rico wrote:
@freaklikeme@ Actually, I think the Rok has superior bokeh as well. That leaves build quality as the sole reason to go CZ (CZ fan speaking).
I believe the CZ has also been shown to be better in terms of transmission, i.e., faster in terms of t-stops.
mmacro wrote:
That's how I felt when it came out. Even 1:2 would have been tempting. But I ended up with a Leica-r 100 apo instead, sold my 100 Planar, and haven't looked back since.
Indeed. Having owned the APO135ZF for about a year and a half (and used it on an A7r doing the B&W picture style + focus peaking trick to nail focus consistently), I've found it to be an amazing lens, but the 1:4 was lacking.
I also picked up an Apo-Macro-Elmarit-R 2.8/100 (thanks, mmacro!), and it's considerably better. Even just comparing the size/weight.
bushwacker wrote:
So tell me the real deal with zeiss 2/135 vs rokinon 135? It's $1,500 vs $500.... Forget about build quality... Is zeiss way ahead in IQ department.
Apparently, the Rokinon is very, very sharp, has very little to no CA (APO or APO-ish) and has fine bokeh, but there is an issue with flare in some limited situations.
A review of the cine version of the Rokinon 135/2 (135/2.2) at the photozone shows that it has excellent IQ (MTF), but the Canon 135/2L is slightly better (using the same tests).
Unfortunately, PZ has not yet tested the CZ Apo Planar 135/2 (now called "Classic" by Zeiss).
TDP allows you to directly compare the Rokinon 135/2 with the CZ Apo Planar 135/2 ZE: the ZE might be a bit better here, but maybe not - they're very close.
When using the Lens Image Quality app at TDP, make sure you're using the same camera for both lenses; most are tested with the 1DsIII, some are tested with the newer 5DS R, and some (incl. the Rokinon/Samyang) are tested with both cameras.
OTOH, many important performance aspects of a fast lens can't be easily tested, like the MTF/resolution tests cited above. I'm itching to get a fast 135 (again), but it'll probably be the Zeiss, because it 'matches' my other ZE f/2 lenses at 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm, or the Canon, which is the lightest, has the shortest MFD, and has very fast AF.
jcolwell wrote:
Apparently, the Rokinon is very, very sharp, has very little to no CA (APO or APO-ish) and has fine bokeh, but there is an issue with flare in some limited situations.
A review of the cine version of the Rokinon 135/2 (135/2.2) at the photozone shows that it has excellent IQ (MTF), but the Canon 135/2L is slightly better (using the same tests).
Unfortunately, PZ has not yet tested the CZ Apo Planar 135/2 (now called "Classic" by Zeiss).
TDP allows you to directly compare the Rokinon 135/2 with the CZ Apo Planar 135/2 ZE: the ZE might be a bit better here, but maybe not - they're very close.
When using the Lens Image Quality app at TDP, make sure you're using the same camera for both lenses; most are tested with the 1DsIII, some are tested with the newer 5DS R, and some (incl. the Rokinon/Samyang) are tested with both cameras.
OTOH, many important performance aspects of a fast lens can't be easily tested, like the MTF/resolution tests cited above. I'm itching to get a fast 135 (again), but it'll probably be the Zeiss, because it 'matches' my other ZE f/2 lenses at 25mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm, or the Canon, which is the lightest, has the shortest MFD, and has very fast AF....Show more →
jcolwell wrote:
Apparently, the Rokinon is very, very sharp, has very little to no CA (APO or APO-ish) and has fine bokeh, but there is an issue with flare in some limited situations.
I've not shot the latest crop of 135s, but did peruse their output on FM. IMO the Rok 135 remains the King, but excessive flaring can fully negate the advantage. The lens serves best in low-key settings, or when you can flag all bright sources outside the frame. I recommend the AS135 if you want metal build, or intend to shoot in harsh light.
@bushwacker . In particular, better color correction and smoother bokeh, but to a slight degree only. The CZ is obviously a top performer, and I speak as a CZ fanatic with lots of their manual-focus glass (Contax mount).
rico wrote:
@bushwacker@ . In particular, better color correction and smoother bokeh, but to a slight degree only. The CZ is obviously a top performer, and I speak as a CZ fanatic with lots of their manual-focus glass (Contax mount).
I think the Samnyang is at least as sharp, and, astonishingly, possibly even more APO when I played with it
It's a screamingly good deal.
But if money is no object, at least for how I use it, I'd go with the Zeiss. More than half of my keepers are backlit, and the Zeiss has fewer flare artefacts, and - much more importantly - keeps it's contrast up a lot better in backlight.
With the sun behind my back, the Samyang is as good a lens (modulo build). But for more than half of my shots, it's a worse, less contrasty lens.
One thing I didn't have time to check with the sayang is performance at MFD. The Zeiss is amazing - it's performance at MFD doesn't deteriorate at all.
But, again, the Sammy is a screaming deal (and it's not actually *bad* against the light, indeed it's good, just significantly worse than the Zeiss - for significantly less money)
I have been using this lens recently to take pictures of flowers and trees and I'm shocked that even after cropping it usually has comparable detail and better bokeh than the legacy Kiron made Vivitar 105mm macro lens which requires less cropping.
DavidBM wrote:
But, again, the Sammy is a screaming deal (and it's not actually *bad* against the light, indeed it's good, just significantly worse than the Zeiss - for significantly less money)
well these are already given:
Zeiss = $1,500
Samyang = $500
Build: Zeiss all metal vs Samyang plastic [ or engineering plastics as they call ]
Based on these images from this site VERYBIGLOBO
The samyang seem to blowout highlights. or this is just an exposure error from camera or operator...
I just want to know what $1500 [ previously $2,100 ] lens can do...
Lenses don't blow out highlights; that'll be exposure error.
I have used the Zeiss a lot, and the Sammy a bit, and the only real difference aside from build is the flare and veiling performance. possible the performance at MFD but I'm less sure. You might think it's worth that (especially if you care about the the glorious build) - I do, just - but it is a lot of extra money. Only you can decide! But I will say that the Zeiss will be fine in 20 years, but if you use it a lot, the Samyang definitely won't. And I don't say that because I'm against engineering plastics or composites - it's just the track record of Samyangs going out of kilter.
DavidBM wrote:
I think the Samnyang is at least as sharp, and, astonishingly, possibly even more APO when I played with it
It's a screamingly good deal.
But if money is no object, at least for how I use it, I'd go with the Zeiss. More than half of my keepers are backlit, and the Zeiss has fewer flare artefacts, and - much more importantly - keeps it's contrast up a lot better in backlight.
With the sun behind my back, the Samyang is as good a lens (modulo build). But for more than half of my shots, it's a worse, less contrasty lens.
One thing I didn't have time to check with the sayang is performance at MFD. The Zeiss is amazing - it's performance at MFD doesn't deteriorate at all.
But, again, the Sammy is a screaming deal (and it's not actually *bad* against the light, indeed it's good, just significantly worse than the Zeiss - for significantly less money) ...Show more →
Yeah, the flaring issues with the SY is almost a crying shame. It's an amazingly good performer, and bargain, otherwise.
I concur on the build comments as well.
That leaves build quality as the sole reason to go CZ (CZ fan speaking). 