Im just thinking about getting one or another. First is quite cheap (especially considering what you get for money), second is fairly expensive, but it has reach. Look at MTF says that those two are pretty close to each other. Tho Im not sure how much micro-contrast 35-135mm has. There isnt too much samples on net..
So anyone have Zeiss 35-135mm? Or some info to share? Samples of bokeh at 135mm would be nice. Or samples of bokeh from 35-70mm f3.4 at 70mm.
Some examples of 35-70 bokeh @70mm/3.4. These were all shot on a crop body (S5 Pro).
The following images are single images from larger panos, I just selected these because they show the bokeh when focused at longer distances, foreground bokeh (second one) and the only somewhat problematic situation for the lens, medium-distance bokeh of busy backgrunds (fallen leaves or, in this case, the ivy on the tree).
Yea I already read whole pebbles site. Thats how I found this lens, but it seems that no one except him actually used it or owned recently.
There are some samples at zeissimages, but not much.. nothing showing if its "Zeiss" or not. On Pebbles site are better samples, but dunno.. seems bit lacking that "bite" created by high dose of micro-contrast (which 35-70 has).
dcjs wrote:
The following images are single images from larger panos, I just selected these because they show the bokeh when focused at longer distances, foreground bokeh (second one) and the only somewhat problematic situation for the lens, medium-distance bokeh of busy backgrunds (fallen leaves or, in this case, the ivy on the tree).
This one is saying "Zeiss" very nicely. Thanks for samples, have you tried stoping down a bit? f4? Some lens have better bokeh when they are stopped down 1 or even 1/2 stop.
And thank you very much for samples. So now, anyone with 35-135mm?
Rest assured, the 35-135 will not lack micro-contrast.
Looking at the common FLs, and leaving aside comment on what happened in testing the 35-135 off axis, it is clear that central performance is going to be wonderful at the short end of this wider range zoom. For this statement I suggest you look at the axis performance to get some idea of its character - see the giant readings for all three lines?
This one, the 35-135, was very well regarded by Zeiss in the golden years of the Contax zooms, and my guess is that by 40mm (not shown in MTF) it will be a terrific optic - and see that you get great results at wide apertures at 70mm, which is at, or near its sweet spot. So good in fact, that it approximates the 100-300mm at its (stellar) short end of 100mm. Even at 135mm see the fabulous evenness across the frame.
One shorthand way to read CZ MTFs is to look at the numbers for each line pair
- 10lpmm is overall contrast and 'brightness',
- 20lpmm (measures the object shaping for most image content and considered by many lens aficionados such as Mike Johnston to be most important) and
- 40lpmm (small detail rendition due to quite literally micro-contrast - contrast at micro levels to enable resolving tiny objects, or detailed parts of larger objects).
So the 35-70 at 70mm and f8 would be described as a '71-85-92' lens, and the 35-135 at the same settings would be a '72-88-95' lens. By comparison the respected 80-200/4 at 80mm and f8 (and pretty much everywhere else at f8) is a '61-80-90' lens.
At 35mm and f8, the 35-70/3.4 is a '64-83-91' lens and the 35-135 a '69-88-96' lens.
Zeiss manufactured the 35-70 and the 80-200 as a pair of lightweight, allround, high performance lenses - for less than 1200 grams for the pair you get excellent performance from smallish lenses. The 35-135 and 100-300 are much heavier, at 860 grams and 925 grams respectively...The 35-135 takes 82mm filters if you also use a 21mm, and is actually quite short and stubby in its dimensions.
I would disregard the pebble place review if you are gathering facts, the writer sounds like a 'prime snob' (all lenses have compromises of course, not just zooms) and comparisons between any top end Zeiss zoom and the decidely consumer-oriented Canon 24-105/4 are simply risible. The reviewers at the excellent photographyreview site are on the money, methinks.
In the end, the real problem with the 35-135 is that you are using a complex, costly, large filter, full size telephoto size/weight lens presumably in part for its shorter focal lengths - whereas the 35-70/3.4 is a lightweight marvel (475 grams) which is much lighter than the 35/2 ZE-F prime (570 grams), is very usable in all its range, has wonderful colour tonality with low overall contrast (see above) and very high detail rendition.
But, if you buy a good 35-135 and do not like it, let's talk (!).
Samples of bokeh at 135mm would be nice. Or samples of bokeh from 35-70mm f3.4 at 70mm.
Thats how I found this lens, but it seems that no one except him actually used it or owned recently.