Edgars Kalnins wrote:
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)?
nothing is wrong with the lens, thats how the MM version is. I personally dont mind the ninja aperture as it adds a bit of uniqueness to it but its just personal taste
ha ha, philber. I saw a little CA at the frame's edge in a demanding shot I took with the CY 28/2.8 last week, and I am trying to get an idea of where the other CY lenses fit re CA. Some say they have almost none, but these latest monitors let you see it all too close...but there is no harm in looking and asking. thanks.
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.
As I understand Av mode, you select the desired aperture value and then, on the half click, the camera meters and determines all other exposure values. With an OEM mount, it would meter with the understanding the lens was wide open, and adjust for whatever aperture value you're trying to hit. But there's no connection between a manual aperture lens and it's chipped adapter, so how can the camera know when you've manually stopped down the lens? Do you have to meter with the DoF preview button pressed?
In asking that question, I realize I'm not certain it's a possibility. So I'm off to check.
prashant wrote:
cogotech- which adapter for rolleinar?
Just a cheap Hong Kong e-bay Rollei QBM to EOS adapter. Surprisingly, I get infinity (or so damn close I can't tell). Not that I use it at infinity, but it was a nice surprise.
@m-a-x: Thanks for clarifying. I have chipped a few of my adapters myself some years ago, but was curious how philbers shot could have f/8 in the EXIF. Apparently they still work the same way.
I have it-love it (I have a 35mm F 2.8 Distagon that is a good performer as well). Bought it for 110 yankee dollars, thinking I would save up and get a 135mm F 2.0 L later. I like it so much, I don't want the L anymore
I was hesitating a bit before buying Sonnar 135/2.8,because it was told to have poorer optical quality than other C/Y Zeiss lenses.
Well,I found it a very good lens,very Zeiss indeed.Maybe not as outstanding optically as my 28/2.8,50/1,4&1,7 and 85/2.8,but good enough to recommend it.
The only drawbacks I found is a bit too much CAs against harsh light and poorer contrast wide open.
I got 135L as well but use it for different purposes - and lately - getting more nad more angry because of his inferior microcontrast compared to my ZE lenses.
I own the Zeiss 50 1.4 and Zeiss 135 2.8 (both C/Y mount and on an inexpensive EOS XSI). They both please and are a joy to work with. I sold a Zeiss 200 3.5 in place of an excellent Takumar SMC 200 4.0 (it appeals to me due to the price and I do not shoot with a 200 that much).
Yesterday I was at the ball park in Seattle for a rare Cubs vs Mariners ball game and this was taken with the Zeiss 135. It is a lot of fun to work with.
For a Zeiss-look, the Carl Zeiss Jena MC 135mm f3.5 is also an excellent buy. Sharp from wide open. Cheaper mechanics but I've never had any issues with reliability thus far.
Sonnar C/Y 135/2.8 is a very decent lens with only few weakneses (i.e. min focusing distance of 1,6m,CAs and slightly impaired sharpness wide open).Small,well built ,very good overall IQ and cheap.
I also have all singing all dancing 135L but use Sonnar more often for it's Zeiss look which prefer.
It's so cheap that one can always try it and resell if not satisfied.Does very well for me on 5D2/7D/550D (5D/50D/450D previously) as travel/nature lens hand held.
I have always heard people say that this lens is a poor performer in the C/Y Line. I don't know if that is because the whole line is so damn stellar, or if it is a issue of copy variation due to it being a down-market lens. I got a MINT copy with bag and box from KEH for $225. I must say, the MM copy I got is fantastic. I was truly not expecting this lens to be this good for so little money. I really like the way it renders, I have tried lots of alt 135 lenses and for the money this is one great value. As always, buy and try, and if you don't like it you can sell for what you paid.
Yea I'm not sure why folks dislike the 135f2.8. It was my second zeiss lens (after the 50f1.4) and I found it quite charming. I don't think it was razor sharp at the edges but I liked how it rendered (esp colours) and would still use it if I had a digital body to mount it. Maybe one day voigtlander will introduce a mirror less full frame c/y body
I concur, I really liked my C/Y 135. Clearly not as "perfect" as my formidable 135L f:2.0, but giving a classic Zeiss rendition, with contrast and colours, so I kept the Contax and sold my 135L.
