Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on July 05, 2017, 12:10:32 am
-
Since the last Zeiss thread kind of slipped off-topic (and since the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF2 isn't technically an "Otus"), I decided to create a thread topic specifically dedicated to this lens.
I just received this lens Friday, and have barely had an opportunity to use it, but one thing I noticed right away is its amazing sharpness. The image below was taken hand-held, at f/4.0, in a moderate breeze ... and yet is still razor-sharp:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Wow2.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Wow.jpg)
(Click on the image, then click-again, for full-size view)
I realize this rather ugly image is unworthy of the fine lens that the Zeiss 135mm is, but the fact that it can be cropped so much and yet retain such detail, is astounding (esp. @ f/4 in a breeze). I am 100% positive that, on a tripod, with a remote switch,this lens will produce spectacular results.
Yet, ironically, I am not really sure how to use this lens for my purposes as a wildlife photographer. My 300mm VR II is as sharp as this one, with the benefit of blistering AF, and it can achieve similar results ... from even farther back. Meanwhile, my macro lens goes even closer-in, all the way up to 1:1, to where I wouldn't have to crop the final result at all, and as such I could have achieved better detail of this tiny juvenile mantid subject.
As such, I am struggling trying to find a use for this lens, given the above. Yet I immediately recognize the excellence of this lens in its own right. As a hiker, the 135mm Apo Sonnar is too heavy, too fragile, and too good, to sit in a pouch amongst other lenses unworthy of its company.
It seems to be the type of lens that a photographer must dedicate himself to for the whole day, taking it out alone, getting to know it as an individual, experimenting with it, and coaxing it to sing as it clearly seems capable of doing.
I would be curious to hear other people's thoughts about this lens, and even more curious to see their best efforts with it.
(I promise to post better photos than the above next time ...)
Thanks,
-
Remarkable sharpness in your Image.
I once thought of getting this lens but refrained since it didn’t have a tripod collar. I would have used it mainly for portraits. I finally bought the Zeiss 85/1.4, preferring that focal length. Since manual focusing was too great a PITA with my Canon 5D bodies, I sold it for the Canon 135/2. A wonderful lens wide open! But again, the focal length!
Since I’ve switch to the Fujifilm X system, I’m enjoying their 56/1.2 immensely. Sadly, it also doesn’t have a tripod collar. No built-in lens shade either. These seem forgotten design features.
-
very nice photo !
and yes very sharp.
I like this type of 'working' photo better then the more idealized polished kind.
-
I would never have thought of using a 135mm lens for wildlife or macro. I have used them in the past for portraits, travel, and landscape.
For travel, hiking, etc, something like a Leica Apo Telyt 135, or the new Batis 135 makes much more sense to me, because I have a Sony A7 system. Much lighter and arguably very good too.
-
Well, something I’ve learned about really fine lenses is that once you have the lens, you find ways to use it, perhaps even other ways that it was designed for. As for the Zeiss 135 we are discussing here, as far as I am concerned it is an Otus, only lacking the f/1.4.
Unless we have but a few lenses, when we get something like the Zeiss 135mm, it becomes part of a range of lenses that we use, as needed, for its particular qualities.
When I was doing nature-guide photos, years ago, I was more interested in one lense that could do everything, because I had to hike into the bush, onto bogs, and all kinds of things. I did not want to carry a set of lenses, but just one lens and perhaps some extensions or filters. Well, perhaps I would also carry a light wide-angle lens like the Nikon 28mm f/2.8. But it was important to keep it light.
Unfortunately for that approach, two things happened, one of which is that I got older and do not hike as much as I used to. The upshot of that is that I began to carry more lenses, but in my car. So my trips out into nature would circle around a loop to the car to switch lenses, etc.
The other thing that happened is that I slowly stopped thinking in terms of a swiss-army lens, one that did it all. As I discovered finer and finer lenses, it was no longer important that they do “everything.” It was enough that they do what they do well. Finally, the degree of correctedness (with perhaps a little character) became the deciding factor in my lens choices. So, today it’s “horses for courses,” and a particular type of shot recommends a particular lens, more and more of the time.
As for the Zeiss 135mm (this version), it can take some extension, which moves us closer, but always at the expense of IQ. As the two shots here show (one a crop-of the other), the 135mm Zeiss is better with no extension, since it does admit cropping, which I have done here.
My point in all of this is that I no longer think that one or two lenses as all I need. To me, each lens is like a flower, with its own bloom and qualities. I don’t want to change it with extensions, close-up filters, or anything. I just want to use it for what it does best and for a particular subject. The Zeiss 135mm is perhaps the sharpest of all the Oti-like Zeiss. Next would be the Otus 85mm, etc. Hope this was helpful.
