Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2010 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

abhijeeth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

Hello FMers,

I need some comments/advice from you all on my upcoming lens purchases for my 5d mk2: Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZE and Canon 135mm f/2L [ I have a weird question on this lens relevant to the Alt forum!]. I primarily shoot landscapes[~80%] and portraits of my family [~20%].

Landscapes: I love shooting both grand vistas as well as close-up abstracts photos at both small and fast apertures.
Portraits: Mostly of my family when on travel and also back at home. Both candid and posed. Someday in the future, I expect to be taking photos of my kids running around :-)

Budget: 2k total. slightly flexible but not much. The 21mm f/2.8 ZE and the 100/2 MP, as impressive as they are, are out of my budget for now :-( Let me see if I can keep my Zeiss-itis in check!

My initial thoughts on the two lenses:

1] Zeiss 35mm f/2: I want to use this for both landscapes and people. I am aware of its many positive qualities and have read the full review on Digilloyd.com. I have also seen many sample images here. I like its bokeh, rendition and color separation a lot. The fact that it is quite sharp all over even wide open is a bonus! I plan to get the Eg-S focusing screen to help in focusing for quick, candid portrait shots. In a more leisurely setting, I intend to use 10X LiveView mode on a tripod for landscapes and for posed portraits.

I tried this lens out in a local store on a 5d2 and although my "trial" was short, I saw enough to be happy with it . But I found the focusing ring too stiff and the throw disappointingly shorter than the generous throw of the 21 ZE . I haven't heard any complaints of this online, so I am wondering if it is typical or if I ended up playing with a lemon sample?

I wonder if Zeiss deliberately did a short throw to aid its use for portraits so you can cover a lot of distance quickly ? If so, I sure wish they made it *slightly* less stiff. The over-damped ring is great for precise focusing on a tripod but IMHO not so for great for quick changes in focus.

Anyway, has anybody used it for photographing kids? I expect that to be challenging; trying to get correct focus manually, even with the Eg-S screen. IMHO, this might be my main difficulty when using this lens. This is the only thing that makes me wonder if I should rather get the AF capabilities and the relatively flat, (but otherwise good)clinical performance of the 35L? Sigh! Decisions, decisions!

2] 135mm f/2 L: I rented this for 10 days during a trip to Colorado last year and I was impressed by its superb wide open performance and its color rendition. IMHO, it has some sparkle to it that I like a lot. However, I haven't been to able to compare it with other fast lenses.

So, my questions on this are:
[ i ] : Is there a good alternative to this ? (similar or lesser cost, FL from 100mm - 150mm, similar or better quality; MF/older glass is ok ]
[ ii ] : How close is its color rendering **relative** to the Zeiss 35mm color rendering? I know we are comparing different focal lengths but I am talking about color rendition and brilliance specifically. I don't need these two to match but I don't want the 135mm to be looking sterile after comparing to the Zeiss. I think it might be okay reading from the opinions and comments on some other threads but want to check for sure. Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance for the comments :-)

Sep 14, 2010 at 04:28 PM

wayne seltzer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

Since you say that you shoot lanscape 80% of the time vs. 20% portrait I would really recommend the ZE 35/2 as it also a very capable portrait lens too. The Zeiss colors,contrast and drawing style really will make the lanscapes shine vs. the 35L.Quite a few people here ditched their 35L for the Zeiss 35/2.
My copy of the 35/2 doesn't have a stiff ring and I haven't heard any complaints about the 35/2 regarding that. How well you MF with the lens will depend on your MF skills and the more you practice the better those skills become.
Regarding 135mm, I am a crazy Zeiss fanatic who converted a ZA 135/1.8 for Sony FF DSLRS for my Canon 1ds3. I briefly rented the 135L and shot some comparison shots.The 135L is one of Canon's finest lenses and the two lenses both perform very well. The ZA 135 was slightly sharper in the corners and had less vignetting wide open. The faster speed of the ZA 135 helps in low-light and allows a narrower DOF.
I would suggest the 135L due to the AF which helps with a telephoto lens like this and especially if you are using it to track children or fast moving subjects.There was a rumor that Canon was going to come out with a mark 2 version maybe with IS but that hasn't happened yet.
An alternative is the old CZ 135/2.8 Sonnar which is not bad but I would still go for the 135L.
Other options are CV 125 and Mamiya 150.

