Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZE in Stock at B&H

[risc32]

I use Canon 135L as well as 24 TSE II and have owned MF Zeiss.  Manual-focusing a wide angle is WORLDS easier than 135mm, so if MF is already an issue with Leica, I would stick with Canon 135L, which as we all know is a superb lens.  Who knows, from preliminary reports, the Zeiss 135 may have less CA and sharper wide open, but do we really need sharper than 135L?  Zeiss also costs double the current 135L street price and is heavier.

+1

Photozone.de even mentioned how hard it was for them to focus the zeiss 100mm f2 makro. on all accounts a fine lens with near perfect performance, but hard to focus accurately.

At wide aperatures and portrait ranges the DOF with a 135mm are razor thin.  Manual focus would be a difficult and time consuming.  I'm extremely happy with my Canon 135L, I can easily ignore this lens when/if it does go into production.

[Artifex]

I use Canon 135L as well as 24 TSE II and have owned MF Zeiss.  Manual-focusing a wide angle is WORLDS easier than 135mm, so if MF is already an issue with Leica, I would stick with Canon 135L, which as we all know is a superb lens.  Who knows, from preliminary reports, the Zeiss 135 may have less CA and sharper wide open, but do we really need sharper than 135L?  Zeiss also costs double the current 135L street price and is heavier.

+1

Photozone.de even mentioned how hard it was for them to focus the zeiss 100mm f2 makro. on all accounts a fine lens with near perfect performance, but hard to focus accurately.

At wide aperatures and portrait ranges the DOF with a 135mm are razor thin.  Manual focus would be a difficult and time consuming.  I'm extremely happy with my Canon 135L, I can easily ignore this lens when/if it does go into production.

I guess it is a matter of personal preference. I personally find manual focusing far more precise than AF. Moreover, according to B&H, the Zeiss 135mm has a 268° focus ring. I agree, however, that this is really not a glass that is going to fit everyone!

[Axilrod]

Zeiss is sharper, as expected.  And for the person asking whether it would really be worth the difference since the 135L is so great, I'll tell you this:  I loved my 100L Macro, but I really, really, really love my ZE100 (even though it was 2x the price and doesn't have AF or IS).

I'd love to replace my 14LII with the ZE 15, but $3k for 1 UWA prime just seems silly to me.  Might get the ZE 135 eventually, but I'm happy with my 135L and dont use the focal length too much anyways. 

[Axilrod]

+1

At wide aperatures and portrait ranges the DOF with a 135mm are razor thin.  Manual focus would be a difficult and time consuming.  I'm extremely happy with my Canon 135L, I can easily ignore this lens when/if it does go into production.

Have you ever shot extensively with Zeiss lenses?  The throw is so much longer and it has AF confirmation, it's far easier to shoot in manual mode on one of them than it is a Canon lens.

[RGomezPhotos]

At the beginning of my journey/career I too thought "But it's manual focus..."..  Then I actually tried it... 

For events and action, you really should go AF.   For everything else, MF works just fine...  And Zeiss rules is AWESOME in that world!

This lens is on my list for sure....  Someday..   

[tron]

I have Zeiss Distagon 21mm 2.8 ZE and I love it!

But I also have Canon EF135mm 2L and I love it too. AF is very important at 135mm at least for me. Also, since tt is difficult (although not impossible of course) to improve on this lens as far as IQ is concerned and even if Zeiss prove a little better it won't matter.

So it is Canon's EF135mm 2L for me period. YMMV though...

[dilbert]

I have Zeiss Distagon 21mm 2.8 ZE and I love it!

An autofocus version of this or a Sigma Art series version would find a permanent home in my lens collection.