Zeiss 135mm with the Nikon D810
-
Impressive image, Michael. I appreciate your insight and comments on the zeiss line of lenses.
Miles
-
This is a bit obtuse to the original intent I think but may be interesting - and possibly useful ?
I bought 135 Zeiss having heard so much praise for it and liking the 135 length*.
However over recent years it has become less used as its' unsupported weight tires my elderly muscles and induces shake and it is unbalanced on the Sony A7R2 that now is my main camera.
In a rare moment of inspiration I bought a Leitax conversion which has an extended plain section which takes a tripod mount and David kindly made "packing pieces" on his 3D printer to bridge the gap between converter and a tripod mount.
Hey ho ... now I have a tripod mounted superb 135 which is stable and non-tiring (apart from having to cart a tripod around !)
* I have also the Minolta 135/2 (not the 2.8 - smaller,lighter than the Zeiss and very hand-holdable and wonderful out-of-focus rendering and Minolta colour), the Contarex 2.8 and for AF the still enjoyed and widely under-appreciated old workhorse the Canon 135. But as I say I am a 135 enthusiast and as Michael Erlewine says above I find that a favourite lens finds ways to be used beyond the conventional options.
-
This is a bit obtuse to the original intent I think but may be interesting - and possibly useful ?
I bought 135 Zeiss having heard so much praise for it and liking the 135 length*.
However over recent years it has become less used as its' unsupported weight tires my elderly muscles and induces shake and it is unbalanced on the Sony A7R2 that now is my main camera.
In a rare moment of inspiration I bought a Leitax conversion which has an extended plain section which takes a tripod mount and David kindly made "packing pieces" on his 3D printer to bridge the gap between converter and a tripod mount.
Hey ho ... now I have a tripod mounted superb 135 which is stable and non-tiring (apart from having to cart a tripod around !)
* I have also the Minolta 135/2 (not the 2.8 - smaller,lighter than the Zeiss and very hand-holdable and wonderful out-of-focus rendering and Minolta colour), the Contarex 2.8 and for AF the still enjoyed and widely under-appreciated old workhorse the Canon 135. But as I say I am a 135 enthusiast and as Michael Erlewine says above I find that a favourite lens finds ways to be used beyond the conventional options.
John, have you looked at the Batis 135 for your A7R2. Very light and from what I've seen very sharp wide open.
-
John, have you looked at the Batis 135 for your A7R2. Very light and from what I've seen very sharp wide open.
The 135/3.4 Apo-Telyt M is also a great physical match for the a7RII. It is not as sharp and contrasty as the 135/2 Zeiss, and it costs a lot more (those red dots are apparently difficult to manufacture), but it's great for hiking, and the IBIS makes handheld focusing at high magnification easy and accurate. I can't focus the 135/2 accurately handheld without IBIS. I have not yet tested the Batis 135, but my other Batis lenses are excellent, and I like that Zeiss did not try to make the Batis 135 a fast lens.
In response to the OP's questions about utility, I find the Zeiss 135/2 an excellent landscape lens if hiking is not involved. I'll post some images here later today. It may be gilding the lily with a lens this sharp, but 135 is a good focal length for multi-row stitching.
Jim
-
Remarkable sharpness in your Image.
Truly. The lens has a level of sharpness capability not seen in common lenses.
I once thought of getting this lens but refrained since it didn’t have a tripod collar. I would have used it mainly for portraits. I finally bought the Zeiss 85/1.4, preferring that focal length. Since manual focusing was too great a PITA with my Canon 5D bodies, I sold it for the Canon 135/2. A wonderful lens wide open! But again, the focal length!
Since I’ve switch to the Fujifilm X system, I’m enjoying their 56/1.2 immensely. Sadly, it also doesn’t have a tripod collar. No built-in lens shade either. These seem forgotten design features.
Yes, I agree, the tripod collar is the first thing I felt this lens needed, after affixing it on the end of my D810. Not just for mount-safety but also for creative control. Yet, as can be seen, extreme sharpness can still be had hand-held even with the challenges of the wind on tiny subject.
As to the digression into "other lenses" ... there are thousands of other lenses, other choices, etc. that anyone can flood into here ... but that was not the topic I intended to generate.
My intent was to talk about the usefulness and creative possibilities for this lens, not to digress into discussions about all the possible other options, their weights, etc.
