p.2 #3 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
EB-1 wrote:
The LoCA of the Zeiss looks much improved over the Canon. The bokeh looks really nice too. I might be tempted to buy one if not for the lack of AF.
p.2 #5 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
af120835 wrote:
I've often tried focusing my 50 f/1.4, even at smaller apertures like f/2.8, and failed miserably (through the viewfinder). The DOF is far too shallow to be accurate. I've obviously had more luck using the live view, but obviously that requires a tripod and a static subject.
I keep an old 135/2.8 for portraits and in my experience it is significantly easiear to focus than 50/1.4. Of course it may be just because of the particular way I use the 135. I also find that I do not long for more sharpness or wider aperture.
p.2 #6 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
Lars Johnsson wrote:
There is a lot of other things (not only the DOF) that will come into play when comparing how difficult MF is with different lenses. The other lenses also have a closer MFD that will make the DOF thin.
I would expect a lens like the ZE 35/1,4 to be much more difficult to MF wide open than the 135/2. With it's abberations when shooting at f/1,4
This is from diglloyd Lloyd Chambers review of the Zeiss 135/2 lens:
"I was concerned that focus accuracy would be an issue, but right off the bat I was delighted with the 135/2 APO-Sonnar while the 100/2 Makro-Planar has given me fits focusing manually on my Nikon bodies (and I am not alone in that regard), I found that the APO Sonnar presented no difficulty at all, leaving only the inherent challenges of shooting a slightly moving person handheld at close range (photographer and subject movement together where only a few millimeters of movement with either cause blur).
The 135/2 APO offers stunning contrast wide open, and this is plain to see when focusing both by eye and with Live View. Totally absent from the 135/2 APO is the veiling purplish /2 haze of the 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar, which for the 100/2 introduces an ambiguity in accuracy no matter how focus is done (by eye or with Live View). With the 135/2 APO-Sonnar, the image is crystal clear wide open at /2."...Show more →
That's interesting... The zeiss 100mm was one of my dream lenses. Maybe I should reconsider....
p.2 #7 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
I'm glad my 135L isn't that soft. Also I still think 135L bokeh was marginally better. But if a new Zeiss can't best a 17 year old design then nothing can. I'm still going to be be far more interested in a purported Sigma 135 f/1.8 OS, the poor man's 200 f/2.
p.2 #8 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
I really like my 135L and would only replace it if broken. It's fast to focus, light, with nice DOF and very sharp. My wife likes the lens for it's lack of weight and ease of use. Compared to other lenses it's cheap.
If I had to replace it...if it broke or something, I would get another one. If prices drop significantly due to some minor but expensive upgrade - then I'd purchase another as a back up.
p.2 #11 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
Robin Usagani wrote:
Yes.. but if you make the subject fill the frame the same way... not really.
So... if you shoot with a 24mm lens and get very close and fill the frame, you're suggesting that you'll have the same DOF is you shoot with a 400mm at the same aperture from a greater distance as long as your primary subject fills the frame?
p.2 #12 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
gdanmitchell wrote:
So... if you shoot with a 24mm lens and get very close and fill the frame, you're suggesting that you'll have the same DOF is you shoot with a 400mm at the same aperture from a greater distance as long as your primary subject fills the frame?
I would think so.. But the 400mm will have larger circle of confusion/bokeh... but the DOF is about the same.
p.2 #14 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
having been on the canon side before and owning the 135L... I agree with the sentiments that have been posted here. Bang for the buck, the 135L is truly a magical lens. Sharp, super fast AF, and relatively cheap!
That said, now that I shoot nikon, I have been yearning for a 135L equivalent and now its finally here... albeit MF. I have fallen in love with my zeiss 100/2 but I have experienced the same downfalls of that lens.
I finally get my zeiss 135/2 tomorrow so I am extremely happy!
p.2 #16 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
The advantages of the Canon 135 I had were that it focussed quickly and it was light to carry. Both very important points for me.
I rarely shot at f2 as it was not that sharp at f2. (usually stopped down to f2.8 or f4) I had two over time and neither was THAT remarkable compared to my other Canon lenses. In fact I always wondered what all the fuss was about. I'd like a new version though if it was as sharp at f2 as my 70-200 f2.8 mk2 at 135mm.
On the bokeh issue, the only sub 400mm lens that really was THAT impressive to me was the 85f1.2 mk2, the bokeh differences between the rest of Canon's line up is splitting hairs.
the new Zeiss just looks too heavy (and expensive) for me
p.2 #17 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
I Simonius wrote:
The advantages of the Canon 135 I had were that it focussed quickly and it was light to carry. Both very important points for me.
I rarely shot at f2 as it was not that sharp at f2. (usually stopped down to f2.8 or f4) I had two over time and neither was THAT remarkable compared to my other Canon lenses. In fact I always wondered what all the fuss was about. I'd like a new version though if it was as sharp at f2 as my 70-200 f2.8 mk2 at 135mm.
On the bokeh issue, the only sub 400mm lens that really was THAT impressive to me was the 85f1.2 mk2, the bokeh differences between the rest of Canon's line up is splitting hairs.
the new Zeiss just looks too heavy (and expensive) for me...Show more →
Lenses seem most "remarkable" or potentially "magical" during that when you contemplate the possibility of their purchase and then during that fun interval when you unpack them and use them the first time. Then they gradually reveal themselves to not be magical at all, but to simply be fine and competent tools, much like many other lenses.
My 135 f/2 produces fine image quality at f/2 and I don't hesitate to shoot it wide open when appropriate at all. Perhaps yours needed some adjustment? Perhaps you were just caught by the very narrow DOF at f/2 and 135mm - only inches deep - and needed to adjust for that? I imagine that the Zeiss lens is also a fine lens, but can't imagine how it could produce meaningfully better image quality than what I have.
p.2 #19 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
ktan7 wrote:
Carl Zeiss lense is the best! Glass on that thing is amazing!
You have got the 135mm lens already ?
Apr 26, 2013 at 06:37 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar vs Canon EF 135mm f/2L
Diglloyd (Lloyd Chambers) have done a test and review of the Zeiss 135 lens. More than 25 pages and many pics also. He also compare it with the Canon 135 lens. You need to subscribe to read everything of it. Here is a little bit from the conclusion.
"
The 22-megapixel Canon 5D Mark III is used here to compare the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar to the Canon EF 135mm f/2L. The Canon lens has long enjoyed a well deserved reputation as a first class performer, so how does it stack up against the Zeiss APO-Sonnar?
The Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar shows its strengths: it offers a very high level of micro contrast even wide open with no longitudinal chromatic aberration, minimized secondary longitudinal chromatic aberration and outstanding correction of off-center aberrations that results in near-circular specular highlights even wide open. Truly an impressive performance that few lenses can equal.
The Canon 135mm f/2L is surely a fine lens, but it shows its weakness here at wider apertures (uncorrected color and point aberrations), weaknesses that would be even more apparent with a demanding lighting situation and/or on an as-yet unavailable ~40-megapixel Canon DSLR. However, stopped down to 5.6, the Canon 135/2L is a fine performer, and the difference diminish greatly (most aberrations diminish greatly by /5.6).
One factor remains however: photographers stopping down to /4 - /8 and finding autofocus useful or essential might still favor the Canon lens for its autofocus capability."
