Planning to get a ZE 50 1.4 and wanting to match it with another Zeiss of at least double focal length or longer (100mm or 135mm). I really want a 100/2 MP but will be low on money after a ZE 50mm purchase and need something much more inexepensive.
How is the Contax/Yashica Zeiss 135mm 2.8?? I notice it is very inexpensive.
It's a great value in my opinion. There are so many excellent 135/2.8s but I rank it on the upper end. If you want the zeiss look and cheap, the 50/1.7 and the 135/2.8 are the ones.
I prefer the MM version over the AE due to its non-ninja blade shape but others prefer the AE.
I owned it, albeit very briefly, and used it on 5D.
Two things I do remember vividly:
1. Sharp starting wide open
2. Does not focus very close (as Eward mentioned)
The lens body is somewhat long and thin, I personally did not like how it 'felt' attached to the 5D body - but this is very subjective - others might feel different. Personally I like the handling of the Canon EF 135/2 L, which I've also owned, a lot better. And I like the Canons shorter MFD a whole lot better.
That being said, the Carl Zeiss 135/2.8 is a good value for money alt lens.
definitely a great lens, specially for the money. like others have mentioned, the only negative is the MFD on it. I wish it could focus a bit closer but no biggie. I got the one with the ninja-blade which i like
MFD won't matter.. as I will be using it on an Isco Anamorphic adapter, which makes any lens behind it into a 6ft MFD as one focuses with the Isco and the "taking lens" is set to infinity.
Thx for reviews.. I think I am going to hunt one down.
What's the going price for this lens in the USA market? After dropping $800 on the CY 100/2 and not being able to get focus to infinity on my 5d I'm thinking of selling it for some other Zeiss C/Y lenses. Namely the 35-70 and this 135/2.8 lenses.
Got mine, an AE, about a month ago. Shot a few for comparison with my 135L. The most noticeable difference is a significantly stronger CA in the Sonnar images. However, it is sort of yellow green-purple, whilst the 135L has a blue green-darker red LoCA and almost no lateral CA. I really do not like the blue green CA shade of the L though. Sharpnesswise the L is slightly sharper at f/2.8. But from there on they are essentially equal. At f/5.6 I found the Sonnar to have slightly smoother boke than the L. But that might just be that specific back ground. I find the IQ of the Sonnar more appealing than the L mostly due to more powerful colour. The Canon has a look that in my eyes is canon flat. Sharp and rich in some detail, but not much feeling of depth. This is incredible since I have loved my L since the first shot and thought it would be the one and only 135, as it is very very good. But the Sonnar is up there, perhaps even beyond in some respects, and to a fifth of the price. The CA could of course be a characteristic of my specific lens.
I'm new to the alt lens. I have the ZE lens but never the old Contax C/Y lenses.
I would like to knoe how difficult is it to change the mount to 5DII? Will any cheapo mount be enough? And does it require and physical Mod like filling to the lens?
tonik23 wrote:
I'm new to the alt lens. I have the ZE lens but never the old Contax C/Y lenses.
I would like to knoe how difficult is it to change the mount to 5DII? Will any cheapo mount be enough? And does it require and physical Mod like filling to the lens?
Thanks.
No mod of any sort that I know of, just a C/Y to EOS adapter and you are set.
. for the money they are going these days, there is hardly a reason not to try one out.