# Zeiss 135mm f2 Apo Sonnar Preview



## bchernicoff (Apr 22, 2013)

wow, wow, wow!

http://zeissimages.com/showreplies.php?qid=950

It does make me even more anxious to see what Sigma and this 135mm 1.8 OS might offer.


----------



## drjlo (Apr 22, 2013)

Looks to be a great lens, but it still has no AF, weighs a lot (2.02 lb), and costs double the current 135L price :'(


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 22, 2013)

I want one! Droll!! 

Problem is, I want too many new lenses!! LOL!! 8)


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 22, 2013)

I'm too lazy for MF


----------



## infared (Apr 23, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Looks to be a great lens, but it still has no AF, weighs a lot (2.02 lb), and costs double the current 135L price :'(



Plus...there is now the new (promising) Auto-Focusing Sigma 135mm f/1.8 with image stabilization....Could be a winner and will definitely be less expensive than the Zeiss. We will not have to wait too long to find out, apparently.
The Zeiss does look like an impressively sharp lens with great contrast and beautiful bokeh! WOW!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 23, 2013)

drjlo said:


> Looks to be a great lens, but it still has no AF, weighs a lot (2.02 lb), and costs double the current 135L price :'(



So it'll cost as much as the next Canon 135L then? Joking, I kid. I kid. No really.

Joking aside, I'd love to get some Zeiss glass, but just too expensive for me and for what I normally do. So, perhaps some day...


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 23, 2013)

After using a Zeiss for the past few months (on a 5D3), the MF is less of a hassle than I realised. For the price of the IQ, it's worth it


----------



## risc32 (Apr 23, 2013)

well, depending on what you shoot, it might not matter.


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 23, 2013)

risc32 said:


> well, depending on what you shoot, it might not matter.


True. Most of my work with Zeiss lenses has been landscape or portrait. I'd go nuts trying to do BIF with them


----------



## rpiotr01 (Apr 23, 2013)

Mr Bean said:


> After using a Zeiss for the past few months (on a 5D3), the MF is less of a hassle than I realised. For the price of the IQ, it's worth it



If you don't mind me asking, are you doing straight viewfinder focus? Using red light focus confirm? Live view?

I ask because I rented a Zeiss 35 f2 last summer and I LOVED it but I found I was missing shots a bit using the focus confirm. I go back and forth on buying one because I'm sure I'll get better at it but... you never know.  Thanks


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Apr 23, 2013)

It would be great to own one one day, but I don't see well enough to manually focus and being a hobbyist it would probably not be reasonable for me to put that money into a lens.


----------



## infared (Apr 23, 2013)

Mr. bean...I see that the only Zeiss Lens that you have in your quiver is the new 15mm. Nice choice...that would also be one of the easiest to manually focus..(I am saving for that lens...it looks wonderful)...but hand-holding and focusing this 135mm would be a whole different challenge!


----------



## sanj (Apr 23, 2013)

The focus ring will work great for video. Just like their 35 does. Hard stops. Smooth focus...


----------



## sanj (Apr 23, 2013)

Pictures look good. Is it the camera or the lens? JUST KIDDING..........


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 23, 2013)

infared said:


> Mr. bean...I see that the only Zeiss Lens that you have in your quiver is the new 15mm. Nice choice...that would also be one of the easiest to manually focus..(I am saving for that lens...it looks wonderful)...but hand-holding and focusing this 135mm would be a whole different challenge!


True, it has some latitude, but I've hired a few Zeiss lenses over the past 6 months. "Try before I leap off that fiscal cliff" was my thinking 



rpiotr01 said:


> If you don't mind me asking, are you doing straight viewfinder focus? Using red light focus confirm? Live view?
> 
> I ask because I rented a Zeiss 35 f2 last summer and I LOVED it but I found I was missing shots a bit using the focus confirm. I go back and forth on buying one because I'm sure I'll get better at it but... you never know.  Thanks


If its the Nikon mount (with adapter), either a bit of a guess or Live View. If its the Canon mount, the focus confirm in the view finder. The focus confirm does have a bit of latitude in it, I must admit.

