I purchased the 135mm F 2.8 C/Y Zeiss for about $175.00 a few years ago. I purchased it as a "stopgap" lens until I could swing an F 2.0 Canon. I decided the Zeiss was so good to skip the Canon L.
I keep wondering why people keep jumping on recommending the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm F 3.5 over the C/Y Zeiss? Certainly, it is not any cheaper these days, and the C/Y has got to be better from a build standpoint?
Well, CZJ is reasonably small, light, sharp and has pretty good bokeh (actually very good). Btw. build quality of red series is pretty good too.
I know CZJ isnt "true Zeiss" but some of their lens are closer to that than anything else. Anyway, current "Zeiss" is actually Cosina.
I dont know if I would take it over C/Y. Zeiss made better portrait lens for C/Y anyway. C/Y 100/2 is one of best for example. While that 135/2.8 isnt bad, its not exactly groundbreaking either.
I think reason for buying that is either C/Y signature look or need for reasonably cheap 2.8. Otherwise I would get 80-200 or 35-135. Or if money wasnt issue, C/Y has 135/2 .. tho I have no idea how good that lens is, only that its really expensive.
anscochrome wrote:
I keep wondering why people keep jumping on recommending the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm F 3.5 over the C/Y Zeiss? Certainly, it is not any cheaper these days, and the C/Y has got to be better from a build standpoint?
Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm F 3.5 is great performer. One has to try it to appreciate it. F3.5 seems slow and non attractive, but the only thing I can think of slightly improving beside speed is performance against bright light sources (no flare at all, just a slight contrast loss - 105/2.5 Ai is better here). I haven't tried the 135 C/Y Zeiss, but from the samples seen it doesn't have as smooth bokeh.
The compact and light CY 80-200/4 is quite the all round gem, and probably helped condemn this 135mm to the backblocks of the range. Leica made a great 80-200 also, and the primes maybe looked pretty narrow niche and heavy for what they offered. I would think a 135mm prime would have to get the blood running to buy one, then or now.
anscochrome wrote:
I keep wondering why people keep jumping on recommending the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm F 3.5 over the C/Y Zeiss? Certainly, it is not any cheaper these days, and the C/Y has got to be better from a build standpoint?
The prices for the CZJ I see today are significantly lower (about factor 2) than the C/Y, just like with the CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 and Flektogon 35/2.4.
A mid-distance comparison (~12m, wide open) showing front/rear specular highlight shapes, field curvature (minimal), and fine detail to frame edges (Zeiss does better here, IMO).
