Kierzkow
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
philber wrote:
Douglas, I had a Contax 135 f:2.8. My take: Pros = small and light (for a metal construction lens), easy to use (for an MF lens), lovely colours and mild rendering, low price. Cons = lots of CA, so-so sharpness only, not a lot of detail. Conclusion = nice at first sight, mildly disappointing soon after. Not at all typical of a Zeiss lens.
---------------------------------------------
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Douglas, like Philippe described. I would never consider this lens for landscapes, but I did enjoy it quite much for my normal boke-shooting, but also in this "application" the CA gets to my nervers (not the focus plane CA, but front/behind magenta/green edges). So one has to choose scenes carefully with this lens. I got the lens during wintertime and I still remember the disappointment (it was winter when we had lots of snow, and that means lenses having CA-issues are worst nightmare - white background in nature for everything, and then black small detail against that background as trees did not have leaf...).
If you look the MTF, you see that it's actually not that bad wide open, but when closing down only tangential detail improves, while sagittal detail only improves in center - this usually means that lens will get crappy boke closed down, and that is also my practical finding when I shoot the lens actively (it was way back when Canon 5D mkII was "the camera" - first live view full frame camera, which did not cost 8000EUR). I don't remember shooting with this lens Sony cameras, now when you reminded I would like to test, but it's hard to get this lens to camera all my other 135mm lenses are much better (except Olympus 135mm), I even prefer Leica and C/Y 80-200 f/4 zooms over this lens.
I have recommendation for you if you want old school Zeiss rendering at tele focal legths (similar as in majority of C/Y-mount lenses): get 80-200 f/4 zoom, in real life landscape applications it will perform well @ f/8-11 80-150mm range, I'm not very happy to 150-200mm, that sucks. Old Zeiss like rendering is very strong 80-100mm and still very much present 135mm. Additional "bonus" is that it's VERY strong performer on backlight situations for a zoom. Naturally 2.8/85 and 3.5/100 are "better" than the zoom, but not by gigantic margin. I have few posts in my old blog:
http://vahonen.com/blog/20100222-Siitama-winter-landscapes/
http://vahonen.com/blog/20100225-Haralanharju/
http://vahonen.com/blog/20100307-Vesilahti/
http://vahonen.com/blog/20091219-mustalamminvuori-landscapes/
http://vahonen.com/blog/20100504-ParisLouvrePart3/
http://vahonen.com/blog/20100519-NotreDamePart1/
Samuli
...Show more →
Very interesting discussion concerning Contax Zeiss C/Y 135mm F2.8 - Samuli, Douglas, Phillipe and others.
Here are few shots taken today at 11:30A.M. on a hazy day. F8 all the way.
Photo 1: Sony A7R + C/Y 135/2.8 contrast 17, clarity 13
Photo 2: Sony A7R + C/Y 135/2.8 contrast 17, clarity 13, dehaze 28
Photo 3: Sony A7R + C/Y 135/2.8 contrast 17, clarity 13, dehaze 31
Photo 4: Sony A7R + C/Y 135/2.8 contrast 17, clarity 13, dehaze 45!!!!!
Test of C/Y 135mm F3.4
|