MF lenses have got their quirks, but, I tend to use them for fairly specific purposes (usually static subjects). It's not that long ago that I was still using the FD range of lenses (4 years or so), so MF isn't too much of a hindrance.


----------



## ksuweh (Apr 23, 2013)

If its the Canon mount, the focus confirm in the view finder. The focus confirm does have a bit of latitude in it, I must admit.
[/quote]

Wouldn't a micro adjustment fix this? Maybe I'm wrong about that.


----------



## Mr Bean (Apr 23, 2013)

ksuweh said:


> "If its the Canon mount, the focus confirm in the view finder. The focus confirm does have a bit of latitude in it, I must admit."
> 
> Wouldn't a micro adjustment fix this? Maybe I'm wrong about that.


I'm open to suggestions. Not sure myself. I might hire one for a weekend, to see what it's like, once they become available.


----------



## P_R (Apr 23, 2013)

Hello,

How does one evaluate this lens and others like it - eg Canon 135, Sigma 135? I guess hands on would be ideal, but my problem is that there are many variables to any particular shot, you might nail a shot with a lens and determine it is great, or the reverse and conclude it is not ideal. And I don't just mean f/stop, shutter speed, ISO. Focus ability (in the case of a MF lens), camera body, PP, shooting technique and so on. And for me reading technical evaluations only goes so far. I also tend to discount reviews to a degree - at least in this case the reviewer indicated he's a Zeiss Fan boy, so that helps frame the review.

A friend of mine had a philosophy which he used when learning to play golf. He purchased the most expensive Ping clubs before he started his lessons (Ping beingt he best in his eyes). I asked why? Answer was that in golf there are plenty of variable in play, buying the most expensive clubs ruled one variable out. Can't be the clubs, must be something else.... I don't agree with that of course. But when you can't decide, maybe there's some logic there.

Ped.


----------



## yogi (Apr 28, 2013)

Looks like a delicious lens.  I have already spent my lens budget for this year though. Maybe in the future. Would also like the 15mm zeiss. Manual focus is not always easy for me, and i get a good many rejects, but it is worthwhile for the results i get when i nail it. Not very good for action photography in my experience, but others with more experience with mf might disagree. I wonder, as some others have mentioned, if trying to mf focus @ 135mm will be more difficult than shorter lenses. I use live view & have the egs, though have not installed it yet on my 5dmkll.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 28, 2013)

No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.


----------



## yogi (Apr 28, 2013)

I love the Canon 135L. The Zeiss is just a different flavor. The Sigma looks like an interesting prospect. I am not rich and can barely afford the expense of the Zeiss lenses, so i dont buy lenses on the spur of the moment. I have spent much time visiting Zeiss websites and have seen many images taken with Zeiss that l like. Also have used my fathers old Exacta camera w/Zeiss lens (that i inherited) and it took great photos, though i dont use it any more. I love my Canon lenses, but also like variety.  And RLPhoto I hope to one day get the 50 1.2L. It is in my wish list @ B&H.


RLPhoto said:


> No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.


----------



## sanj (Apr 28, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.



So the IQ of a lens would be great if it had IS and 1.8? I am sure that someone like you knows that there is much more to a lens: Corner sharpness, build quality, hard stops, Bokah, fall off, sharpness at f2 etc etc. Besides 1.8 or 2 does not make much difference in real life photography.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 28, 2013)

sanj said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > No IS + F/1.8 = No replacement for 135L.
> ...



Not saying that. Just saying you get to a point where comparing razors to razors like the 135L and the zeiss that its pretty much irrelevant. For me, The issues I run into is the lack of IS and I could use a bit more speed. 

Another sharp 135mm f/2 is nice but I see IS and 1.8 to be much more useful.


