p.1 #2 · Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 ZA?
I'd be interested as well to hear some opinions. Owned the SAL 135/1.8 ZA until two years ago. Using it with the LA-EA4 adapter and the A7R II. Since two weeks in possession of the FE 135/1.8 GM now and did some brief shootings with the A7R III.
It's not easy to compare the two lenses based on older shots and differing subjects, and also given the different setup. However, so far I can certainly say that the FE 135 GM is sharper, especially from F1.8 to F2.8. Longitudinal aberration is better corrected wide open - there is basically almost zero compared to the 135 ZA. Autofocus is also in another league, of course, and probably the main reason to upgrade. Weight is also better - 950g vs 1263g (1050g + 212g adapter with plate).
It appears to me that contrast is about equal from F4 on, maybe the GM has a touch more. Wide open, the 135 ZA takes a similar approach as the 85/1.4 GM, delivering a substantial smoother, softer rendering than the 135 GM at the cost of sharpness/contrast. The GM has on annoying negative (besides the price which is the excessive flare (rainbow) ring caused by the glossy paint on the inner threads of the front element. How could this flaw ever pass Sony's quality control?
It's probably highly subjective, but I actually prefer the color and out-of-focus rendering of the 135 ZA after comparing images as good as currently possible. Not unlike the FE 50/1.4 ZA, there's a certain magic formula in the rendering - especially in the closer distance range, which attracts me emotionally, whereas the GM - while being perfect - leaves me somewhat detached.
The clear advantage of the GM to me - at a cost - is useability: no adapter, lighter, much faster AF tracking. Since AF performance for this kind of focal length is not of utmost importance to me, I might have to repurchase a used 135 ZA to compare it to the GM more in-depth in terms of rendering.
p.1 #4 · Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 ZA?
I’ve owned the ZA for a few years now, but haven’t gotten a lot of use from it due to size/weight, and the finicky autofocus using the LA-EA4 (especially at infinity distance).
I will say; optical performance has never been, nor will ever be, the flaw of the ZA. Images are incredibly sharp from wide open, the bokeh is amazing, CA’s are well controlled, the cats eye effect is minimal, and flare resistance is good. I’m sure in terms of pure IQ, the ZA would hold up well to the GM.
Where it can’t hold up well to the GM, is AF. If you can live with the poor AF performance of the ZA, then they are a good choice for the used prices they command. I had mine on the B&S board for a few months for $800 with LA-EA4 and wasn’t able to sell it. I’ve since decided to keep it (I don’t shoot many portraits and can’t justify a more expensive option currently), so it has a place on the shelf for now. If money wasn’t an object, I’d already own the GM.
p.1 #5 · Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 ZA?
The 135 ZA is an AMAZING lens. Especially for portraits. Technically the GM is probably better although I've never shot it. But I do own the ZA and it puts a big smile on my face each time I use it. Creamy, sharp, beautiful colors with lots of character.
p.1 #7 · Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 ZA?
I currently own the GM. I owned the Batis for a few weeks and, despite being good, I ended up selling it. I was using it for portraits and the 85mm GM did a better job in this regard.
I also owned the ZA 135mm f1.8 very briefly a few years ago. I loved the image quality, especially color and bokeh but it was unusable with the LAEA4 adapter (for what I shoot). Rendering wise, I think it's the best lens Sony ever made (even with the visible CA). So sad that Sony let such a jewel become obsolete by not updating its old autofocus motor.
The 135mm GM is optically perfect. I l like its rendering in most situations. The difference between the 135mm f1.8 gm and the ZA is that I have to plan the picture more carefully with the GM because the background could end up being a little edgy. With the ZA and the 85mm GM, any background will look nice 😃.
I still hope that someone will give us some side by side comparison
p.1 #8 · Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 ZA?
That's exactly what I feel about the 2 lenses.
With that being said, I did a photo shoot with the GM in an urban area (where background blur is not as important as, say, foliage), and the results were stunning.
pwpub wrote:
I'd be interested as well to hear some opinions. Owned the SAL 135/1.8 ZA until two years ago. Using it with the LA-EA4 adapter and the A7R II. Since two weeks in possession of the FE 135/1.8 GM now and did some brief shootings with the A7R III.
It's not easy to compare the two lenses based on older shots and differing subjects, and also given the different setup. However, so far I can certainly say that the FE 135 GM is sharper, especially from F1.8 to F2.8. Longitudinal aberration is better corrected wide open - there is basically almost zero compared to the 135 ZA. Autofocus is also in another league, of course, and probably the main reason to upgrade. Weight is also better - 950g vs 1263g (1050g + 212g adapter with plate).
It appears to me that contrast is about equal from F4 on, maybe the GM has a touch more. Wide open, the 135 ZA takes a similar approach as the 85/1.4 GM, delivering a substantial smoother, softer rendering than the 135 GM at the cost of sharpness/contrast. The GM has on annoying negative (besides the price which is the excessive flare (rainbow) ring caused by the glossy paint on the inner threads of the front element. How could this flaw ever pass Sony's quality control?
It's probably highly subjective, but I actually prefer the color and out-of-focus rendering of the 135 ZA after comparing images as good as currently possible. Not unlike the FE 50/1.4 ZA, there's a certain magic formula in the rendering - especially in the closer distance range, which attracts me emotionally, whereas the GM - while being perfect - leaves me somewhat detached.