-
very nice photo !
and yes very sharp.
I like this type of 'working' photo better then the more idealized polished kind.
Thank you.
I know what you mean. Often, while technically-sharp, images that are "too polished" lack a raw and authentic feel to them.
The Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo lets you zero-in on a subject from amidst a mass of confusion ... making it jump out in a most interesting fashion.
-
I would never have thought of using a 135mm lens for wildlife or macro. I have used them in the past for portraits, travel, and landscape.
For travel, hiking, etc, something like a Leica Apo Telyt 135, or the new Batis 135 makes much more sense to me, because I have a Sony A7 system. Much lighter and arguably very good too.
Again, I am not wanting to digress into other options, I want to talk about this lens.
Also, and in particular, my reason for sticking with this particular lens is that it blows the other ones out of the water.
- "I know that calling the new Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar the world’s finest lens might be fighting words. But, there is so much photographic goodness wrapped up in this metal and glass device that it may well. At least I can write with absolute conviction that it’s the finest lens that I’ve ever experienced." Michael Reichmann (https://luminous-landscape.com/zeiss-135mm-apo)
- "We will need to reedit this chapter at some point in the future because the tested Zeiss is simply breaking all possible records ... In the centre of the frame, already at the maximum relative aperture, the lens reaches a level of 45 lpmm. This value is so high that we would consider the tested instrument very good even if it was the peak of its possibilities. Meanwhile it is just a beginning. By f/2.8-5.6 the MTFs get to truly record-breaking level of 47-49 lpmm. In order to realize how brilliant such a result is you might remind yourself that the maximum value reached by the incredibly expensive and optically great Nikkor AF-S 200 mm f/2G ED VRII was 47 lpmm ... So far, I’ve had an opportunity to use intensively as many as several hundred different lenses. If I were asked to choose the best ten I’ve dealt with, I would put the Zeiss Apo Sonnar 2/135 on that list without any second thought. Mind you it would occupy a rather high position. It is a thoroughly uncompromising lens.." LensTip (http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=388)
This is a special lens, just just "a" 135mm, and this fact needs to be underscored. However, its uses (for my purposes) are not immediately apparent, so, again, I am wanting some feedback from its actual users in order to see the creative uses they've achieved with it.
Thanks.
-
Well, something I’ve learned about really fine lenses is that once you have the lens, you find ways to use it, perhaps even other ways that it was designed for. As for the Zeiss 135 we are discussing here, as far as I am concerned it is an Otus, only lacking the f/1.4.
I agree. I actually like this Zeiss best at f/4 for a single image. By far the sharpest aperture, yet with still great bokeh/rendering.
Unless we have but a few lenses, when we get something like the Zeiss 135mm, it becomes part of a range of lenses that we use, as needed, for its particular qualities.
When I was doing nature-guide photos, years ago, I was more interested in one lense that could do everything, because I had to hike into the bush, onto bogs, and all kinds of things. I did not want to carry a set of lenses, but just one lens and perhaps some extensions or filters. Well, perhaps I would also carry a light wide-angle lens like the Nikon 28mm f/2.8. But it was important to keep it light.
Unfortunately for that approach, two things happened, one of which is that I got older and do not hike as much as I used to. The upshot of that is that I began to carry more lenses, but in my car. So my trips out into nature would circle around a loop to the car to switch lenses, etc.
Exactly my dilemma. I am a hiker ... and I already carry two camera bodies, a super-telephoto, a macro, and a 20(or 28), and a 50. My macro is 125mm and this Zeiss is 135. I feel it's duplicative.
However, I like the Zeiss better ... yet it's not as useful as a macro (and it's a third-heavier). I am thinking I need to hike with this lens, by itself. However, I may just have to become a pack animal and deal with it.
The other thing that happened is that I slowly stopped thinking in terms of a swiss-army lens, one that did it all. As I discovered finer and finer lenses, it was no longer important that they do “everything.” It was enough that they do what they do well. Finally, the degree of correctedness (with perhaps a little character) became the deciding factor in my lens choices. So, today it’s “horses for courses,” and a particular type of shot recommends a particular lens, more and more of the time.
That is something I don't try to do. There is no "one" lens that can take a wide-angle, a macro, and capture birds.
The lightest I travel is 2 lenses (telephoto/wide); but sometimes I will carry 6 ... but it's not much fun.
As for the Zeiss 135mm (this version), it can take some extension, which moves us closer, but always at the expense of IQ. As the two shots here show (one a crop-of the other), the 135mm Zeiss is better with no extension, since it does admit cropping, which I have done here.
My point in all of this is that I no longer think that one or two lenses as all I need. To me, each lens is like a flower, with its own bloom and qualities. I don’t want to change it with extensions, close-up filters, or anything. I just want to use it for what it does best and for a particular subject. The Zeiss 135mm is perhaps the sharpest of all the Oti-like Zeiss. Next would be the Otus 85mm, etc. Hope this was helpful.
Zeiss 135mm with the Nikon D810
Thank you for your insight, and that is a sensational image. I agree with your thinking ... no extensions with this as it will take away its exquisite qualities. Just find uses for it where it truly shines.
Like I said, my 300mm VR II is as sharp (which it ought to be, being more than 3x as expensive). However, it is a "robot," an AF lens, where I have to thumb a joystick to move my "focus dot" to where I want it, then depress the shutter.
The magic of this Zeiss is the fact I don't need to thumb any joystick, I achieve perfect focus using my eye in concert with the buttery-smooth focus ring. My eye tells me where to achieve the focus, not some focus dot or joystick. It is a more artistic, sensual photographic experience. The 300 VR II is great at what it does: nailing a shot quickly and precisely, but it is nowhere near as pleasurable to use.
-
This is a bit obtuse to the original intent I think but may be interesting - and possibly useful ?
I bought 135 Zeiss having heard so much praise for it and liking the 135 length*.
However over recent years it has become less used as its' unsupported weight tires my elderly muscles and induces shake and it is unbalanced on the Sony A7R2 that now is my main camera.
It is also unbalanced on my D810 (front-heavy).
I cradle the lens with my left hand when carrying.
-
In response to the OP's questions about utility, I find the Zeiss 135/2 an excellent landscape lens if hiking is not involved. I'll post some images here later today. It may be gilding the lily with a lens this sharp, but 135 is a good focal length for multi-row stitching.
Jim
Would be interested in seeing your images with the subject lens, Jim. Thanks.
-
Would be interested in seeing your images with the subject lens, Jim. Thanks.
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/135-1.jpg)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/135-2.jpg)
The 135/2 Apo Sonnar works well at IR. This is with the DF.2 version.
Jim
-
Jim, terrific IR landscapes!
I have to think that the Zeiss 135 f/2 would be very popular among portrait and fashion photographers.
I love the relatively tiny Voigtlander 125 f/2.5 macro-lanthar 1:1 manual focus lens (~600 grams) for an all-purpose outdoors hiking lens (macro, landscape), along with the humble Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake and the Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 ZE (pre-Milvus). It isn't a do-everything kit, but it does a reasonable amount. The Shorty Forty is there because it is 130 grams and very good at f/5.6 - f/8, but it is nasty to try to focus-by-wire. My Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art is a winner, but really at the f/5.6 to f/8 apertures, it is hard to tell the difference between the Shorty Forty and the 665 gram Sigma.That's one less pound (well, 435 grams less) in my pack...
-
Jim, terrific IR landscapes!
I have to think that the Zeiss 135 f/2 would be very popular among portrait and fashion photographers.
I love the relatively tiny Voigtlander 125 f/2.5 macro-lanthar 1:1 manual focus lens (~600 grams) for an all-purpose outdoors hiking lens (macro, landscape), along with the humble Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake and the Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 ZE (pre-Milvus). It isn't a do-everything kit, but it does a reasonable amount. The Shorty Forty is there because it is 130 grams and very good at f/5.6 - f/8, but it is nasty to try to focus-by-wire. My Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art is a winner, but really at the f/5.6 to f/8 apertures, it is hard to tell the difference between the Shorty Forty and the 665 gram Sigma.That's one less pound (well, 435 grams less) in my pack...
One thing that is very difficult with a longish, sharp, fast lens like the 135/2 Apo with a moving subject is nailing the focus. With the camera on a tripod with a a7RII and the lens wide open, even with a still subject, it takes patience to nail the focus, and the slightest movement of the helicoid can make a big difference. When I am testing lenses like this, I can't focus the lens sufficiently reliably for laboratory work, so I have to use a motorized focusing rail to o precise focus bracketing. With the D810, it's even harder to focus because there is no peaking on the D810; I have to resort ot an external monitor for precise work. With a lens that wasn't this sharp, precise focusing wouldn't matter so much.
I haven't run fouc shift tests on the 135 Apo, but I focus at the taking aperture down to f/5.6. I have run those tests on the Otus 85. It has significant focus shift (though loe LoCA) and needs to be focused at the taking aperture that far down.