Sep 14, 2010 at 05:31 PM

Tony Ross
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

The Canon 135/2 is one of Canon's best lenses. It has ultra fast auto focus, which is useful.

I have never heard of anyone having a "bad" one, so it must be a robust design with no slack to allow variations.

And it even takes a 1.4x converter, if you want.

Sep 14, 2010 at 05:44 PM

bluetsunami
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

Regarding the 135L, the quick AF speed vs. the longer throw of some manual lenses at this focal length makes the 135L a nice well rounded lens in many aspects. I would save up and get that over almost all legacy offerings.

I have also seen that extra something from the 135L, absolutely perfect lens for tight portraits on FF.

Sep 14, 2010 at 06:02 PM

JohnJ
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

I've never used the Canon 135/2 but from all it accounts it does seem to be one of the best in that focal length/speed so I doubt you can go wrong if you buy it.

I have a Contax 135/2.0 AEG which I find to be a very interesting lens. Although it is very sharp wide open with excellent detail there seems to be a softness which might come from spherical aberration, but which is already gone at F2.8. There is a bit of CA wide open which is a bit of an issue, probably this lenses worst trait. The bokeh from this lens is just beautiful. It's very smooth with very little harshness, even in difficult circumstances. It's a very worthy lens for bokeh and still very sharp wide open.

This highly PP'ed version doesn't show the CA that would otherwise be evident but this was at F2.0 and shows the very nice bokeh from this lens.

http://ih2.redbubble.net/work.5705516.1.flat,800x800,070,f.jpg

There are a couple of fins that protrude from the mount of the lens, one of which will obstruct the mirror on FF bodies. At least one of them will need to be shortened about a mm or 2, which I have done and is very easy to do, so the lens works fine on a 1ds2 and 5d2.

I had the Contax 135/2 about 17 years ago and then sold it, because I dumped ALL of my Contax/Zeiss/Yashica (21, 24), when I foolishly tried Leica R and preferred it. I eventually bought the Contax 135/2 again and although it doesn't get much use these days it's still a special lens IMHO.

JJ

Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 06:28 PM · View previous versions

Sep 14, 2010 at 06:10 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

I have both the 135L and the 35/2 ZE. Both lenses are very good - the 135L is one of Canon's best in terms of colors and micro contrast. It's not in the same league as the Zeiss 100/2, but still very very good. It is definitely my favorite Canon lens, and I've had a few.

http://peltarion.eu/img/135/canon135-1.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/135/canon135-2.jpg

http://peltarion.eu/img/135/canon135-3.jpg

You will definitely see a difference in color rendering but the only way to really match them is to get another Zeiss ZE lens as a medium tele.

As for the 35/2 and it's focus ring - yes, it's stiffer than on the 21 but it's the 21 that is the exception. All the other lenses in the ZE line have stiffer focus rings. The 35/2 is perhaps a bit below average in stiffness. The 50 MP has by far the stiffest focusing ring.

Edited on Sep 14, 2010 at 06:39 PM · View previous versions

Sep 14, 2010 at 06:19 PM

Sam N
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

If the ZE rings are anything like the ZM ones, they loosen a bit with use.

Sep 14, 2010 at 06:28 PM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

Regarding your 35mm question:

I own both the Zeiss and the Canon 35mm I intended, as I bought the Zeiss, to keep only one of them. I haven't made this decision yet (although I made a lot of comparison pictures) and maybe I will keep both in the end.

IMO the difference between both lenses are very minor beyond the obvious different WO apertures and the AF of the Canon.

Differences that don't matter much to me: the Zeiss vignettes much more at f2.0, the Canon is 1-2mm wider, the Zeiss has a little more CA in the corners while the Canon has a tiny bit more CA overall at wider apertures; the build quality of both lenses is very good, but the Zeiss one is something special and I like its tiny metal hood; MF is easier with the Zeiss.

