# Review: Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T*



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 26, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16935"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16935">Tweet</a></div>
<p>Dustin Abbott, a friend of Canon Rumors has completed his review of the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909189-REG/Zeiss_1999_675_135mm_f_2_0_Apo_Sonnar_ZE.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T* in the ZE mount for Canon</a>. The review is pretty glowing for the Zeiss, as one would expect. Dustin directly compared it to the classic Canon EF 135 f/2L and came away with the conclusion that the Zeiss is optically better, though for twice the price it should be. However, the missing AF in the Zeiss is a big deal when comparing the two.</p>
<p><strong>Says Dustin: </strong><em><span style="color: #3a2e18;">“Will it be replacing my 135L? Probably not. Until I shot with the Zeiss I thought the performance of the 135L was fantastic, and I will still enjoying shooting with it. I knew that the Zeiss would be better before I did the review, although I was surprised by just how noticeably better it was in head to head comparison. But for many of the applications that I use the 135L in, I need the AF. But I’m also not a full time professional photographer, and frankly, there are a few higher priorities for that kind of money in my kit at the moment. I’ll keep using my trusty Canon, but I will cherish the images that I took with the Zeiss. And one day, there WILL be a Zeiss lens in my kit. They are just too good.”</span></em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://dustinabbott.net/2014/07/zeiss-apo-sonnar-t-2135mm-ze-review-2/" target="_blank">Read the full review</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/909189-REG/Zeiss_1999_675_135mm_f_2_0_Apo_Sonnar_ZE.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar T* at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 26, 2014)

If only Zeiss made AF Canon lenses.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 26, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> If only Zeiss made AF Canon lenses.



I think I can safely say that all of us agree with you on that point. This lens with AF and IS would be worth $3000+. It is crazy good optically.


----------



## luckydude (Jul 26, 2014)

Nice review. I was reading along and going "meh, they are pretty similar" until I got to the crop of the dandelion. That one made me mad because I own the 135L. Sigh.

On a different note, have you done a review of your 14mm f2.8? My kid is getting into night photography and he needs something wider.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 26, 2014)

luckydude said:


> Nice review. I was reading along and going "meh, they are pretty similar" until I got to the crop of the dandelion. That one made me mad because I own the 135L. Sigh.
> 
> On a different note, have you done a review of your 14mm f2.8? My kid is getting into night photography and he needs something wider.



I thought the exact same thing until I actually compared the two side by side. The micro-contrast in the Zeiss just kills the 135L. I mean, kills it.

I did review the 14mm f/2.8: you can find the review here: http://dustinabbott.net/2013/10/rokinon-14mm-f2-8-wide-angle-review/


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 26, 2014)

I've been attracted to the Zeiss lenses on a number of occasions, but, regrettably the truth is I've never been that good at manually focusing, even in the days before AF :-[


----------



## luckydude (Jul 26, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> luckydude said:
> 
> 
> > On a different note, have you done a review of your 14mm f2.8? My kid is getting into night photography and he needs something wider.
> ...



Thanks so much, exactly what I was looking for.


----------



## candyman (Jul 26, 2014)

Very nice review. Thank you for the time you have spent on it.
I am really impressed of the detail the Zeis lens captures like in the crop of the dandelion. Still I will hold on to my 135L obviously AF is an important reason.


----------



## Click (Jul 26, 2014)

Excellent review Dustin.

I am also impressed by the details that the Zeiss lens captures.

Thanks for the review.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 26, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> I've been attracted to the Zeiss lenses on a number of occasions, but, regrettably the truth is I've never been that good at manually focusing, even in the days before AF :-[



I hear you. I would be interested in trying replacing the focusing screen in one of my 6D bodies with one more suited to manual focus. I do enjoy using vintage lenses a lot, and if I did invest in Zeiss glass I think I would change the screen in one body and use it primarily for manual focus.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 26, 2014)

luckydude said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > luckydude said:
> ...



You're welcome


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 26, 2014)

candyman said:


> Very nice review. Thank you for the time you have spent on it.
> I am really impressed of the detail the Zeis lens captures like in the crop of the dandelion. Still I will hold on to my 135L obviously AF is an important reason.





Click said:


> Excellent review Dustin.
> 
> I am also impressed by the details that the Zeiss lens captures.
> 
> Thanks for the review.



Thanks for the feedback from both of you! The 135L is not a bad consolation prize at all!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 26, 2014)

I rent this lens to test with my Sony a7r = killer for portrait.


----------



## candyman (Jul 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> I rent this lens to test with my Sony a7r = killer for portrait.




I would appreciate to see some of those portraits....if possible....thanks


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 26, 2014)

candyman said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I rent this lens to test with my Sony a7r = killer for portrait.
> ...



