picked it up earlier today and took a few random snaps around the park.. nothing worth posting but boy, this lens is SHARP. Also, it has NONE of that purple fringing that the 100/2 is known for. I am in love.
I'm heading down for a trip to disneyland this weekend and thats where I intend on putting this lens through its paces. I will post those snaps for sure!
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?
Inquiring mind like to know?...Show more →
Because it looks like you can afford it and I bet you earned it.
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.
I presume you mean the soft-focus Nikon 135? I am certain that the Zeiss will offer better performance than the Canon and Nikon, and better colours than the Voigtländer. However, it will have slower AF than the Canon, no soft focus, and no macro.
If I were in your situation, I would sell all three and get the ZF with an adapter for Canon, so you could use it on both. That loses AF, but I presume you have a 70-200 or similar for that.
carstenw wrote:
I presume you mean the soft-focus Nikon 135? I am certain that the Zeiss will offer better performance than the Canon and Nikon, and better colours than the Voigtländer. However, it will have slower AF than the Canon, no soft focus, and no macro.
The Nikkor 135/2 DC is NOT a soft-focus lens, rather it allows you to control the abberations of the lens, giving you control over the character of the out of focus areas. This is somewhat similar in effect to Minolta/Sony's 135STF, but using a different mechanism which preserves the speed of the lens (unlike the STF), but cannot get you to the buttery bokeh of the STF.
mawz wrote:
The Nikkor 135/2 DC is NOT a soft-focus lens, rather it allows you to control the abberations of the lens, giving you control over the character of the out of focus areas. This is somewhat similar in effect to Minolta/Sony's 135STF, but using a different mechanism which preserves the speed of the lens (unlike the STF), but cannot get you to the buttery bokeh of the STF.
As I understand it, a traditional SF lens under-corrects SA to a degree, giving the entire image a soft glow. Canon's 135 SF, for example, has a mechanism to control the amount of SA and can be turned off completely.
Sony's STF and Nikon's DC, on the other hand, are designed to leave the in-focus areas sharp and create a greater spread of light in the OOF areas, so it's possible to achieve structureless bokeh while still being able to stop down enough to get your subject completely in focus.
Like I said, just my understanding. I could be wrong.
Do 135's get used regularly for astro? I don't have much experience with it, but I was told it was best left to 85mm and below unless you want to invest in a tracking tripod head.
Excited to see your shots, Blackout, but I'm not able to get to flickr right now, so I'll have to try again later.
freaklikeme wrote:
Do 135's get used regularly for astro? I don't have much experience with it, but I was told it was best left to 85mm and below unless you want to invest in a tracking tripod head.
Excited to see your shots, Blackout, but I'm not able to get to flickr right now, so I'll have to try again later.
Pretty much any lens can be used for astro, but it's extremely demanding on lenses. Even if you use a 50mm, you'll still need a tracking platform if you want to go for several minutes to capture faint nebula, details, etc.
Most lenses will have a purple halo around the bright stars or even deformed stars in the field of view. The newer Canon 70-200 2.8L EF IS II has deformed stars - but I'm not surprised at all. So many elements and Canon doesn't spend the time to critically align, but it's stuff that a typical user won't notice in daylight or scenic photography. But, once when the lens is put to the stars, every single weakness shows up on magnification. We are talking 8x10 print size.
And the above images plus the reviews seen do indicate that some photographers retain the mystical and almost mythical ability to focus a lens manually. I would never have thought that after reading the spirited defence of the venerable AF champion Canon L 135/2 off in the 'Latest News' forum thread running to 8 pages.
Posters raised several ojections besides the AF issue - of price difference and age of design. We had comments of 'you can fix the CA in post (LoCA incl), it works just as good' and 'it works for my large prints anyway', and my particular favourite, the stubborn perennial of 'they are both the same at f5.6'.
So it seems to be a bitter pill, as Zeiss simply came along and released - at the first attempt in seemingly decades - a 135mm lens that is so clearly and objectively superior to what many consider to be Canon's finest L lens for general photography.
Yes, more money. But almost certainly more durability, better assembly and build quality, value retention, owner satisfaction..together with copious IQ advantaqes esp in colour correction but also microcontrast, colour palette, clarity, wide open performance and consistency across aperture settings.
The Canon does not reach the CZ's f2 averaged performance until the wrong side of f4! (from Roger C's charts). Alarmingly, it is even worse at the edges. Oh.
Just take a look at the images of the two lenses shown side-by-side to see how badly finished the Canon actually is:
It might sound harsh, but it also looks like a child's toy in comparison, with lots of uneven surfaces and doodads. OK, one maker is an optics specialist company, the other makes a lot else besides lenses and cameras - but Canon sold their 90 millionth EF lens recently. I'll keep that thought in mind the next time I turn the fine gnurling on my my manual focus lenses. 90 million EF lenses...
Informative reading on the foibles of AF lenses and systems here:
