carstenw wrote:
You must not be sensitive to colour
Colour, but also contrast. And the Canon is not APO.
Also, it's only the beginning of the story. Future high megapixel cameras are likely to better showcase the differences between the two lenses, in favor of the Zeiss, needless to say.
I looked for an image on line taken with the Canon wide open to show the difference. It just so happens that I had the same subject Ken Rockwell did to show fringing. The only difference is that Ken writes "The Canon 135/2 L behaves as usual, with slight green fringes on background highlights, and slight magenta fringes on foreground highlights."
Here is Ken's image of what he considers 5 star out of 5 for optics with the Canon.
On Lloyd blog, he already showed how much better this lens is compared to the Nikkor 135 DC (f/2 is as good as f/5.6). It's only a matter time for the Canon 135, though i highly doubt that the Canon is that much better than the Nikkor.
I am trying to convince myself that I need to buy the Zeiss135 to no avail.
I am plenty satisfied with the Nikon135 D and the Canon135 L. Add to that the Voigt125.
Why would I need to buy the Zeiss135? Can anybody put an argument forward?
I like the CaNikon for their AF focussing as for finessing a shot, I have the Voigt125.
Do I really need an all singing all dancing another MF lens? For what?
Bokeh with CaNikon and Voigt is great. Sharpness with Canon WO is great, additional sharpness is provided with the Leica R 100APO and the Leica R 90AA.
Why would I want to purchase a Zeiss135? To add to the collection?
Almass wrote:
I am trying to convince myself that I need to buy the Zeiss135 to no avail.
I am plenty satisfied with the Nikon135 D and the Canon135 L. Add to that the Voigt125.
Why would I need to buy the Zeiss135? Can anybody put an argument forward?
I like the CaNikon for their AF focussing as for finessing a shot, I have the Voigt125.
Do I really need an all singing all dancing another MF lens? For what?
Bokeh with CaNikon and Voigt is great. Sharpness with Canon WO is great, additional sharpness is provided with the Leica R 100APO and the Leica R 90AA.
Why would I want to purchase a Zeiss135? To add to the collection?
Throughout your post, you try to convince yourself that you don't need the Zeiss 135. Considering your points, it's clear that you don't need it. However, you know that you want it. So, relieve yourself, buy it. Life's too short.
Blackout wrote:
Throughout your post, you try to convince yourself that you don't need the Zeiss 135. Considering your points, it's clear that you don't need it. However, you know that you want it. So, relieve yourself, buy it. Life's too short.
Several of us have posted Zeiss 135 images over on the ZE/ZF/ZM official thread. I forgot this thread was started.
I've been using the lens extensively since April 9, especially for artifact and flower photography. I'm extremely pleased with what I get from the 135/2. It ranks right up there with the Coastal Optics 60 APO and the Hartblei 80 in image quality, although it would probably take me six months to make a hard, fast comparison there. Only those highly specialized lenses, one (Coastal) custom made and fantastically color corrected, the other with German Zeiss glass (Hartblei) have image quality and bokeh in that league, but the Hartblei is very cumbersome to use and the Coastal has a much wider field of view. Both are considerably more expensive. In my artifact work I quickly discovered the 135/2 works amazingly well with the latest version of Helicon Focus, which gives the photographer the ability to "paint in" the depth of field he or she wants, without sacrificing the sharpness, clarity, separation from background and bokeh of smaller apertures.
I'll post some images here in the future, but for now, the first dozen or so images in this slideshow should provide an idea of what the lens can do with HF and -- with and without Helicon Focus -- in uniform, soft light conditions. The low light images in the series are shot that way deliberately, to keep very bright reflective white objects from blowing out or effecting the rest of the frame, and, hopefully, to pull out the very best color the lens can deliver.
Almass wrote:
I am trying to convince myself that I need to buy the Zeiss135 to no avail.
I am plenty satisfied with the Nikon135 D and the Canon135 L. Add to that the Voigt125.
Why would I need to buy the Zeiss135? Can anybody put an argument forward?
I like the CaNikon for their AF focussing as for finessing a shot, I have the Voigt125.
Do I really need an all singing all dancing another MF lens? For what?
Bokeh with CaNikon and Voigt is great. Sharpness with Canon WO is great, additional sharpness is provided with the Leica R 100APO and the Leica R 90AA.
Why would I want to purchase a Zeiss135? To add to the collection?
How old are you ? You don't have to answer that but if you are old enough to have not so flexible eyes then MF is about to get harder and harder without using a tripod and live view.
I had a go with a 2/135 on a 1Dx yesterday and it was great but my ability to nail the focus was rather iffy.
On the plus side, I was very much aware that focus near infinity required a tangible movement of the focus ring away from infinity, and so was easy to achieve. My MP 2/100, on the other hand, has objects at infinity and at 150-200 yards also being focused differently but with almost no movement of the focus ring required to separate them, making it harder for me to use. I can't say how much this is a result of characteristics of the two lenses or of the viewfinder diopter adjustment controls of a 1Dx and a Nikon D800E. e.g. The Nikon diopter changes in steps whereas the canon is a continuous smooth change.
As nice as Ziess lenses are, the they remain pretty poor at AF on a Nikon or Canon. This is a powerful argument against them for some people; Probably most people these days, even if they have the spare cash.
