Upload & Sell: Off
Gary, I'll see about low light evening photos...
Joe, that's pretty amazing for ~80 year old lens! Looking forward to seeing more from it. Would be interesting to see what the differences are compared to a post-war coated Sonnar.
Michael, the 135/4 is pretty decent optically, though it doesn't seem to tolerate strong backlighting very well. massive flare and loss of contrast with some of the backlit sailboat images. But that is a difficult challenge for any lens. Focusing was tricky. This copy back focused on my M9, so I had to do a number of test shots, for example that one of the coffee cut. For the sailboats and other distant scenes, I stopped it down to around f/11, but it's generally a lens you can't just set to infinity and expect good focus if the subject is several hundred feet away.
As I may have stated before, at this focal length, for infinity type scenes, I would like very high across frame sharpness. I think the 135 was decent, but not quite on par with modern telephoto lenses. The contrast loss in backlighting is also an issue for me. I would prefer to use it on a live view camera just for the focus assurance.
Because everyone's sure to want to know, here are a few sequences comparing the Canon 35/2 LTM against the ZM35/2.8 at around 1m distance:
Canon at f2, 2.8 and 4:
ZM35/2.8 at f/2.8 & 4:
As a bonus, Canon 50/1.4 LTM and 50 Lux ASPH in that order, wide open:
And another scene with a busier background:
Canon 35/2 at f/2 & 2.8:
ZM35/2.8 wide open:
And again, the Canon 50/1.4 LTM and 50 Lux ASPH: