# Would you get Zeiss 135 f2?



## Perio (Nov 19, 2014)

Hello guys! I hope you're doing just fine and getting ready for forthcoming holidays  I keep reading reviews on how great Zeiss 135 f2 lens is, and this made me think whether or not I should get one. I'm definitely not a professional and once in a while take pictures of my girlfriend/sister and some friends, which are 99% portraits. I have 5d and few lenses: 70-200 2.8ii, 85 1.2ii and 200 2.0. If you were me, would you get Zeiss 135 f2 in addition to these lenses? Would I gain anything special by having this lens? Or would you sell any of the lens I have to get Zeiss? I don't really mind doing manual focus and as I've said, I shoot almost exclusively portraits and not an action. Thanks for your suggestions!


----------



## MARKOE PHOTOE (Nov 19, 2014)

Rent it first if you can. It's a monster, big and using it handheld for indoor portraits in natural light can be challenging. Its a phenomenal lens when you nail the focus. 

I love my 100mm, 50mm and 21mm Zeiss. But for portraits on full frame, either the AF Canon's 85mm 1.2L or 135L are both good choices too IMHO. Wow, Canon 200 2.0, that's a sweet one!

Best of luck.


----------



## zlatko (Nov 19, 2014)

I would not buy it. I find autofocus to be extremely valuable for a 135 focal length. So for me the Canon 135/2 is the better choice. But someone else might really enjoy the Zeiss 135 more.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 19, 2014)

I had the canon 135/2.0L and I was very happy with it. But unfortunately, I dropped it and it was beyond repair. Instead of buying a new one, I got the Zeiss 135/2.0. The Zeiss has better IQ than the L-lens. In fact, it is one of the best lenses you can get. But manual focus requires a lot of practice. I use an Ec-S focusing screen on my 1DX and a custom made S-screen on my 5DIII (from www.focusingscreens.com) and, as long as things don't move to fast, I do not have problems with manual focus. 

Since you already have the 85/1.2L II and the 200/2.0L, you are well covered. But if your budget allows and you're willing to focus manually, the Zeiss will certainly be a rewarding lens, considering what you say you'll be using it for. I tend to use the Otus 85/1.4 for indoor portraits and the 135/2.0 for outdoor shots (so I do not miss IS much). But if I had the 200/2.0L ... It might be that I would have used that outdoors ... (Maybe I just learned that i need one :)


----------



## tayassu (Nov 19, 2014)

I personally love the ~135mm area for portraits! I have not enough money to justify a good, fast prime other than my Macro, but if I had, it would be a high priority on my list... :
I'd say, if you know you will use it, go for it, it should be a stellar performer. 
Try out the focusing screens, Eldar uses them a lot, while mackguyver is not too fond of them...


----------



## Eldar (Nov 19, 2014)

tayassu said:


> Try out the focusing screens, Eldar uses them a lot, while mackguyver is not too fond of them...


I think Mackguyver and I agree on the S-type focusing screens. When you go beyond f2.8 they become dark and at f5.6 they are pretty much useless. I use them primarily for f1.4 to f2.0 lenses, plus the 15mm and 21mm at f2.8. But the latter are mostly used in broad daylight, so they are easy to use.

Another issue with the manual focusing screens, when they are not supported by the specific body, which is the case with both the 5DIII (any screen) and 1DX (S-type), is changes in exposure. It is not even stable. You need one compensation in one situation and another in the next. And I have some difficulty understanding how it works. I am therefore crossing my fingers for a new high res camera, with S-screen support.


----------



## xps (Nov 19, 2014)

The 135mm 2.0 is an extreme sharp lens and one of my best ones. But it took some month to learn to shoot with it. Es üpecially handheld it was nearly impossible for me to get 100% sharpness. This lens does not forgive any focussing-errors. If you use it on an tripod and live-view, you will get extraordinary pictures from it. 
The tipp to rent it and try it out is an good one. Calculate about one kilogram for the lens only.


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 19, 2014)

zlatko said:


> I would not buy it. I find autofocus to be extremely valuable for a 135 focal length. So for me the Canon 135/2 is the better choice. But someone else might really enjoy the Zeiss 135 more.



+1

I agree, once out to 135mm (even 85) I really rely on autofocus. And as an aside, 200mm is about my limit to not have IS.

But the OP did say he doesn't mind manual focus so it really is a "to each their own". I just think a lot of us would not completely trust our eyes to always nail it perfectly, even in a slower workflow like portrait shots.


----------



## Besisika (Nov 19, 2014)

To me, buying this lens is a waste of money. A prime lens without auto-focus! That is a pure definition of specialized gear. I need the 200 F2.0 from time to time but I rent it whenever I need it.
I would do the same, if I were you; not only to test it but if you like it and you would use it very rarely then just rent it when needed.

Looking at what you own already though, allow me to judge that you are a top of the top lens collector. Everybody is different. Don't let anybody to tell you what do you need and what you don't. It's your life, your decision.
If another top of the top lens satisfies your need, go for it.
Just make sure to rent it, and learn more about it before taking the decision.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 19, 2014)

It's one thing to "not mind" manually focusing, another to have no choice but to manually focus and, what's more, to do so on a camera body that doesn't make it easy to do so (I really like, and perhaps even prefer, manually focusing, but only on mirrorless bodies, which make it easy via in-viewfinder magnification & focus-peaking). I would suggest you rent the Zeiss as well as the Canon 135mm L and see which you prefer using - even if it were true that the Zeiss is, under ideal conditions, a better lens, you might get better results from the Canon because of its autofocus (esp. wide open), and save money in the process....