----------



## brad-man (Apr 28, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



+1 Absolutely._ The more versatility a lens has, the better._


----------



## funkboy (Apr 29, 2013)

Here's another review, from Lensrentals: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/04/zeiss-ze-135mm-f2-vs-canon-135mm-f2l


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



We're talking about what seems to be a true apochromatic design = almost ZERO CA and RSA even wideopen.

In Nikonland people say that focus confirmation works flawlessly on D4 and D800. I would assume it's going to be the same for the ZE version.

I agree that AF and IS will probably increase your keeper rate. But this lens is not meant for people who want more keepers; it's meant for people who want the Zeiss look with best optics and the best build out there. For these people all the rest is secondary. There's no reason to compare this lens to others: it's unique.


----------



## Pi (Apr 30, 2013)

The Canon looks better here: http://cfile7.uf.tistory.com/original/185A4D4E5166FB750181D1. It is surprising because Zeiss know bokeh...


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 30, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Apr 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> The Canon looks better here: http://cfile7.uf.tistory.com/original/185A4D4E5166FB750181D1. It is surprising because Zeiss know bokeh...



I was quite surprised myself a while ago about the way bokeh looks on Zeiss. From what I've read, it's due to the high microcontrast of the Zeiss images, and apparently one cannot have smooth bokeh and high microcontrast at the same time.


----------



## AprilForever (Apr 30, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm too lazy for MF



I'm with you there...


----------



## Pi (Apr 30, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > The Canon looks better here: http://cfile7.uf.tistory.com/original/185A4D4E5166FB750181D1. It is surprising because Zeiss know bokeh...
> ...



I can also see a hint of rings in the highlights but not as bad as with wide lenses. Probably the Zeiss is too corrected or a bit overcorrected to make it look good on charts. There is a well known Zeiss (!) document online which explains how this affects the bokeh...

The bokeh here is disturbing. The 135L can have its problems sometimes but I do not remember seeing anything that bad.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.



Well, the price is in line with other top glass. Canon 85L and the new 24-70 are in the same club.

When you consider it in this perspective it's not so expensive after all.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 30, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > It also has a unique 2100$ price tag too but hey! I'm not saying it isn't the best performing 135mm made just like the zeiss 15mm 2.8 is the best UW lens made. I'm simply saying that sharpness and CA were never an issue with years of me using the 135L but IS was, and a bit more speed would be nice.
> ...



Not really. The 85L is unique because its f/1.2 and the 24-70 is a zoom, can't really compare. Now if this 135mm were f/1.8, then I could hold it in the same category but f/2? No practical reason to consider upgrading.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



....

No practical reason _for you_. Fair enough. But I wasn't talking about you, I was comparing the price of this lens with other lenses in the same quality league. It doesn't seem to me that its price is way off the standard for the best glass club.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 30, 2013)

Albi86 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



Sure, Because my opinions are exactly what they are. My own thoughts on a subject and my opinion's are always about practical use of equipment. Which on this particular lens, isn't very high on my list of practicality. 

If others find my opinion of value, great. If not, great but doesn't sway me one bit.


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 30, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Sure, Because my opinions are exactly what they are. My own thoughts on a subject and my opinion's are always about practical use of equipment. Which on this particular lens, isn't very high on my list of practicality.
> 
> If others find my opinion of value, great. If not, great but doesn't sway me one bit.



Sorry, I admit my fault. 

I tried twice to explain that my point is to frame this lens in the price range of other products of similar quality, also high-lighting that it offers something different from Canon/Nikon/Sigma/Whatever and thus it's probably targeted at a different audience. You don't buy a Zeiss because there's no other good lens available in market; you buy a Zeiss because you want a Zeiss - for a number of reasons.

No way I could succeed in my purpose. Unfortunately you are tenaciously remarking that _you_ wouldn't replace _your_ 135L for it.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 30, 2013)

Pi said:


> The bokeh here is disturbing. The 135L can have its problems sometimes but I do not remember seeing anything that bad.



That's one bad example, it looks beautiful in the other shots. I have a 50L/85L/135L and the bokeh from my Zeiss lenses has still always impressed me.


----------