Differences that matter to me: the rendering style of both lenses are different but not to an amount I expected from them. Interestingly I see the better microcontrast, the clearer color separation and the tiny bit more saturation in the Zeiss quite often when a take pictures with it. But in 1 to 1 comparisons between both lenses these differences are less marked then I would have thought. The differences in microcontrast for expample can be added in PP quite easily. Even the bokeh is quite similar between both lenses. An advantage of the Zeiss which I haven't tested systematically yet is its better handling of contrasts in specific light situations where the Canon can yield to a more flat look

I took a lot of pictures of kids with both lenses they came out great. If the kids move, the Canon has a big advantage in keep rate. In all other cases the MF of the Zeiss is sufficient and it's quite easy to focus with the right screen. Regarding rendering style for kids: I prefer the Zeiss for its aperture range but I also like very much the wide open performance of the Canon (1.6-1.8) which can give a nice look to pictures of kids because of the greater OOF blur.

Sep 14, 2010 at 07:01 PM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

To illustrate my comments here's a direct comparison between both lenses (shot with identical settings in raw and converted and size reduced the same way). First one is the Canon, second one the Zeiss, both at f5.6:


	http://www.paintingwithlight.de/FilesEx/canon35a.jpg


	http://www.paintingwithlight.de/FilesEx/Zeiss35a.jpg

Sep 14, 2010 at 07:07 PM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

And to get a better impression here are both files in original size:

Zeiss 35mm

Canon 35mm

Sep 14, 2010 at 07:09 PM

phidong
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

Don't forget about the C/Y 100/2 which is also a very nice lens. I have both the 100/2 and 135L and am having a very difficult time deciding which to keep.

Sep 14, 2010 at 07:16 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

Interesting comparison shot Ulff. If one opens them in separate tabs and flips between them the difference in color separation and rendering becomes very clear. It's difficult to say anything about micro contrast - perhaps if you used a multiple step sharpening method when resizing.

Do you have one at f/2? I've found that the 35/2 drawing style isn't all that interesting at infinity, stopped down. My favorite use for it is at intermediate distances (1-10 meters) and wide open where it really shines.

Sep 14, 2010 at 07:17 PM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

I'm not sure if the distance really makes a difference when it comes to the the rendering style of these two lenses. But I agree that the f2.0 aperture make a difference - but at least some of it may be attributable to the greater vignetting of the Zeiss which make the edges look sharper and give the picture more of a 3D-feeling. Here's an example that you ask for (spanning a distance of about 1-8 meters):

Canon 35 @2.0:


	http://www.paintingwithlight.de/FilesEx/Canon35e.jpg

Zeiss 35 @2.0:


	http://www.paintingwithlight.de/FilesEx/Zeiss35e.jpg

Sep 14, 2010 at 07:44 PM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

And again here are links to the full res pictures:

Canon 35

Zeiss 35

Sep 14, 2010 at 07:46 PM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

And here are two more examples where the differences are more pronounced and where the subject-distance is even shorter. Don't rely to much on these pictures - I suspect that the lightning conditions have been different between them. My intention here was to compare the bokeh of both lenses.

Canon 35 @2.0:


	http://www.paintingwithlight.de/FilesEx/Canon35b.jpg

Zeiss 35 @2.0:


	http://www.paintingwithlight.de/FilesEx/Zeiss35b.jpg

Sep 14, 2010 at 07:53 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

Thanks. Yes, here the difference is definitely more visible here. The vignetting certainly contributes to it, but if you look at the center of the frame and the leaves left of the center and flip between the images the greater micro contrast of the 35/2 is visible. There is also a distinct difference in DOF falloff - look at the rails towards the edges of the image.

This set looks more familiar to me. I had the 35L before the 35/2 and although I did not do systematic tests I had the impression that they were quite different. In my experience the 35/1.4 had a relatively typical Canon rendering style - rather flat with slightly dull colors.

Edit: I'm speaking of the first 35/2 set, have not yet looked at the flower shot.

Edit2:
The second (flower) set illustrates the difference quite well I think. No chance of mistaking the Canon for the Zeiss.

Sep 14, 2010 at 07:56 PM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

denoir wrote:
Thanks. Yes, here the difference is definitely more visible here. The vignetting certainly contributes to it, but if you look at the center of the frame and the leaves left of the center and flip between the images the greater micro contrast of the 35/2 is visible. There is also a distinct difference in DOF falloff - look at the rails towards the edges of the image.

This set looks more familiar to me. I had the 35L before the 35/2 and although I did not do systematic tests I had the impression that they were quite different. In my experience...Show more →

Yes, the microcontrast is definetely higher and also the colors are more saturated which becomes very visible when looking at the full res pics.

My aim when posting these examples is to just illustrate the amount of difference so that everybody can evaluate the significance visually for his- or herself. In my opinion the different drawing is on the one hand clearly visible but on the other hand not so pronounced that it makes a big difference for some sort of pictures. Right now I grab the Zeiss more often when it comes to landscapes or other nature shots and less often when people are involved (mainly because of the AF and the wider maximal aperture).

Sep 14, 2010 at 08:09 PM

denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

Thank you for posting those examples. One difficulty with such tests is that they for each pair of images evaluate a specific scene that may or may not generalize well. The lenses may also be good at different things. I do on occasion systematic tests but for the most part I try to take loads of pictures and then come to a subjective conclusion and choose the lens that produced more positive surprises. With that method the 35L gave me exactly what I expected (and I expected a lot) but the Zeiss definitely exceeded it and on the whole I consistently preferred the images it produced.

Personally I'm not crazy about the 35/2 for landscape shots. It's not really wide enough for my taste and it isn't nearly as good as the 21/2.8 in rendering fine detail. For closeups I have the Zeiss 35/1.4 (adapted Rollei mount) which has a really nice retro rendering style wide open - very different from both the 35/2 and the Canon 35/1.4. So the 35/2 is my preferred medium distance lens. I do like it for portraits as well - it produces very nice depth and a somewhat cold, clinical rendering style.

Sep 14, 2010 at 08:18 PM

abhijeeth
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

Thank you everybody for your comments and for addressing the small points also. Very much appreciated!

In my mind, I am tempted to think the 135mm problem may be relatively easier to solve. John, have to say this, awesome shot. That bokeh is really creamy! Ditto to denoir, you've shown different bokeh characteristics in your different shots and all of it is inline with what I've seen. In that sense, I am comfortable with my expectations from the 135mm f/2L.

The 35mm is getting interesting and is also getting tougher. In Markus' examples, the Canon and Zeiss are closer than I've seen in the past. Markus' comparisons align with many of Lloyd Chamber's comparison images [impressions about color from full images; not crops]. Looking at crops however, one usually finds that the Zeiss pictures show a bit more saturation and contrast in the Zeiss. I would estimate this difference to be 10% [crude estimate] but I find it hard to mimic it in PP I will have to look at Markus' full res images on my desktop.

What is making this so difficult is some of the outstanding sample images of the 35 ZE I've seen posted here. They are in line with the situations which denoir suggested: close distance distance, wide-open. Some of the scenarios I am looking forward to testing are in forest/heavily wooded scenes, with lots of backlit leaves. Let us see.

The *only* reason I am still debating this decision is the advantage to be had in AF for photographing kids. I would have paid Zeiss another $500 if it had AF !

Sep 14, 2010 at 08:22 PM

Ulff
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · 35mm and 135mm lens advice needed

abhijeeth wrote:
Some of the scenarios I am looking forward to testing are in forest/heavily wooded scenes, with lots of backlit leaves. Let us see.

The *only* reason I am still debating this decision is the advantage to be had in AF for photographing kids. I would have paid Zeiss another $500 if it had AF !

For forests and backlit leaves the Zeiss is truly fantastic, I've done a loot of shots under these condition. Regarding your decision: yes, it's a very tough one. And it would be much easier if there ever exist the Zeiss 2.0 with AF that you mention...

Here is a backlit leaves shot from the Zeiss:


	http://www.paintingwithlight.de/FilesEx/ze35b.jpg

Sep 14, 2010 at 08:37 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.