I went to a local camera shop and tested a number of lenses in focal lengths important to me.
While I've been a fan of Zeiss color, consistency, bokeh and high resolution, I've come to realize that some of the newer designs and processes were creating what possibly might be 'better' lenses.
My method for the test wasn't the best as I didn't choose one plane that would cover the range of the various lenses I wanted to test. I was more concerned with not disturbing the store ops too much.
With an opening in the space between 85mm and 180mm, I decide to first look at the 100 Makro and the 135 APO and compare them to the 85mm 1.2.
I've been trying to buy one of these lenses in the $900-1200 range but the sellers have been awfully stingy. Knowing I might eventually migrate to Nikon there's no harm in looking at ZF2 glass as it will work on my NEX and a future Nikon if Sony continues to drag their feet.
In general, they all performed well (testing f2, 2,8, 4,0 and 5,6) Diffraction clearly attacks my NEX after 5.6 so I rarely bother with going further.
However, the new designs appear to exceed in a noticeable degree with regards to control of ACA and the APO was EXTRAORDINARY. There was a slight hint at 2.0 and zero at 2.8. The fringing was easily managed at 2.0 with only 1-2 on the LR4 slider (defringe at 30/70 (all) for purple hue) needed to eliminate it completely. I couldn't tell for sure but 1 appeared to and 2 guaranteed it. Additionally there were no artifacts or visible impacts to those areas once defringed.
The 85 1.2 needed about 4-5 to clean at 2.0, 2-3 to clean at 2.8, and by 4.0 it was happy with the defringe sliders have zero effect.
The 100 wasn't so kind - at 2.0 it needed 10 to be clean, 6-7 at 2.8, 3-4 at 4.0 and maybe 1 or 2 at 5.6 to be completely happy.
I did a little post clean up at 300% on one area of the shot and then applied it across the board to all of the photos. They all looked about as good as each other until I scanned around and found that a cloth binding on a book was amazingly clear with the APO. Of course there was a 'reach out advantage' so I moved closer to see if I could see the same with the 85 and 100 as I got closer - unscientific I know but again - I couldn't reshoot the whole set. It's not my shop.
Then I moved on to the 21mm comparing my 21mm to the new model as well as the 25mm f2 (the almost APO) to my 28mm Hollywood in Imatest. The advantage in the new lenses (and I was only looking at centers) was to the new models but by 4.0 everything was equal or + or - withing the error of my poorly run and hastily set up testing.
I've done enough of these (1000s) to know to throw out the misfocused shot. I can even predict to some degree how high an ROI might score when I go to select it.
I also used each lens to shoot some interior security bars against a very bright background for the lens of interest.
The APO sailed through this, the 25mm f2 also was stellar but then again so was my old Hollywood.
Lastly I used a single bright LED to test sagittal coma flare which the Hollywood has an abundance of. Once the lens goes off axis but is still directly gathering bright light the lens comes alive with coma (Satan's Rainbows).
The 28mm failed as always, while the new 25 2.0 would produce a single larger and more diffused whiter coma. I'm not sure how this would clean up in post - it could be easier - could be worse.
So with my case of old Zeiss glass and itchy money in my pocket, I decided there was only really one lens I needed to have today. The 135mm APO.
It is incredible and it is the best lens in my arsenal now. And I'm not just saying that because it's new. It's just really really good.
The rest of them won't cause me to lose sleep. For the way I shoot and the things I do, the old c/y glass is still working great for me.
I almost bought this lens. I had already put in an order, but decided to cancel it. I fear I would not be able to manual focus it well. Unfortunately, none of the local shops carry it. These local shops are basically useless. They hardly ever carry anything interesting. They only offer to do what you can do yourself -- order one for you.
The other one wasn't being read. This was a better place. I'm in Dallas and the local shop was kind enough to let me test. That's important to me. As is being able to use the live view function of the NEX7 the way I do. Important in that is the alternate use of the EVF and the screen as well as 11.7x and movable focus point. I know of no other camera that has all of this and has a better sensor. So I'm sticking with the NEX and supposedly the new FF coming soon.
