latest firmware updates. Simple. It’s a slight inconvenience that you even need to update a lens, but easy to do.

With the 135mm LAB, you can’t do that. You have to download an app for your phone. I don’t do apps, but I caved in and tried. And couldn’t get it to work. After half an hour, I abandoned it. Alternatively, you can download an app for your computer. So I tried that, but my MacBook Pro wouldn’t let me install the software for fear of malware, and I had to override that warning. Not something I feel comfortable doing, really.

I needed the latest firmware update because the lens wouldn’t work on my Nikon Z6 III or Z9. Once I got past all that messing about, everything was fine.

Viltrox AF 135mm f/1.8 LAB Full Frame Specs

  • Mounts: Nikon Z-mount or Sony E-mount

  • Lens Elements: 14/9

  • Focal Length: 135mm

  • Aperture: f/1.8 – f/16

  • Number of Aperture Blades: 11

  • Shooting Distance: 0.72 m – ∞

  • Focus Mechanism: Internal focus-by-wire

  • Focus Mode: MF, AF

  • Lens Size: Φ93 x 147.6 mm

  • Weight: 1,265 g

  • Filter Size: 82mm

Conclusion

Viltrox has gone from strength to strength over the past couple of years, making some fabulous lenses. This is the most impressive lens I’ve had my hands on to date. I highly recommend this lens if portraiture, still life, and even wildlife is something that is important to you, and you want incredible—dare I say virtually faultless—performance for a very reasonable price.

This lens feels good to hold, it’s well built, and the added functionality—should you require it—is very well thought out and implemented.

It performs as well as the Nikon Plena 135mm f/1.8—at a third of the cost.

You can buy it here for $899.

Simon Burn's picture

Simon is a professional photographer and video producer, with over 35 years experience. He spends his time between Canada and the UK. He has worked for major brands, organizations and publications; shooting travel, tourism, food, and lifestyle. For fun he enjoys black and white photography, with a penchant for street and landscapes.

Log in or register to post comments
17 Comments

Have you shot a test chart? It would be nice to see to verify distortion sharpness and vignetting.
Plus: You write that you cannot compare it to the Nikon as you do not own the Plena lens. How can you write that it performs as well then? Please enlighten me!

I used the Viltrox 135mm for over a month, and it's fabulous. I'm not interested in pixel-peeping and detailed comparisons. As a professional photographer I'm interested in using a lens and seeing how it performs. I'm sharing my opinion here based on my experience, that's all.

In terms of value, I agree with you, the Viltrox is a superstar relative to its cost. But optically it is not on par with the Plena. The Plena has edge to edge sharpness, vignetting, flare control and bokeh performance that is unmatched in its class. A big really easy one to notice is that the Viltrox has a strong cat's eye effect in the corner when wide open, while the Nikon does not.

For a portrait photographer, these things don't really matter and tbh if I was in the market for a 135, I'd go with the viltrox as well because its character and performance is sensational relative to the cost but for photographers who need clinical performance or who are looking for optical excellence, then the Plena does represent a step above, it is one of the finest lenses Nikon has ever produced.

I would agree with everything you wrote. For me it is the lens that comes closest to the performance of my 200 f2 but is way more practical.

….soooooo, guy gets sent lens from Viltrox… For free? To keep? Please clarify, that’s a vague disclosure.

Doesn’t have a Plena to compare it to? Can’t be bothered to rent or borrow one for a review on a major photography website?

“I don’t have a Plena to do a side-by-side comparison, but I’ve played with the Plena, so I’m familiar with it—but that doesn’t matter anyway.”

It doesn’t?

“It performs as well as the Nikon Plena 135mm f/1.8—at a third of the cost.”

Says the guy who didn’t test the Plena? And who was seemingly gifted a lens by a competitor?

Note to the editor(s):

Guys… like, seriously. The articles you intersperse between the daily allotment of reposted YouTube videos are really sliding off the edge as of late.

I'm sharing my opinion. If you want a side-by-side deep dive complete with test charts, I'm sure you can find them online. That doesn't interest me. Let's be clear, I am not a professional gear reviewer, i'm a professional photographer, What I'm interested in is using the lens I have on the camera, and seeing how it performs. The Viltrox 135mm is as good as any Nikon lens I have used in real-life shooting scenarios, in my opinion. For the money, it's incredible value. There's a big difference to bench-testing and real life usage.

I stated I'm a huge Nikon fan, but I take an unbiased approach. I own many Nikon lenses, including the fabulous 24-70 f/2.8.

Yes, I am keeping the lens as I will be using for video in the near future on my YouTube channel. Lots of brands send me fee stuff. This has no influence on what I say about things. I make my living from photography and filmmaking, not reviewing gear. Because of this, you'll get honest opinions, as I don't need to suck up to brands and worry about them not working with me in the future if I say something is bad.

You are always attacking reviews on Fstoppers, and I have to wonder why. So on the subject of disclosure, are you connected with a review website at all?