Currently on bustrip. I have few hundred photos taken with this combo at home PC. Will share some photos next week.


----------



## candyman (Jul 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> candyman said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...




Thanks, enjoy the bustrip


----------



## CanoSony (Jul 26, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > If only Zeiss made AF Canon lenses.
> ...



You could just buy an a99, or A7R and E4 adapter paired with the Sony 135 sonnar f.18 and have AF

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/463924-REG/Sony_SAL135F18Z_SAL_135F18Z_135mm_f_1_8_Carl.html

$1700


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 26, 2014)

CanoSony said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



That 135mm F/1.8 w/ In-body IS makes me jealous everytime I see one. I wish canon would update the 135L to that lens so I can finally put to rest my desire/Un-desire to own a 70-200II.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jul 26, 2014)

The test shot at f2 on the Canon is clearly slightly back focused and therefore not a fair example. It makes the Canon look softer than it really is.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 26, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The test shot at f2 on the Canon is clearly slightly back focused and therefore not a fair example. It makes the Canon look softer than it really is.



I used the same focus on both examples. This second shot was taken from about 6 feet further back. Both very focused using Live View 10x. The results show the same disparity. If you click on the link to Bryan's charts at TDP you'll get the same results from his chart testing. It's hard to believe it's that much better (I was shocked, too), but I'm afraid the results speak for themselves.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 26, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> CanoSony said:
> 
> 
> > TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> ...



I've read the 135mm f/1.8 isn't as good optically as the Sonnar. I've not used the lens, though, so I don't know that firsthand.


----------



## infared (Jul 26, 2014)

The resolution of the Zeiss is truly amazing. All Zeiss lenses are not this spectacular but WOW that is amazing!
As usual GREAT Review, Dustin! 
The only Zeiss that I have in my kit is the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and that is pretty impressive as well.

Dustin, are you still planning on reviewing the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art??...I think that you mentioned a while back that you were going to do a review and a comparison, right?
Maybe I missed it, I tried a search but could not find it.
Thanks!


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 27, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:



> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > CanoSony said:
> ...


The Sony isn't as good as the zeiss but it sure makes the 135L look dated. F/1.8 and IS makes the 70-200s completely irrelevant for me and I'd never have to own one. The 135L needs an update alongside the 100-400L. Then I can finally have my Uber prime I've been staring at on the sony.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 27, 2014)

infared said:


> The resolution of the Zeiss is truly amazing. All Zeiss lenses are not this spectacular but WOW that is amazing!
> As usual GREAT Review, Dustin!
> The only Zeiss that I have in my kit is the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 and that is pretty impressive as well.
> 
> ...



Two of my equipment suppliers made promises and then didn't have stock at the review time. I have just had the original Sigma 50mm f/1.4, which I will do a brief review of (didn't particularly like it), and will do the newer Sigma soon. I've got the new Tamron "superzooms" right now. (28-300mm VC, and 16-300 VC for crop). I will be getting the new Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS and the Tamron 18-200mm for the EOS M mount next week. I've got lots of lenses on the go for review right now, but the Sigma will probably be next.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jul 27, 2014)

must say it is the best lens I have ever used on my D800E and A7R(in terms of resolution and CA control), but it is not really great on my 6D or 5D2.
and I found the ergonomics of the Zeiss APO and Otus terrible(I dropped the Otus 2 times because it is so slippery in my hand), so I just sold them.
I just think it is not a PRACTICAL lens for anything out side of my studio, and in my studio we tend to use MFDB(rented back on our Hassy V cameras).
But if you are doing stitching landscape or landscape at 135mm, then it is the lens for you.
I honestly think the Zeiss ZF ZE line primes are overrated, I think some of these especially this APO deserve the hype but most of so called zeiss ZE ZF primes are just as good or a tiny bit better than similar Canon, Samyong or Nikon primes.
I think most of online reviewers tend to confuse perceived build quality of feeling of it with actual build quality, but the Zeiss lenses are not that durable, if you drop or shoot it in real harsh winter, then you will know it.
The plastic Sigma or Nikon 50 are much more durable than the Otus, I learned this in very hard way in winter lake and after that I never ever wanted so-called ZF Zeiss but sold all.

The truly remarkable noteworthy ones are:
1 this 135mm APO
2 the 15mm f2.8
3 25mm f2 Distagon(f2.8 version is a crap)
4 21mm Distagon.
All the other so called Zeiss actually Coshina primes are just above average.

Personally I will never get this line of lenses regardless of their optical or mechanical quality, the metal hoods really damage other lenses or camera bodies, I got lots of odd scratches on my 6D and A7R when I used them with the 135mm APO via an adapter. I am pretty sure the silly metal hood of it scratched my 6D and A7R.

And the metal hood sometimes become loose or too tight to fit on the lens too easily.


----------



## infared (Jul 27, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > The resolution of the Zeiss is truly amazing. All Zeiss lenses are not this spectacular but WOW that is amazing!
> ...


----------



## MLfan3 (Jul 27, 2014)

CanoSony said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



If you've actually used both the APO Zeiss 135mm f2 and so-called Sony Zeiss 135mm f1.8, you must have already known that they are not in the same league, the APO ZE/ZF lens is much better.
The Sony 135mm f1.8 is not that good , it is just a tiny bit sharper than an old Nikon AF-D135mm f2DC lens.
I cannot compare it to the Canon version because I never used the Canon 135mm L seriously, but I think it is not much worse than the old ancient Nikon DC, so I think the Sony's so-called Zeiss is not much better than the Canon 135mm L.

I know the FE55mm f1.8 is a truly amazing lens but it is a Sony designed Sony lens with Zeiss brand mark on it.
So try not to confuse Sony Zeiss with Zeiss designed real Zeiss.

They are completely different beats.


----------



## Bruce75 (Jul 28, 2014)

After few shoots of this Zeiss both on Canon then on A7r I was in trouble: it put shame on the other my (still beloved) lenses


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 29, 2014)

_Great_ review, thanks for posting.

Unfortunately, I see this as a stellar lens _I'll never use_. Large aperture glass simply *has* to have AF in my hands or the value of that huge opening is lost on anything I shoot that is moving (even slowly). I'd end up stopping it down just to avoid missing with manual focusing. 

As such, I'd only opt for an MF lens if it were on a tripod for landscape work. And as much as 135mm certainly has a place in landscape work, it's not a focal length I reach for enough to justify $2k out of pocket.

So I flag stellar lenses like these in the 'win the lottery / when-I-retire bucket': magical, but not a priority for what I shoot. Keep in mind that I am an enthusiast who has only grown up on having AF on everything I've shot -- pros or folks with significant rangefinder / MF lens experience may be able to net a high percentage of keepers with it.

- A


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 29, 2014)

Bruce75 said:


> After few shoots of this Zeiss both on Canon then on A7r I was in trouble: it put shame on the other my (still beloved) lenses



It is a bit haunting. But then I look at the amazing images my 135L can still produce and realize that I can live on


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 29, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> _Great_ review, thanks for posting.
> 
> Unfortunately, I see this as a stellar lens _I'll never use_. Large aperture glass simply *has* to have AF in my hands or the value of that huge opening is lost on anything I shoot that is moving (even slowly). I'd end up stopping it down just to avoid missing with manual focusing.
> 
> ...



Well put. Lenses like this are perfect for those who have the disposal income to get the best and then use it in the more leisurely fashion that it deserves. It will highly reward those that take some time with it, but the real world precludes always having such time or opportunity.

...or money.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 29, 2014)

Would like to see an updated Canon 135 f/2.


----------



## Perio (Jul 29, 2014)

I'm sure many people use it for jewelry or food photography, when they need a very high quality of their images. Obviously, this is not the lens for everybody, and Zeiss probably never said it is. 



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > _Great_ review, thanks for posting.
> ...


----------



## infared (Jul 30, 2014)

. I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 30, 2014)

infared said:


> . I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!



+1 -- Double


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 30, 2014)

infared said:


> . I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!





can0nfan2379 said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > . I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!
> ...



Two that must have the best. I guess the review was for you


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > . I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!
> ...


Well, if they _must_ have the best, they ought to pitch their autofocusing 70-200 F/2.8 IS II lenses as well:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/first-look-zeiss-cz-2-70-200mm-t2-9

Dustin, perhaps this is your next review? ;D

- A


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 30, 2014)

I rented the 135 APO from LensRentals a few months ago for a trial to see if I liked it. I was quite impressed and actually found achieving focus with the 135 infinitely easier than the 50MP. The problem with the 50MP was the almost non-existent focus throw from about 1.5m to infinity (actually about 30 degrees) which made using the lens as a normal 50 unbearable. As a macro lens, the 50MP had tons of focus throw and excelled in that area. The 135 on the other hand has fairly generous throw.

With the 135 APO focus confirm was pretty darn accurate on my 5D3. I'll admit that focusing on even slightly moving subjects was difficult and one of the reasons I haven't pulled the trigger yet as I am hoping that we may see a Canon 135 1.8L IS at Photokina. If the Canon 135 improved the way the other mark II superteles and 70-200II improved especially with respect to contrast, that would be a killer lens (not that it's bad now, quite the opposite but the Zeiss really is in another league) and vastly more versatile than the Zeiss.



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> infared said:
> 
> 
> > . I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!
> ...


----------



## Dholai (Jul 30, 2014)

." I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!"

So darn true

This review compelled me to order one overnight and I tried it briefly yesterday. I hate MF lenses with my bad eyesight but this will definitely be a keeper.

PS: I am not going to read any more reviews of Zeiss glasses.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 30, 2014)

Dholai said:


> ." I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!"
> 
> So darn true
> 
> ...



Bad timing. Zeiss just contacted me to see if I would be interested in reviewing the upcoming Otus 85mm f/1.4. I'm sure it will be a piece of junk


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 30, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> TWI by Dustin Abbott said:
> 
> 
> > infared said:
> ...



The director of Zeiss for the Americas specifically mentioned the Otus 85 next along with a "few other lenses available after Photokina" in an email to me. This is likely one of them.


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 30, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Well, if they _must_ have the best, they ought to pitch their autofocusing 70-200 F/2.8 IS II lenses as well:
> ...


It used to be that video people had to suffer through using our still lenses. Oh, how things have changed...

- A


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 30, 2014)

Zeiss Otus 85 = DROOL WORTHY



TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Dholai said:
> 
> 
> > ." I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!"
> ...


----------



## infared (Jul 30, 2014)

Dholai said:


> ." I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!"
> 
> So darn true
> 
> ...



Ok..so I am selling my Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 to finance the Zeiss 135mm. Since I bought it (Incredible lens!), I have acquired a 17mm TSE II and the new 16 -35mm f/4L IS. (Sold my 16-35f/2.8L to finance the new IS ...no regrets there!)....so I am not using the Zeiss 21mm...almost never...so, painfully I will let it go...
Now ...if I buy the Zeiss 135mm from Hong Kong I can get it for $1845 .00 shipped...so it will not cost me much cash outlay...sounds like a plan. : ;D :


----------



## infared (Jul 30, 2014)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> Dholai said:
> 
> 
> > ." I think you have convinced me that I must own this lens!"
> ...



So I am ordering the current Zeiss 135mm (BECAUSE OF YOUR REVIEW!!!DAMN IT! LOL!). I can get it from Hong Kong for $1849 new...shipped.
The Otus 85mm can't be much better (although the 2 lenses are not an exact comparison.)How do you get any better than perfect, unless you add autofocus....Plus The Otus will cost $5000!!!


----------



## Eldar (Jul 31, 2014)

Thanks for the review Dustin. I had the 135L/2 and I was very happy with it. But unfortunately I dropped it and it was beyond repair (well actually CPS estimated the repair cost to equal a new lens). My plan was to buy a new L, but I decided to try the Zeiss and was blown away by the IQ. Everything you state in your review confirms my own findings.

A new 135/2L is about $1.800 here in Norway and I found a 3 month old, flawless and practically unused Zeiss copy for $1.850, so I got that instead. No regrets.

I have 4 Zeiss lenses at the moment. 15/2.8, 21/2.8, 55/1.4 and 135/2. I also have lots of L-glass, but my experience is that I am using the Zeiss glass more and more.

Yes, they are manual focus, but with some practice I find that I can nail focus very well with them and my keeper rates are high. This may have to do with the fact that I live in Norway and our summers are very bright. When winter comes and the days are getting shorter, the situation may change.

Looking forward to your Sigma 50 Art review. I am curious to see how you find the AF performance (I know you´ll like the optical performance). I am about to sell my 35 and 50 Art due to AF inconsistency.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 31, 2014)

The only thing worse than getting hooked on L glass is getting hooked on Z glass...


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 31, 2014)

Eldar said:


> Thanks for the review Dustin. I had the 135L/2 and I was very happy with it. But unfortunately I dropped it and it was beyond repair (well actually CPS estimated the repair cost to equal a new lens). My plan was to buy a new L, but I decided to try the Zeiss and was blown away by the IQ. Everything you state in your review confirms my own findings.
> 
> A new 135/2L is about $1.800 here in Norway and I found a 3 month old, flawless and practically unused Zeiss copy for $1.850, so I got that instead. No regrets.
> 
> ...



Thank you for both the compliment and the great owner/user feedback. It looks like I may have the Otus 55 in hand for review from Zeiss next week, and the Otus 85 sometimes shortly thereafter. I look forward to spending more time with Zeiss glass. I agree that using manual focus lenses becomes easier with practice, and I personally feel that whether or not people enjoy them will depend a lot on their shooting style. Those that are more deliberate will probably have an easier time.

That is a great collection of fine glass you have!


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jul 31, 2014)

NancyP said:


> The only thing worse than getting hooked on L glass is getting hooked on Z glass...



Isn't that the truth!


----------

