Upload & Sell: On
| Re: Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L |
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
Do you base all your comments about the new Zeiss lens from personal experience with this lens. I guess you have been shooting a lot with it
I think that you'll note, if you read my posts here, that I have said nothing to criticize the capabilities of the Zeiss lens in the least, partially because I - like every other person offering an opinion in this thread - have not used it but also because a) I accept that it is no doubt an excellent optical performer and b) that was not my point.
My point was that the existing Canon alternative is also an exceptional performer and that whatever increment by which we might theorize that the Zeiss "improves" upon it will not result in photographic prints that are any better. Frankly, the Canon 135mm f/2 is one of the best performing lenses in terms of resolution, various sorts of distortion, etc. that is made for DSLR cameras. So, even though the Zeiss specs may be slightly better, and as satisfying as it may be to some to own a lens that is embossed with the word "Zeiss," this new and no-doubt-excellent Zeiss 135mm prime is not going to produce a better 30" x 40" print than the no-doubt-excellent 135mm Canon prime.
Does that make sense to you now?
(Note added later, in reference to the quoted text I replied to. On the other hand, I have used the Canon 135mm f/2 L quite a bit, for work ranging from tripod-based landscape style shooting to low light handheld environmental portraiture and similar.)