Z250SA wrote:
Got mine, an AE, about a month ago. Shot a few for comparison with my 135L. The most noticeable difference is a significantly stronger CA in the Sonnar images. However, it is sort of yellow green-purple, whilst the 135L has a blue green-darker red LoCA and almost no lateral CA. I really do not like the blue green CA shade of the L though. Sharpnesswise the L is slightly sharper at f/2.8. But from there on they are essentially equal. At f/5.6 I found the Sonnar to have slightly smoother boke than the L. But that might just be that specific back ground. I find the IQ of the Sonnar more appealing than the L mostly due to more powerful colour. The Canon has a look that in my eyes is canon flat. Sharp and rich in some detail, but not much feeling of depth. This is incredible since I have loved my L since the first shot and thought it would be the one and only 135, as it is very very good. But the Sonnar is up there, perhaps even beyond in some respects, and to a fifth of the price. The CA could of course be a characteristic of my specific lens....Show more →
The Sonnar looks like a winner at under $300. How does the build quality, weight, feel and handling compare to the Canon 135L? I've long considered getting the Canon, but the Sonnar is very tempting. Now that I'm into the alt thing, I find more and more great opportunities out there.
surf monkey wrote:
The Sonnar looks like a winner at under $300. How does the build quality, weight, feel and handling compare to the Canon 135L? I've long considered getting the Canon, but the Sonnar is very tempting. Now that I'm into the alt thing, I find more and more great opportunities out there.
certainly if you need the extra stop then the 135L cant be beat. its a great lens with excellent sharpness even wide open. AF is also quick but it also cost about 3x more than the Sonnar. I only sold mines cause I had also sold the 17-40 to buy the 21/2.8ZE ... so i got the Sonnar to fill the 135 void. No regrets here since the 135 wasnt one of my most used focal length. The sonnar feels like solid with typical zeiss build and quality. The 100/2 CY does feel a bit nicer on the 5D2 though
The 135/2.8 Sonnar is not highly regarded in the market, hence its price, yet its obviously a good one. To part answer an inquiry above, weight is 585 grams - quite heavy given its speed but not in comparison to other 135s perhaps.
MTF from Zeiss indicate it is down in resolution on the stellar CY Zeiss moderate telephotos but should have great definition of objects - ultra flat lines for 10,20 and 40 lp/mm.
Grandin wrote:
I owned it, albeit very briefly, and used it on 5D.
Two things I do remember vividly:
1. Sharp starting wide open
2. Does not focus very close (as Eward mentioned)
In absolute terms it may not focus close, but the image magnification at close focus is the same as that of, for example, the 2.8/85. Just fine for a routine portrait.
My opinion doesn't matter much, as I'm not nearly as well versed in alt lenses as these other guys, but I have my eye on one of two particular 135/2.8s.
Pentacon preset or a Meyer Orestor 135/2.8. I love the bokeh these two offer with their gazillion bladed irises. I'm not sure about mirror clearance on a FF, but they seem to have no issues on a crop.
I've read that sharpness is better with a CZJ non-mc (vs mc) or a SMC Takumar as opposed to the two above I mentioned.
Is the CA any worse than typical 85mm lenses? I recall the Zeiss CY 85/1.4 had a fair amount of CA though not as bad as Canon's 85mms. If the CA is worse than these lens particularly the Canon 85/1.8 then I might pass on this lens. Anyone got some pics of the CA? I wonder how problematic it is.
Hmmm, sort of wish I had kept my test shots hosted after all. I tested this lens against an old Leica R 135/2.8 and a Pentax SMC 135/3.5 about two years ago. In terms of sharpness I could not determine a winner, they all seemed pretty equal and quite good. In CA wide open the Pentax was the clear winner. I don't remember the color cast of the Contax/Zeiss or the Leica but they were two different colors. The Pentax hardly exhibited any in tough shooting situations. Both the Contax and Leica are big and heavy compared to the slower Pentax. I keep saying I'm going to keep the Leica and sell the others but keep holding off. I'm waiting for the flowers to be in bloom to run one more test to determine which to keep. The Pentax is going to go for certain because it's metal screw-on hood is just a pain to stow since it does not reverse and fit well over the lens itself.
philber - the exif data sez f8; is this accurate or is this a byproduct of the adapter you are using. If the adapter actually tracks the f stop; how does it work ?
philber - the exif data sez f8; is this accurate or is this a byproduct of the adapter you are using. If the adapter actually tracks the f stop; how does it work ?
Yes, it is accurate. I have to stop down manually, but the adapter handles the cam's electronics thanks to a chip, it is a HappyPageHK V5
Does that mean that you have to stop down manually and select the corresponding aperture with the control wheel on the camera? So selecting the aperture only affects EXIF and not metering?
I focus first, manually, wide open. Then I stop down. In Av mode, this "informs" the camera of my preferred aperture, and the cam selects shutter speed. At least, I think that is how it works.
Yes, that is it in 'A' mode - very simple and unfussy.
philber, nice shots as always...another question: the CA issue was raised above, and it strikes me that your subject matter should reveal any of it, you have a lot of edges against sky. Do you see any in the RAWs anytime with this 135/2.8? There is plenty of uncontrived depth in these images - even if resolution is not class leading - giving a very stylish look. Especially the one of the two bums ;-)
It comes up good against the Leica as well in James' 135mm thread, though I would like to see a medium distance shot with plenty of longitudinal subject matter on a high MP cam. The Zeiss has exemplary corners from wide open.
philip_pj wrote:
the CA issue was raised above, and it strikes me that your subject matter should reveal any of it, you have a lot of edges against sky. Do you see any in the RAWs anytime with this 135/2.8?
Shame on me, but I still cannot predict when I will see CA and when not with this lens. I actually shot the "two bums" (copyright Philip_pj) with the intent to show it, and nada!
So I guess you will have to trust me when I say that, at times, there is more than I would like to see. Actually, I am sure that others will be able to educate me -us- in this matter.
philber wrote:
I focus first, manually, wide open. Then I stop down. In Av mode, this "informs" the camera of my preferred aperture, and the cam selects shutter speed. At least, I think that is how it works.
So that means the camera knows the aperture based on the metering (focusing screen gets darker)? I wouldn't have imagined that was possible, especially considering that the metering is off (with many manual lenses) when stopping down a lot.
Yes, as I stop down manually, the VF gets darker. Which is why I focus wide open first, because once I stop down, the VF may no longer be clear enough to allow good focus. Hope this helps
AhamB:
I think to clarify it can be said that the camera does not know the actual aperture value.
The adapter chip does only communicate ONE aperture value to the camera. The actually used aperture value is not known to the camera or recorded in the Exif data unless this value is manually programmed into the chip (which some chips allow, however it is a tiresome process if you do it for every shot).
Otherwise, the camera knows only how much light there is, not which aperture has been selected.
Just received a beautiful MM version of the lens. It is in excellent condition and comes with an eos adapter. The only thing: the aperture blades are not aligned precisely. It does not form a perfect hexagon and at f4 I can see a ninja star-like corner. at other apertures it seems very usable (no problem at f2.8). I am going to keep it, especiall for the price I got it. Has anyone taken one apart BTW (in case the blades get worse)?
... so i got the Sonnar to fill the 135 void. No regrets here since the 135 wasnt one of my most used focal length. The sonnar feels like solid with typical zeiss build and quality. The 100/2 CY does feel a bit nicer on the 5D2 though