Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview

[yogi]

I love the Canon 135L. The Zeiss is just a different flavor. The Sigma looks like an interesting prospect. I am not rich and can barely afford the expense of the Zeiss lenses, so i dont buy lenses on the spur of the moment. I have spent much time visiting Zeiss websites and have seen many images taken with Zeiss that l like. Also have used my fathers old Exacta camera w/Zeiss lens (that i inherited) and it took great photos, though i dont use it any more. I love my Canon lenses, but also like variety. And RLPhoto I hope to one day get the 50 1.2L. It is in my wish list @ B&H.

No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.

 

[sanj]

No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

 

[RLPhoto]

No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

 

[brad-man]

No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

+1 Absolutely. The more versatility a lens has, the better.

 

[funkboy]

Here's another review, from Lensrentals: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/zeiss-ze-135mm-f2-vs-canon-135mm-f2l

 

[Albi86]

No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

We're talking about what seems to be a true apochromatic design = almost ZERO CA and RSA even wideopen.

In Nikonland people say that focus confirmation works flawlessly on D4 and D800. I would assume it's going to be the same for the ZE version.

I agree that AF and IS will probably increase your keeper rate. But this lens is not meant for people who want more keepers; it's meant for people who want the Zeiss look with best optics and the best build out there. For these people all the rest is secondary. There's no reason to compare this lens to others: it's unique.

 

[Pi]

The Canon looks better here: http://cfile7.uf.tistory.com/original/185A4D4E5166FB750181D1. It is surprising because Zeiss know bokeh...

 

[RLPhoto]

No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.

So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.

Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed.

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.

We're talking about what seems to be a true apochromatic design = almost ZERO CA and RSA even wideopen.

In Nikonland people say that focus confirmation works flawlessly on D4 and D800. I would assume it's going to be the same for the ZE version.

I agree that AF and IS will probably increase your keeper rate. But this lens is not meant for people who want more keepers; it's meant for people who want the Zeiss look with best optics and the best build out there. For these people all the rest is secondary. There's no reason to compare this lens to others: it's unique.

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

 

[ksagomonyants]

The Canon looks better here: http://cfile7.uf.tistory.com/original/185A4D4E5166FB750181D1. It is surprising because Zeiss know bokeh...

I was quite surprised myself a while ago about the way bokeh looks on Zeiss. From what I've read, it's due to the high microcontrast of the Zeiss images, and apparently one cannot have smooth bokeh and high microcontrast at the same time.

 

[AprilForever]

I'm too lazy for MF

I'm with you there...

 

[Pi]

The Canon looks better here: http://cfile7.uf.tistory.com/original/185A4D4E5166FB750181D1. It is surprising because Zeiss know bokeh...

I was quite surprised myself a while ago about the way bokeh looks on Zeiss. From what I've read, it's due to the high microcontrast of the Zeiss images, and apparently one cannot have smooth bokeh and high microcontrast at the same time.

I can also see a hint of rings in the highlights but not as bad as with wide lenses. Probably the Zeiss is too corrected or a bit overcorrected to make it look good on charts. There is a well known Zeiss (!) document online which explains how this affects the bokeh...

The bokeh here is disturbing. The 135L can have its problems sometimes but I do not remember seeing anything that bad.

 

[Albi86]

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

Well, the price is in line with other top glass. Canon 85L and the new 24-70 are in the same club.

When you consider it in this perspective it's not so expensive after all.

 

[RLPhoto]

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

Well, the price is in line with other top glass. Canon 85L and the new 24-70 are in the same club.

When you consider it in this perspective it's not so expensive after all.

Not really. The 85L is unique because its f/1.2 and the 24-70 is a zoom, can't really compare. Now if this 135mm were f/1.8, then I could hold it in the same category but f/2? No practical reason to consider upgrading.

 

[Albi86]

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

Well, the price is in line with other top glass. Canon 85L and the new 24-70 are in the same club.

When you consider it in this perspective it's not so expensive after all.

Not really. The 85L is unique because its f/1.2 and the 24-70 is a zoom, can't really compare. Now if this 135mm were f/1.8, then I could hold it in the same category but f/2? No practical reason to consider upgrading.

....

No practical reason for you. Fair enough. But I wasn't talking about you, I was comparing the price of this lens with other lenses in the same quality league. It doesn't seem to me that its price is way off the standard for the best glass club.

 

[RLPhoto]

It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.

Well, the price is in line with other top glass. Canon 85L and the new 24-70 are in the same club.

When you consider it in this perspective it's not so expensive after all.

Not really. The 85L is unique because its f/1.2 and the 24-70 is a zoom, can't really compare. Now if this 135mm were f/1.8, then I could hold it in the same category but f/2? No practical reason to consider upgrading.

....

No practical reason for you. Fair enough. But I wasn't talking about you, I was comparing the price of this lens with other lenses in the same quality league. It doesn't seem to me that its price is way off the standard for the best glass club.

Sure, Because my opinions are exactly what they are. My own thoughts on a subject and my opinion's are always about practical use of equipment. Which on this particular lens, isn't very high on my list of practicality.

If others find my opinion of value, great. If not, great but doesn't sway me one bit.

 

[Albi86]

Sure, Because my opinions are exactly what they are. My own thoughts on a subject and my opinion's are always about practical use of equipment. Which on this particular lens, isn't very high on my list of practicality.

If others find my opinion of value, great. If not, great but doesn't sway me one bit.

Sorry, I admit my fault.

I tried twice to explain that my point is to frame this lens in the price range of other products of similar quality, also high-lighting that it offers something different from Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Whatever and thus it's probably targeted at a different audience. You don't buy a Zeiss because there's no other good lens available in market; you buy a Zeiss because you want a Zeiss - for a number of reasons.

No way I could succeed in my purpose. Unfortunately you are tenaciously remarking that you wouldn't replace your 135L for it.

 

[Axilrod]

The bokeh here is disturbing. The 135L can have its problems sometimes but I do not remember seeing anything that bad.

That's one bad example, it looks beautiful in the other shots. I have a 50L/85L/135L and the bokeh from my Zeiss lenses has still always impressed me.