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/another-medium-tele-test-otus-nikkor-focus-shift/
Jim
-
With the D810, it's even harder to focus because there is no peaking on the D810; I have to resort ot an external monitor for precise work. With a lens that wasn't this sharp, precise focusing wouldn't matter so much.
Are you trying to say a person can't focus the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar on a D810 without an external monitor? :o
With all due respect, this is nonsense. The lens didn't get its reputation for stellar sharpness only by those with external monitors and stepper motors ... but by people using the lens as-intended.
The truth is I think some people really have trouble nailing focus naturally ... and others don't.
Reminds me of one shooter I have seen (on another forum) who has posted hundreds of macro shots ... and not a single one was in focus ... ever.
On the other hand, I have witnessed others nail their shots (and stacks) time and again, no stepper or external monitor required.
-
The 135/2 Apo Sonnar works well at IR. This is with the DF.2 version.
Jim
Very nice images, Jim.
-
Again, I am not wanting to digress into other options, I want to talk about this lens.
Also, and in particular, my reason for sticking with this particular lens is that it blows the other ones out of the water.
- "I know that calling the new Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar the world’s finest lens might be fighting words. But, there is so much photographic goodness wrapped up in this metal and glass device that it may well. At least I can write with absolute conviction that it’s the finest lens that I’ve ever experienced." Michael Reichmann (https://luminous-landscape.com/zeiss-135mm-apo)
- "We will need to reedit this chapter at some point in the future because the tested Zeiss is simply breaking all possible records ... In the centre of the frame, already at the maximum relative aperture, the lens reaches a level of 45 lpmm. This value is so high that we would consider the tested instrument very good even if it was the peak of its possibilities. Meanwhile it is just a beginning. By f/2.8-5.6 the MTFs get to truly record-breaking level of 47-49 lpmm. In order to realize how brilliant such a result is you might remind yourself that the maximum value reached by the incredibly expensive and optically great Nikkor AF-S 200 mm f/2G ED VRII was 47 lpmm ... So far, I’ve had an opportunity to use intensively as many as several hundred different lenses. If I were asked to choose the best ten I’ve dealt with, I would put the Zeiss Apo Sonnar 2/135 on that list without any second thought. Mind you it would occupy a rather high position. It is a thoroughly uncompromising lens.." LensTip (http://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=388)
This is a special lens, just just "a" 135mm, and this fact needs to be underscored. However, its uses (for my purposes) are not immediately apparent, so, again, I am wanting some feedback from its actual users in order to see the creative uses they've achieved with it.
Thanks.
I understand that. But again, to me at least, it does not make sense to have a great lens and not using it. You ask for uses/inspiration from others of how and where to use the Zeiss 135 APO. I would say that it is a 135 mm lens, one of the best, so use it for what a 135mm lens is normally used: portraits, landscape, flexible lens for travel. Extension tubes to get up close, or something like a high quality close up dioptre (e.g. Canon 500D).
-
Did anyone test it against the 135mm f1.8 lens from Sigma;
As it seems it is even sharper; and - not unimportant at f1.8- autofocus.
According to Lenstip only the longitudinal aberration is slightly worse than the Zeiss.
-
Are you trying to say a person can't focus the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar on a D810 without an external monitor? :o
With all due respect, this is nonsense. The lens didn't get its reputation for stellar sharpness only by those with external monitors and stepper motors ... but by people using the lens as-intended.
The truth is I think some people really have trouble nailing focus naturally ... and others don't.
Reminds me of one shooter I have seen (on another forum) who has posted hundreds of macro shots ... and not a single one was in focus ... ever.
On the other hand, I have witnessed others nail their shots (and stacks) time and again, no stepper or external monitor required.
What I said was that I can't focus the D810 with sharp lenses sufficiently well for lab work without an external monitor. My objective in lab work is to have peak MTF50 results repeatable within no more than 10%. In the field, hardly anyone is looking for that level of accuracy. If they are, they are highly likely to be disappointed.
I've been round and round with people on the internet about sharpness. Back when the a7R came out and I was documenting the shutter shock effects I was continually beset by people who said the problem didn't exist, and that their images were "tack sharp" at all shutter speeds. Everbody has their own unspoken definition of tack sharp. I dealt with this using two methods: simulations of what images looked like with various amounts of motion blur that completely blew away the notion that we were dealing with sub-pixel shifts. I also did extensive quantitative tests.
Doing quantitative testing over the years has taught me just how difficult is to get all the IQ our miraculous new gear is capable of delivering in actual use. I couldn't have learned it with that level of precision any other way. Fortunately, the images from the gear usually look great even if you don't get every last iota of sharpness.