The NEX 7 definitely makes manual focusing a lot easier, but this lens so dwarfs that body. I was considering buying it for my D800E. Congrats on the lens. I have a feeling that in a few years time, when all the new Zeiss high def lenses are on the market, we'll look back and wonder what a bargain the 135 APO was. The new 55/1.4 is suppose to be in the $3-4k range.
Yes, that was part of it I suppose - 2k seems like a bargain. 135 is not my favorite length. I didn't even have a 135mm. I was really thinking about the 100mm but it didn't stack up against the 135 on any measure. The reality was I couldn't sleep thinking about the lens. That never happened to me before. I was down at the shop the next morning just shortly after they opened.
That same morning I tested the new 21, 25 and 35 Zeiss. I really wanted the 'semi-APO' 25mm to be worthwhile but I couldn't really find a reason to get it. The 28mm has issues with sagittal coma but just don't use it at night and you'll be fine. The 21mm is as good as you can hope for and my 35mm c/y Zeiss wasn't exceeded in any huge way I could tell by the new one.
There is one thing - I am a huge believer in the idea of 'flange warping' and do all that I can to keep the Sony NEX7 flange from getting stressed. I've used the ASTAT/NEX collar from Novoflex from Day 1 on any lens weighing more than 550 grams. So the Sony, Sigmas and c/y 21, 28 and 50 are ok. The 35mm and 85mm I will always keep a hand on the lens and all of the night shooting is on a tripod and using the ASTAT.
The 135 is heavy and because it takes some real precision to focus I have used the collar on every shot that I can think of.
The 135 focal length was a definite negative for me, not a huge one but enough to make me pause. I had a severe case of GAS over this lens, but putting an order in and canceling it was apparently enough to relieve the tension. It would be interesting to see images from this lens on a Speedbooster on a NEX-7.
Out of curiosity, how fast can you focus on moving subjects such as people? The the inability to focus on dynamic subject has me pausing on this lens every time. Most of the images I've seen online taken with this lens are of static subjects. Human subjects have a hard time staying still, and when they are able to stay still for long periods of time, it's under great pressure to do so, taking away any moment of emotions they may have had. I was looking for a lens that could act as an acceptable solution on my D800E as a replacement for my medium format kit. It would need to be a lens I can acquire focus relatively fast when shooting people. The long throw of the focusing ring may be more accurate but may slow me down. I have often times manual focused on cameras with bigger OVF, but the D800E has a very small OVF that is quite dim. If there was ever an argument for EVF, it's definitely in manual focusing. I'd still rather take a huge OVF over an EVF, but these 35mm guys won't give us that.
Maybe I'll wait for the FF NEX to come out before evaluating this lens again, but I know the only way to find out whether I'd like this lens is to get one now.
I am unable to get geese even in a slow saunter but this is really about how close I am and how shallow the DOF is. I think one would get better results with the Nikon 85. May be able to get closer too - like approach the geese while auto focusing. But not sure if you'll get something as clear as this with that approach.
MaxBerlin wrote:
That same morning I tested the new 21, 25 and 35 Zeiss. I really wanted the 'semi-APO' 25mm to be worthwhile but I couldn't really find a reason to get it. The 28mm has issues with sagittal coma but just don't use it at night and you'll be fine.
That is the same as saying that diffraction is not an issue so long as you don't use a lens at night.
At f/2, the D2/25 is considerably better than the Hollywood 2/28. At f/8, the choice depends on personal preferences. The 2/25 has less TCA and the 2/28 has better extreme corners.
I could have been clearer. The Hollywood doesn't like off axis bright lights and long exposures. Testing the off axis sagittal coma of the 25 with a single bright LED source the 25 had one larger white halo ghost while the Hollywood makes distinct rainbow colored figure eight and clamshell shapes. I'll see if can find the photos - I may have just done it live. (just checked - no photos)