I recommend not feeding the trolls. They are insatiable. The review was fine. I'd say probably shouldn't have taken the compare to Plena line, but the content is good and will be helpful for those looking to buy this lens. Keep up the good work.

Appreciate that Ryan, thanks! 🙂

I've used both on my Z9, I purchased the Viltrox and hired the Plena prior to getting the Viltrox .
Not used them side by side for the same gig but for me very little in them optically when reviewing images.
I actually preferred the out of focus area on the Viltrox the bokeh just felt more natural, the plena was a little ; this may sound strange, just too digital. However the Plena was sharper from corner to corner and a gnat's whisker sharper in the centre if I zoomed in at 100% . If you were shooting on the Z6iii smaller sensor less noticeable than on the Z8/Z9 I suspect.
This is my third viltrox , 85mm f1.8 and the 16mm no issues with either, just waiting for the 85mm f1.2 it was rumoured.
All other glass is adapted Nikon F mounts and Tamron Z mount 35-150 .

Yeah, I think its a game of "character" vs "clinical performance". The Plena is designed for peak clinical performance while the Viltrox had to make compromises that give it character. In a portrait situation the Viltrox feels like the right choice, not just due to value but that is also where that character thrives.

I feel the Plena is more for people doing the sorts of work where edge to edge performance and clinical detail rendering is king. Landscape, Architecture, certain other commercial genres, etc.

Personally, I love that Nikon is starting to realize that these two different philosophies exist. We see it with the 35 1.2 and the 35 1.4. The 1.4 isn't just a budget version of the 1.2, its designed to render with more personality which makes it a compelling choice even if you have budget for the 1.2

I see the same at the tele range sorta. If you want the clinically perfect tele prime, you get the Plena, if you want a bit of character grab the 105 1.4E on FTZ. (or this Viltrox)

Its such an amazing time to be a Nikon shooter. :)

Professionals who are looking for optical excellent will post process. Tell me one who did not. Any marginal discrepancy between Nikon Plena and Viltrox Lab will not be noticable as your naked eye won't see or feel the difference. Add on a little magic touch from the AI, your client will still be blown away by either. Welcome to the modern photography world. To many what matter most is cost saving. The real deal is it only cost 1/3 of the price of Nikon Plena. Even Nikon do have some bad copy or marginal allowable error !!

I was wanting the Plena and had been eyeing the Sigma 135 for several years. I shoot Nikon and Sony for video (live music) . I have a ton of Nikon glass from 1960- present.
So I saw the price come out on the Plena and on the day it was available to preorder I saw a sale on the Sigma 135 art in F mount . So I ordered the Sigma for about a grand . I love its rendering and on the FTZ II adapter it’s does pretty good. I do have issues with the Z9 wanting to grab bright lights in the background or a mic stand light reflection instead of an eye . But if I’m shooting my Nikon Z 24-120 f/4 it’s doesn’t do any better. Not sure the autofocus is any faster either. But man you get some detailed and buttery smooth images on stage . I e seen some detailed tests of the two compared and it’s so so close . In the real world except for vignette and some more cats eye towards the edges you can’t tell. Only professionals (that know glass) can tell the difference. Hell many professional photographers I’ve met done know much about the glass they use . Not the technical details. They know the focal length and aperture and shoot .
I also have the Sigma Art 40mm f/1.4 and 28mm f/14 I shoot for live music. Mostly for photos . The 28 I’ll use more than the 40 for video. I do use more Nikon glass for video. Many times it’s older manual focus Nikkor glass used for its rendering quality. But my 70-200 fl is a good one also .

We tend to forgot how good the older F mount glass is. I picked up a Zeiss 135mm f/2 a year back, and despite being manual focus, it's as good as anything made in native s mount, including this Viltrox 135mm.

Vignetting or cats eye bokeh at the edges are a non-issue for me and for most people I would imagine. They make no difference to producing a fabulous photo.

I love it. While the Nikon Z glass sure does call to me, I've just been adoring how I'm able to pick up best-in-class Nikon F glass for like 50% off retail. I never thought I'd have a full set of reasonably modern gold ring glass but I get to because of this.

Just last week I managed to get a new in box 28mm F1.4E for $900usd. That lens retailed for over $2k usd and optically is right on par with any Nikon Z glass, it was one of the last F mount lenses ever made. I was able to do the same with the 105 1.4, got it for less than half retail in brand new condition. :)

For anyone willing to deal with FTZ, right now is the most budget friendly time in Nikon history to be shooting with elite tier pro glass. What a time to be alive. <3

Ooh, that 28mm is nice! Yes, lots of bargains out there, especially on Facebook marketplace I've discovered.

Ok, I've read the review. I've scanned the comments. Unless, I missed something, how does it work for Sony? I know you're a Nikon man. Just, what have heard?

From others I know who have tested the Sony version, including colleagues here on Fstoppers, the Sony version is the same excellent lens.