Some samples:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/silver2silicon/sets/72157631453059672/with/7950477506/

Got the link from here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1146718/2#10946242

alundeb wrote:
a.RodriguezPix wrote:

Nikon has the top notched 135mm f/2 DC though.



I am uncertain about that lens. it doesn't look top notch here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=646&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


The purple at both centre and corners strongly suggests he missed focus. Thinking perhaps that it might be some odd side-effect of the defocus control feature, I went looking at his main test page for that lens. That says it's a placeholder because "it is required by the database and content management systems". I'm afraid I think that, in the absence from him of any comment about this, his results for this lens are invalid.

Apparently this lens is well-liked in Japan because of the defocus control, which is something the Zeiss doesn't have.

a.RodriguezPix wrote:

Nikon has the top notched 135mm f/2 DC though.

alundeb wrote:
I am uncertain about that lens. it doesn't look top notch here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=646&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Not as good as the 135L IMO.


That's what I heard too. The 135L is one of the lenses that make Nikon shooters keep a Canon camera.

a.RodriguezPix wrote:

Nikon has the top notched 135mm f/2 DC though.

alundeb wrote:
I am uncertain about that lens. it doesn't look top notch here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=646&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

melcat wrote:
The purple at both centre and corners strongly suggests he missed focus. Thinking perhaps that it might be some odd side-effect of the defocus control feature, I went looking at his main test page for that lens. That says it's a placeholder because "it is required by the database and content management systems". I'm afraid I think that, in the absence from him of any comment about this, his results for this lens are invalid.

Apparently this lens is well-liked in Japan because of the defocus control, which is something the Zeiss doesn't have.


Ok, I will regard that test as invalid for this lens.

RobertLynn wrote:
While I admire the skill of you being able to use MF, and I think a lot of you get rid of af problem concerns while doing it, I simple cannot fathom manual focus on anything.
I know it was done before, but it's not my thing.

The Earth was flat, Pluto was a planet, and we burned witches. Times change, at least that's how I see it.

Does look cool though and I really wish I could manual focus anything.

Although I completely understand your sentiment... I think you should really give it a try! Maybe pick up a used MF only lens to play around with. It definitely has a learning curve but once you get the hang of it, its really not so bad. Not to mention, having absolute control over where focus is, is very nice for portraits.

Obviously for moving targets AF is pretty much a necessity, but when you have the time to slow it down and really think about your shots, I can't think of anything more enjoyable than rotating the buttery smooth Zeiss focusing barrel.

+1

As soon as I started using MF glass, it was amazing how much I felt in touch with the composition and the overall feel of the portrait. The 'forced' attention to detail does wonders for someone like me who is still learning the ropes.

TSY87 wrote:
Obviously for moving targets AF is pretty much a necessity, but when you have the time to slow it down and really think about your shots, I can't think of anything more enjoyable than rotating the buttery smooth Zeiss focusing barrel.

Had the Nikon 135/2 DC and 105/2 DC. Both nice but since I never really used the DC feature - I sold them both. Had the EF 135/2. Just never impressed me that much, sold it. Had the ZE 100/2 and really liked it but found another lens so much better - Leica 100/2.8 APO. Sold the ZE 100. For me APO is the key. I think $2K is a fair price for the ZE 135/2 APO and I am looking forward to getting one. Will fill in a small gap in my APO collection: Leica 100 APO macro, Sigma 150/2.8 OS APO (yes, it really is APO with no LoCa even,) and the King of the heap - Leica 180/2 APO. Forgot to mention that I only use MF for everything and even though IS is nice, I just do not need it.

BTW since someone mentioned the 135 Zeiss for Sony does anyone know if that lens is an APO?

Which of the two is the better lens the new Zeiss 135 APO or the old Zeiss 135 for Sony? Are they the same design?

Really am curious about this as my 135L is definitely a favorite but Hey things change, if there is something better out there I want to try it.

Undoubtedly this lens has a raison d'être despite the existence of a highly regarded Canon "equivalent".

In the following circumstances, the new Zeiss will probably trounce the venerable L lens.

1. When mounted on a high-MP full-frame camera. In the following years, 30, 40, 50 MP cameras will flourish, and the Zeiss lens sure was developed with this context in mind, enabling photographers to extract the best from such sensors. This was of course not the case with the 135L. You may not see any big difference if you compare them on a 5D, but how about on the rumored 45+ MP camera ? Time will tell, but the 135 from Zeiss is likely to easily outperform the 135 from Canon.
   
   
2. When focused at - or near - infinity, on any camera. High end Zeiss lenses such as the 100 Makro-Planar are renowned for being stellar performers whatever the focusing distance is, contrary to the 135L which is not at its best when focused at infinity. Following this, one can reasonably expect the new Zeiss to perform superbly at infinity, making it a fantastic landscape lens - what the 135L is not... and its AF is of no help in this regard.
   

The IQ of this lens should be better than the already very good IQ of the 135L. The Sony 135 is slightly ahead of the 135L in terms of sharpness across the frame, which mostly only matters for landscape use. I would expect the ZE/ZF to perform equally as well, and probably better due to the APO elements.

Although I don't find AF needed for portraits with the 135L, I do find AF important in that focal length which I use for capturing my kids at play without disturbing them. It would be a tough sell for me personally. I also think this would be a bad lens for anyone new to MF to learn with... all too easy to mis-focus when wide open (or even close to wide open), slight hand shake can throw the focus plane off.

I can see why it would be attractive for people who have a heavily stocked Zeiss lineup, rendering consistency is a factor to consider. Also, the 100 MP is known to have some CA, so this will potentially be a solution and/or reason for someone to own both (smart marketing).

I've actually been considering moving to a Sony system (A99 possibly) and the 135L is probably the one lens holding me up the most. Even though the Sony Zeiss 135 bests it in IQ it lacks SSM so the AF of the L should be much faster and that's one thing I love about it.

Interesting thread, can't wait to see some real samples of people shot with this lens.