Here's a challenge for you. With the 135/2 at f/2 take a picture of a double edged razor blade with a diffuse OOF white area behind it an hardly any light on the front of the razor blade. Put the blade on-axis at about a 5 degree angle (up to 10 is OK). Make the extent of the blade in the image about 500 or 1000 pixels. Make sure you're square to the blade. Send me the raw file. I'll tell you how close to being in focus you are.
There's a picture of what the image should look like here:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/zeiss-1352-apo-sonnar-on-gfx-2/
Jim
-
I did a test for on-axis sharpness, LoCA, and focus shift with the 135/2 Apo Sonnar on the GFX today.
The Zeiss 135/2 produces some pretty fantastic on-axis sharpness numbers on the GFX; they're in the same ballpark with the Fuji 110/2.
There is a fair amount of LoCA. Enough so that you need to stop down to f/8 to cover it up with DOF
The lack of focus shift is truly remarkable.
It looks like the GFX micro lenses are responsible for the quantum leap in sharpness I've been seeing compared to the a7RII and D810. This sharpness improvement is a double-edged sword, since it comes at the expense of increased aliasing.
Details:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/zeiss-1352-apo-sonnar-on-gfx-2/
Similar tests on the Fuji 110/2:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-loca-of-fuji-1102-on-gfx/
Questions? Comments?
Jim
-
A few months ago, after the Milvus 135 was announced, I was waiting for it to show up in stores so I could order it (and an adapter).
I was ready to place my order, then I saw some tests that show the Samyang 135 f/2 is actually more "APO" (less LoCA) than the Zeiss 135 APO, and about the same sharpness in the real world at all apertures.
I can't prove sharpness is better than the Zeiss (I doubt that it is, and I don't have the Zeiss to compare), but the Samyang is just ridiculously good at all apertures on the A7RII (I bought the E mount, no adapters needed). Composing and manually focusing is so stupidly easy on this camera.
The main difference is the warm color rendering of the Samyang. I think it's much warmer than the Zeiss. Sometimes it's a negative, sometimes it's actually nice.
Also, the Samyang is so cheap, you could buy 4 of them (5 if you need an adapter with the Zeiss) for the price of one Zeiss.
Looking at the new Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8, it looks like THAT lens is the best LoCA corrected 135mm so far. It's better than the Zeiss f/2 APO, and slightly better than the Samyang.
-
A few months ago, after the Milvus 135 was announced, I was waiting for it to show up in stores so I could order it (and an adapter).
I was ready to place my order, then I saw some tests that show the Samyang 135 f/2 is actually more "APO" (less LoCA) than the Zeiss 135 APO, and about the same sharpness in the real world at all apertures.
I can't prove sharpness is better than the Zeiss (I doubt that it is, and I don't have the Zeiss to compare), but the Samyang is just ridiculously good at all apertures on the A7RII (I bought the E mount, no adapters needed). Composing and manually focusing is so stupidly easy on this camera.
The main difference is the warm color rendering of the Samyang. I think it's much warmer than the Zeiss. Sometimes it's a negative, sometimes it's actually nice.
Also, the Samyang is so cheap, you could buy 4 of them (5 if you need an adapter with the Zeiss) for the price of one Zeiss.
Looking at the new Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8, it looks like THAT lens is the best LoCA corrected 135mm so far. It's better than the Zeiss f/2 APO, and slightly better than the Samyang.
It seems like there are a plethora of interesting 135 choices now. New ones included Sigma, Batis, Milvus (new lens, or old wine in new bottle?), Sony (soon?), Samyang. I have two good 135s already (Apo-Telyt, Apo-Sonnar; DC Nikkor is recently sold), so I am only tempted out of intellectual curiosity, not the need for another photographic tool. But I have a big credit balance with my camera dealer, and I may weaken...
I do love the light weight of the Batis lenses.
Jim
-
...
Looking at the new Zeiss Batis 135mm f/2.8, it looks like THAT lens is the best LoCA corrected 135mm so far. It's better than the Zeiss f/2 APO, and slightly better than the Samyang.
It should be at that same pricepoint and halve the lens area.
-
It should be at that same pricepoint and [half] the lens area.
I wasn't saying that there is anything miraculous in the Batis design philosophy, but rather that I'm glad there is a choice of not-aggressively-fast, lightly-constructed lenses available. I like the fast, built-like-a-tank lenses, too. I want to be able to choose when deciding what to use for a project.