----------



## Eldar (Nov 19, 2014)

I pretty much buy all the lenses I want, including choosing amongst all the autofocus lenses out there. But, in addition to a lot of L-series glass, I have chosen to get 6 manual focus Zeiss lenses, because their IQ is simply the best for every single focal length they come in. I currently shoot more with the Zeiss lenses than with the L-series.

Most people who have opinions on AF vs. MF does not have real experience with manual focus. They have tried to manually focus AF lenses, which is a totally different thing than working with a lens made for MF. I grew up with MF, so to me it is rather natural. But with a fair vision, on the right side of blind, and a precision focusing screen, it is absolutely no problem. I shoot anything but sports with manual focus lenses. But you have to practice. Portraits is absolutely no problem. 

I would also state that at f1.2 and f1.4, an AF lens may very well miss focus. In a profile shot you get the temple or nose, instead of the eye etc. With a manual lens and an Ec-S focusing screen, it becomes very visual if you got the eye or not. Sometimes you also want to focus on something small behind a dominating front. No problem with manual focus, close to impossible with AF.

Shooting with manual focus primes does something with your photography. It is not necessarily logical and it will differ from person to person, but the average quality of my manual focus prime shots are better than those I get with both prime and zoom AF lenses. I believe it has to do with being more alert and focused on what I´m doing.

From what the OP claims to shoot, he will do just fine with MF. The only remaining question, in my view, is if he needs the focal length. Judged by the listed lenses he already have, budget is apparently no problem.


----------



## NancyP (Nov 19, 2014)

I learn something new every day. Who knew that my bare-bones FF camera 6D had a better ability (metering wise) to use a precision matte screen (S-type) than the top-of-the-line 1DX. Of course I am using the screen to focus with old film era fastish all-manual lenses (eg AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 and 105 f/2.5), not with the exalted 135 APO-Sonnar.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 19, 2014)

NancyP said:


> I learn something new every day. Who knew that my bare-bones FF camera 6D had a better ability (metering wise) to use a precision matte screen (S-type) than the top-of-the-line 1DX. Of course I am using the screen to focus with old film era fastish all-manual lenses (eg AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 and 105 f/2.5), not with the exalted 135 APO-Sonnar.


I´m actually on the verge of getting a 6D, unless Canon unleash the holy grail/unicorn body soon ...


----------



## Besisika (Nov 19, 2014)

Eldar said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I learn something new every day. Who knew that my bare-bones FF camera 6D had a better ability (metering wise) to use a precision matte screen (S-type) than the top-of-the-line 1DX. Of course I am using the screen to focus with old film era fastish all-manual lenses (eg AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 and 105 f/2.5), not with the exalted 135 APO-Sonnar.
> ...


This is why I am on CR. Different people from different background can convey what you never expect, suffice to have an open mind.


----------



## byhj (Nov 19, 2014)

Lurker here coming out with my first post! 

I recently acquired the Zeiss lens (used) and have been really enjoying it. I do have the Eg-S super precision screen for my 6D so that's been very helpful. Having really good eyes also helps =) Still getting used to the MF but the long, damped throw of the focusing ring makes it quite a pleasure and really changes the overall feel and process of taking shots. Very different compared to the focusing rings on the Canon lenses. I have about a 90% keeper rate with stationary and slowly moving subjects. Fast moving ones (like my toddler) has been out of the question so far but I have other telephotos with AF for that. 

I recently sold my 135L not primarily due to the difference in sharpness but for the color! Don't get me wrong, the Zeiss lens is quite sharper but really only discernible when zoomed in (for me at least). The color and contrast is what really stood out when I compared the two. Chromatic aberration is pretty much nil and supposedly that helps bring out the vibrancy. I don't even bother touching the vibrancy and saturation sliders in LR anymore for pics taken with this lens. 

Lastly, though the lens is a little hefty (though nothing compared to your 70-200 and especially your 200), it's nicely balanced and relatively compact. The hood doesn't add much width and it's nicely balanced... unlike the 85L (when I had it) which I also found very awkward to use. 

Anyways, I live in LA where there's a pretty active market on CL so I go through different lenses a lot. Time will tell if I hang onto this one. 

Hopefully this helps!


----------



## Danielle (Nov 19, 2014)

Would I buy one? Absolutely. After testing one its on my short list when I can afford it. I own one Zeiss lens and it definately gives something other lenses don't. Manual focus is beautiful too.

If you haven't tried one, do it.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 19, 2014)

Danielle said:


> Would I buy one? Absolutely. After testing one its on my short list when I can afford it. I own one Zeiss lens and it definately gives something other lenses don't. Manual focus is beautiful too.
> 
> If you haven't tried one, do it.


And by accident, this was your post no.135


----------



## Danielle (Nov 19, 2014)

Maybe it's an omen. Haha. Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## sanj (Nov 20, 2014)

I have it. Use it mostly for video. If I did only stills, I would use the Canon 135. Lack of AF makes the Zeiss EXTREMELY limiting.


----------



## Perio (Nov 20, 2014)

Hello guys, thank you very much for all your comments and suggestions. I used to have Canon 135 f2, which I loved a lot, but sold it a couple of years ago to fund 200 2.0. I was hoping that Sigma would bring their 135 f1.8 (or f2) Art lens next year, but a recent rumor seems to indicate it won't happen.

I've never own Zeiss (except my Zeiss dental loupes which cost ridiculous $3k), so I guess the best solution would be just to rent it for few days and see how it goes. 

Another lens I'd love to have is old Minolta 58 1.2, which can be converted to EOS mount  But people sell it for $500-700, not sure it's worth that much. 

If you're in CT for a local shoot, feel free to PM me and I can give you 200 2.0 or 85 1.2ii to play with.


----------



## dash2k8 (Nov 20, 2014)

I would say get the Canon 135. Cheaper and very little discernible difference in performance (pixel-peepers need not apply).


----------