The clear advantage of the GM to me - at a cost - is useability: no adapter, lighter, much faster AF tracking. Since AF performance for this kind of focal length is not of utmost importance to me, I might have to repurchase a used 135 ZA to compare it to the GM more in-depth in terms of rendering.
p.1 #13 · Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 ZA?
roofdweller49 wrote:
are the other a mount za lenses as worthwhile to use like the 135 1.8 ZA - or is that the standout?
At this point, pretty much every A mount ZA lens has been bested in performance or convenience by third party offerings, if you are looking to adapt any of them to E mount. If you are shooting an a99ii they still make sense.
The 16-35 2.8 and 24-70 2.8’s can be replaced by the Tamron 17-28 and 28-75, the prices are close between them all. And the Tamrons are significantly lighter.
The 24 f2 ZA doesn’t make much sense when the Batis 25 f2 exists and they go for similar prices.
The 50mm f1.4 ZA is a double Gauss based design, so things like the Samyang 50 1.4 or Sigma Art 50 1.4 will be sharper wide open.
The ZA 85mm f1.4 is a great lens, but screw driven only. They are similarly priced to the Samyang 85mm f1.4, but surely not as good.
As far as general A mount lenses go, aside from ones that render in interesting ways, I don’t think there’s too many exciting optics that are worth adapting. The 70-300G SSM is quite cheap used (around $300) and a decent performer. The 70-400G SSM is probably the best lens to adapt, as it goes for around $700ish, much cheaper than a 100-400 GM.
p.1 #14 · Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 ZA?
roofdweller49 wrote:
are the other a mount za lenses as worthwhile to use like the 135 1.8 ZA - or is that the standout?
When talking about AF performance, the issue to understand is that Sony did not make an adapter that would allow both the use of the screw drive AF on many ZA lenses while also using the AF module on the host camera.
Instead, the screw-drive adapter uses an antiquated APS-C DSLT array, which while certainly functional, falls far, far short of what a modern A7 is capable of.
The A99 II is better here of course, but a further issue is that the screw drive system itself isn't as nearly as accurate as modern in-lens motors, which means that even the A99 II (as tested by reviewers) is going to miss a little bit where an A7 never would.
So, while not nearly a perfect replacement, the Canon 135/2L may be considered to be a better adapted lens for A7 and A9 cameras unless one is looking for the very special look of the ZA lens.
p.1 #15 · Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 ZA?
Sony did not design an adapter that performs as well as Canon's or Nikon's. It makes A mount lenses not very appealing options especially given how well newer third party lenses perform. Third party adapters (Sigma and Metabones) made adapting even Canon lenses a more interesting proposition.
p.1 #17 · Sony 135mm f1.8 GM vs Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8 ZA?
roofdweller49 wrote:
Thanks, I was looking into if any of the sony zeisses had any unique rendering that would make using the adapter worthwhile
I had and used both in a side-by-side situation at a concert with an A7RIII. The GM - not surprisingly - outperformed the ZA most likely because of the adapter and extreme conditions.
This is my personal opinion: The ZA is a beautifully rendering lens. I loved it in every way except the extreme low-light performance that really taxed its ability to AF in that situation.
Otherwise, it's wonderful.
Set that aside.
The GM performance expectedly far exceeds the ZA + adapter configuration. Like has already been mentioned - if one put the ZA on an a99 or other A-mount body, I would expect better performance with the ZA.
But I don't believe anything is going to outperform the GM in extreme low light conditions. It's sharpness might also be unparalleled. Of course, again, this was with the A7RIII, which has a pretty deep resolution.
If I was just shooting portraits or mostly daylight and only a small percentage of low-light situations - I wouldn't hesitate to save $1400 and buy a ZA lens (if you already own an adapter). The adapter I used was the LA-EA4.
The frustration with the ZA, when one is faced with using it with an adapter on an E-mount body, is the AF performance, especially and specifically in low light or in instances where speedy AF is of the essence.
If neither of these is the case, then save the money - or use the ZA with an A-mount body. There's more than one way to skin a cat as they say.
Just to be clear - there's something to be said for who is handling the gear...any gear - at any given time. As an example, a race car driver can probably outdrive most people who don't drive professionally. So, what I'm getting at here is that, with a lot of decades of experience as a photographer, I can probably get quite a bit out of working with a gear set up. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate it when a piece of gear comes out that runs super efficiently, accurately and smoothly.
But I'm like anybody else - I have to weigh whether or not I really need something, if I'm actually going to utilize a piece of gear or if it's just going to sit on my shelf. For me, the GM was a critical piece of gear that is going to yield a higher capture rate for the low-light concerts I shoot often - and just the low-light shooting scenarios I tend to be attracted to.
Anyway, blah, blah, blah: Here's a couple of examples from the one concert I shot with both the ZA and the GM on the last day I owned the GM. I tried to be as fair as possible in the comparison.
I sold my ZA to an FMer who had an A-mount camera body, which made a lot more sense for both me as the seller and him as the buyer. I hope he's very happy with it - because it's a great lens.
which is the excessive flare (rainbow) ring caused by the glossy paint on the inner threads of the front element. How could this flaw ever pass Sony's quality control? 