Recently, I've been making images with the GFX and the Fuji 23/4 and the a7RII and the Batis 18. The FOV's are similar. There are uses for both, but they are quite different in their size, weight, and IQ. Vive la difference!
Jim
-
Another shot, cropped, taken with the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO and Nikon D810
-
Another shot, cropped, taken with the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO and Nikon D810
Michael, that is a glorious image.
In the end, I wound up sending the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo back ... not because it wasn't an absolutely awesome lens ... but because, at the end of the day, the 135mm focal length didn't offer me anything I didn't already have in order to "make the team" of the lenses I bring with me on my nature excursions.
Believe me, because of its quality, I gave the lens the benefit of the doubt:
- I went on two hikes with the Zeiss (in a group, along with my "must have" lenses) ... and the Apo 135 f/2 only added 2 extra pounds to my pouch, whilst offering me nothing I couldn't already capture with my existing lens set.
- I then gave the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo "special consideration," and went on a hike with it alone ... dedicating my time to it exclusively ... but the lens was so very limited in its application to nature/wildlife photography, forcing me to MISS every macro shot, and every long-telephoto shot, that it didn't deserve this kind of exclusive attention being paid to it. (In the end, I missed more shots bringing it, alone, than I got by bringing it.)
So I sent it back.
While I recognize the quality of this lens, I immediately became aware of its limitations.
Keep in mind, I am not a "connoisseur," or an artsy-farty type; I am a pragmatist.
I only want the most from the least, in the lenses I choose to bring with me.
That said, my hiking "must have" lenses, who made the team with me, are these:
- 300mm Nikkor f/2.8 G AF-S ED VR II (paired with the Nikon AF-S 2x Teleconverter it achieves 600mm on my D810 and 900mm on my D500)
- 125mm Voigtländer f/2.5 SL Apo-Lanthar (1:1 macro + superb short telephoto)
- 50mm Nikkor f/1.2 AI-S (doubles as a 1.1x macro, when reversed, retaining aperture control -- but stays home, mostly, where I use it for studio macro.)
- 28mm Nikkor f/2.8 AI-S (doubles as a 2.1x macro, when reversed, retaining aperture control.)
- 20mm Nikkor f/2.8 AI-S (doubles as a 3.4x macro, when reversed, retaining aperture control.)
This is the lightest I can possibly hike/travel and realistically be able to capture everything possible, from 20mm to 900mm, on a nature trek, where I can quickly deal with any wildlife/landscape opportunity, immediately.
I don't carry a backpack; I carry a Cotton Carrier camera holster (for two cameras/two lenses), with an additional 2-4 lenses being carried in an immediately-accessible pouch:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000002156_medium.jpg)
If I add anything, it is the Zeiss 15mm f/2.8 Distagon T* ... but I seldom feel like bringing it (already sold the first one I used), and may end up selling the 2nd one as well.
(The 15mm Zeiss really only has applications for my work, as an investigator, photographing interior scenes. I prefer 20/28mm focal lengths for landscapes/terrain.)
For the same reason, the 50mm AI-S doesn't do much for me in the field, either, but it is good for 1:1 reverse-macro images at home, in my studio.
The use of Nikkor AI-S lenses (over more modern AF lenses) is because the lens image qualities are similar ... in many cases, superior ... but the manual aperture control with AI-S lenses allows me to get macro shots, reversing them, to a magnification inverse to their focal lengths, without losing aperture control. Thus the AI-S lenses offer me 1000x more usefulness for nature shots than any AF lens would possibly do. That and the fact they're much lighter and much better-built.
The Zeiss 135mm simply didn't give me anything I didn't already have (none of the 135mm "telephoto" options would have, period).
At the end of the day, the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 SL Apo-Lanthar macro is too good, and too versatile (allowing me to go all the way in to 1:1), to waste my time/effort in the field, and put anything else in my pouch, in any kind of similar focal length. Even though the Zeiss is a tad better/sharper. It just isn't enough to justify the added weight.
Thus my own conclusion is, the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF2 is one helluva lens ... but it is an anachronism ... and it's not worth the extra hassle to bring with me ... when I have the Voigtländer 125mm in my gear bag already, that can do anything the Zeiss can do, and a whole lot more the Zeiss cannot do.
That's my $0.02 and thanks for the discussion.
Jack
-
Just as a note; Matt Granger spoke to someone at Zeiss regarding the 135mm a couple of years ago in reference to Otus. The Zeiss guy explains that the lens predates the Otus line but in terms of performance it is in line with the Otus series.
https://youtu.be/9cnEnRADDLo?t=31m14s
-
In my catalog, I always list the 135mm Zeiss as "Otus 135," so I get it.
