Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison

  
 
surf monkey
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


A link you might be interested in:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/zeiss_135mm_apo.shtml



Aug 29, 2013 at 12:33 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


AhamB wrote:
All lenses have depth of field control -- it's called the aperture. That Nikkor has "Defocus Control" -- it controls the SA correction, giving either good foreground or background bokeh.
Not much to do with soft focus. http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/225-nikkor-af-135mm-f2-d-dc-review--test-report?start=2


Well, there I go, my laziness has done me in But I do believe that playing with the second aperture affects sharpness?



Aug 29, 2013 at 02:27 PM
kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


joakim wrote:
So regarding 135mm, Canon's version is older than the internet and Nikon doesn't have one. Would it be a correct conclusion to say they have given up on this focal length and are covering it with their 70-200/f2.8 zooms?


Canon's version may be older than the internet but it is still highly regarded and considered one of the best lenses Canon has currently available. The 135/2 APO doesn't handily beat it when considering the absolutely massive price difference between the two.

The ZE21 is a great lens if you like wide angles, certainly beats the crap out of the canon zoom's in the range (16-35, 24-70, and 17-40) and in the tests against the TSE24, I preferred the zeiss' renderings but they are both absolutely excellent lenses. I am trying to sell mine if you are interested .



Aug 29, 2013 at 02:34 PM
philip_pj
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


'The 135/2 APO doesn't handily beat it when considering the absolutely massive price difference between the two.'

Sir, I believe you conflate two dissimilar issues ;-)
In fact you introduce another cogent variable from the mix - value for money.

Both Zeiss lenses discussed herein produce very different images to the other contenders, which may matter, either upon purchase or sometime thereafter.





Aug 29, 2013 at 05:00 PM
hauxon
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


Compared to the Nikkor 14-24 the Zeiss 21 is a tiny lens and much nicer lens to work with when it comes to using filters ...as you often do when shooting landscapes. I'd rather have a 14/2.8 Samyang and Zeiss 21/2.8 in my bag than the 14-24.


Aug 29, 2013 at 05:52 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


freaklikeme wrote:
I can understand comparing the two focal lengths more than I can understand comparing those two lenses, or comparing any non-TSE lens to a TSE.


The 24L TS-E II is an excellent lens even without using the advantages the movements can provide. It stands on its own just fine. Reminds me of the C/Y 35-70/3.4 ... it isn't just good for being a zoom, it is just plain good and will hold its own despite being compared to many 35 primes ... i.e. don't let the TSE category fool you into thinking it is an unfair comparison.



Aug 29, 2013 at 11:16 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


kezeka wrote:
The 135/2 APO doesn't handily beat it


Yes it does.

when considering the absolutely massive price difference between the two.

Sure, you have to pay more, but the Zeiss does handily beat the Canon in technical aspects. Only you can decide about the price/performance balance, but that decision is only for you. Someone else might make a different conclusion. The Zeiss performance is better for everyone.



Aug 30, 2013 at 03:58 AM
Mirek Elsner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


135L is an excellent lens. Possibly the sharpest Canon under 4k, sharper than my 100 MP. It has very good flare resistance. Unlike the aforementioned 70-200 zoom, the bokeh is very nice and AF speed is first class. The rendering is pretty flat, though. I found that the lens is great for outdoor portraits in various lighting conditions, but boring for landscapes. I think it is as much a specialist lens as the 85/1.2.

The Canon is better than the Zeiss for sports, for portraits it is probably a matter of taste, but for everything else, the Zeiss is probably better.

Disclaimer: I never used the 135 APO.



Sep 01, 2013 at 01:12 PM
Lotusm50
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


Mirek Elsner wrote:
The Canon is better than the Zeiss for sports, for portraits it is probably a matter of taste, but for everything else, the Zeiss is probably better.

Disclaimer: I never used the 135 APO.



So, then how do you come to that conclusion? AF vs non-AF? Or something else?




Sep 01, 2013 at 11:07 PM
Mirek Elsner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


Yes, very good AF vs. non-AF.


Sep 01, 2013 at 11:32 PM
ZoneV
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


AhamB wrote:
...
All lenses have depth of field control -- it's called the aperture. That Nikkor has "Defocus Control" -- it controls the SA correction, giving either good foreground or background bokeh.
Not much to do with soft focus. http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/225-nikkor-af-135mm-f2-d-dc-review--test-report?start=2


Spherical abberation control as in the Nikkor DC lenses gives a perfect soft focus lens.
Most soft focus lenses work with spherical abberation - but most do not have all the possibilities of the DC Nikkor lenses. Those Nikkor lenses can be uses ad soft focus lenses too, but are also good for finder adjustmend of the spherical abberation, and because of this bokeh control.

Canon has patented a lens with variable apodization effect to control the bokeh:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/07/patent-ef-135-f2-8-180-f3-5-with-apodization-filter/
Probably such a lens could be the next Canon 135mm lens but f/2 would be much better than f/2.8 as in the patent.



Sep 02, 2013 at 03:19 AM
Jay968
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


I own the Zeiss 18, Canon 24, and Canon 135. One important thing to remember is that manual focusing with a Zeiss lens on a Canon body which does not have interchangeable screens (5D MKIII) is difficult. I can do so ok with the 18 because I use that lens for landscapes and usually set it to F8 and have enough depth-of-field to cover what I want. However, when going up in focal length, this become more difficult. This is why I own the Zeiss 18 and Canon 24 instead of the Zeiss 21 which is a better lens than either of these. Fact is, the Canon 24 is plenty good and the Zeiss 18 is good enough at F8 so I am happy with this combo. If on the other hand, I used a 5D MKII I could put the screen in which is made for manual focus, so I would have gone that route.
As far as the 135 lenses are concerned, the Canon while not QUITE as good as the Zeiss wide open, is plenty good enough and certainly one of the best lenses Canon makes at a much lower cost than the Zeiss. It is also much smaller and lighter and has the option of AF if desired.



Sep 02, 2013 at 04:57 PM
Gunzorro
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Zeiss Lens vs Canon/Nikon Comparison


I had the Zeiss ZE 21 and Canon 24 TSE, bought at the same time from B&H. After having them for about a year, I sold the Zeiss, as the 24 TSE was superior in imaging, especially in lack of distortion and light falloff. The 3mm difference was insignificant in image size/AOV. Besides, I had the 16-35L II to fill in for 21mm if needed, and it was "good enough" stopped down for any assignments.

I never regretted the decision sell the ZE, and later bought a the 17 TSE as well, which I would also take over the ZE 21.

Even without shifts or tilts, I prefer both these TSE lenses for clean imaging, due to their large image circles.



Sep 02, 2013 at 05:17 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.