Zeiss APO Sonnar T 135mm f2.0 ZE

Since Dustin published a review for this fantastic lens, http://dustinabbott.net/2014/07/zeiss-apo-sonnar-t-2135mm-ze-review-2/ (well worth reading), I thought it deserved a thread.

I am currently on vacation, so the only image I had on my MacBook was of the local lion (the first image I shot with the lens), but to kick it off.

5DIII, 1/640s, f2.0 ISO100 (handheld and focused with standard focusing screen)

(I´ll see if I have something more relevant when I get home.)
 

Attachments

  • 1J8C6173.jpg
    1J8C6173.jpg
    3.6 MB · Views: 487
Not much activity, so I thought I´d add some. I have not had time to play much with this lens, but I took it for a walk in the neighborhood today. No award winners, but they exemplify what the lens can do.

They are all shot with the 1DX, handheld, using the Ec-S focusing screen.

1/320s, f2.0, ISO100

Comment: The colors are all wrong on the web. But if you open them up, they should be OK.
 

Attachments

  • _D7T1648.jpg
    _D7T1648.jpg
    3.1 MB · Views: 517
Upvote 0
It was interesting to see how this lens measured up against the two Otus lenses. As I read the DxO numbers, this lens is actually better. Higher resolution, less distortion, less vignetting, equal transmission and less CA. Phenomenal lens.

There has been a lot of discussion of how easy/hard it is to focus manually. In my opinion this is easier than many think. To focus an AF lens, not made for manual focus, may be difficult. But lenses like (all) those from Zeiss, provided you have the right focusing screen (Ec-S in this case), is a totally different case.

In this image, which is handheld and focused through the viewfinder, at minimum focusing distance, I wanted the three berries to be in focus. I took three shots and they are all pretty much like this one.

1DX, 1/800s, f2.0, ISO100
 

Attachments

  • _D7T1706.jpg
    _D7T1706.jpg
    2.6 MB · Views: 458
Upvote 0
Perio said:
Great shots, Eldar! Since you also have Zeiss 85 Otus, have you done any comparison with Zeiss 135 side-by-side in terms of sharpness, general IQ? How comfortable are you handholding and focusing with both these lenses?
I think (and this is a rare occasion) the DxO test of this lens up against the Otus 55 and 85 told a significant story, provide you skip their final score. Read the individual tests and you´ll see that the 135 may have deserved the highest overall score.

I firmly believe that if this 135/2.0 had been wrapped in Otus mechanics, everyone would think it was an Otus and pay $4500 for it. Sharpness, color, bokeh, CA, you name it, this lens performs. I have not done a structured head to head comparison between the 85 and this, but I am sure it would perform just as well. I´d give the Otus a minor advantage on mechanics, but that may be just a matter of taste. From a price/performance perspective, the 135/2.0 beats the Otus by quite a margin.
 
Upvote 0
Perio said:
Great shots, Eldar! Since you also have Zeiss 85 Otus, have you done any comparison with Zeiss 135 side-by-side in terms of sharpness, general IQ? How comfortable are you handholding and focusing with both these lenses?
To your other question, regarding manual focus. Almost all the images I have posted of the Otus 55, Otus 85 and this 135 has been shot wide open. They all have very shallow DOF. If you disregard some of the comparison shots I did with the 55 and the Sigma 50 Art, and a few long exposure shots, all shots have been hand held.

With the Ec-S precision focusing screen in the 1DX, I find it quite easy to focus manually and my keeper rate is high. I have a long photography history pre the auto focus era though. It requires practice, but it should not deter any from getting these lenses. They simply do something with how you shoot images. But to shoot wide open, you do need a precision focusing screen.
 
Upvote 0
Here are a couple tripod mounted shots of my next door creek. We had some rain and then it cleared and a full moon came out. I went down to try to catch the extra current from the rain, lit by the moonlight. In general I am not very fond of long water exposures, because it makes water look like thick oil or a silk cloth. And these two images sort of exemplifies my point. The first is in my view a much better images than the second (none of them are really good, but I wanted to prove a point) one, because it has a lot more energy in the water. Judge for yourself.

1DX, 2.5s, f2.0 (a bit shallow), ISO100
 

Attachments

  • _D7T2347.jpg
    _D7T2347.jpg
    636.8 KB · Views: 474
Upvote 0