As for carrying it for hiking, I agree. I don't carry it either, but I use it a lot, whenever I want a certain clarity.
Shot taken today with the Zeiss 135 and Nikon D810
-
Having written positively about the Zeiss - especially with the Leitax adapter and hence tripod mount - earlier in the threadI do have to endorse JKoerner's assessment that the Voigtlander 125 makes the Zeiss unnecessary .... wider range of applications and just superb all around.
Foolishly i sold mine to fund an M240 and have missed it ever since and all of the available ones seem to be missing a part or dubious in one way or another - now that for me is an incomparable lens ... but despite being more comfortable to handle than the Zeiss would still benefit from a tripod mount for us "oldies" !
-
Having written positively about the Zeiss - especially with the Leitax adapter and hence tripod mount - earlier in the threadI do have to endorse JKoerner's assessment that the Voigtlander 125 makes the Zeiss unnecessary .... wider range of applications and just superb all around.
Foolishly i sold mine to fund an M240 and have missed it ever since and all of the available ones seem to be missing a part or dubious in one way or another - now that for me is an incomparable lens ... but despite being more comfortable to handle than the Zeiss would still benefit from a tripod mount for us "oldies" !
I feel we have to keep accenting "for a particular purpose," like, perhaps, field work and hiking. As wonderful as the CV-125 is (and I have had four of them, and still have two), it is not as well corrected or as sharp as the Zeiss 135 F2. The CV-125 has a "fuzzy" look to its IQ that, while kind of "warmish" and nice is not always desirable. I have repeatedly said that the CV-125 is the best all-around close-up/macro lens that I have used, but I have also found that, after a while, the CV-125 "look" (like all things) gets old and I yearn for something sharper and more well-corrected. So, unless blog is only about hiking, in which case declare that, we should assume that everyone can have or only wants one lens, etc. I use them both, but for different tasks. Here is a photo taken with the CV-125 that shows what I term the kind of fuzzy and nice look, etc.
Nikon D800E or Nikon D810. Can't remember which.
-
Yes of course Michael it is always 'horses for courses' but that image is pretty darned sharp and the Zeiss can look very "clinical" and I think it was you who was saying about finding many uses for particularly appealing lenses - well the 125 is a fabulous portrait lens for people, animals, flowers ... etc. and I occasionally come across an image in the back files and am struck by it and despite odd subject matter it is often from the 125. But yes also you are right that sometimes the 135 just adds its own special element.
-
Yes of course Michael it is always 'horses for courses' but that image is pretty darned sharp and the Zeiss can look very "clinical" and I think it was you who was saying about finding many uses for particularly appealing lenses - well the 125 is a fabulous portrait lens for people, animals, flowers ... etc. and I occasionally come across an image in the back files and am struck by it and despite odd subject matter it is often from the 125. But yes also you are right that sometimes the 135 just adds its own special element.
I understand, but IMO the term "clinical" is too much used to refer to highly-corrected sharp lenses like the Otus series. To me, that only points to the inability of the photographer to know how use the lens. We could say that all of the Otus series are clinical, and so forth, and some have. My point here is to emphasize that to me, in my work, the 135 Zeiss is not just a lens, that I use on occasions. I use it often and much more than the CV-125. I don't want to drone on here, but just to point out again that not all us of agree with the above diagnosis about calling a lens like the 135 "clinical" just because it is sharp and well corrected. Etc.
-
Having written positively about the Zeiss - especially with the Leitax adapter and hence tripod mount - earlier in the threadI do have to endorse JKoerner's assessment that the Voigtlander 125 makes the Zeiss unnecessary .... wider range of applications and just superb all around.
Foolishly i sold mine to fund an M240 and have missed it ever since and all of the available ones seem to be missing a part or dubious in one way or another - now that for me is an incomparable lens ... but despite being more comfortable to handle than the Zeiss would still benefit from a tripod mount for us "oldies" !
We agree, John, thanks for your input.
I purchased both lenses (Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 and the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar SL Macro) based on Michael Erlewine's recommendations. Both performed as he stated. However, Michael and I disagree on their respective usefulness.
In the case of the Voigtländer, I was using a Sigma 180 f/2.8 macro (for its AF capability), at the time I read Michael's review ... and, after buying the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Macro, and experimenting for my needs, I decided to upgrade my Sigma 180 to a Nikkor 300mm VR II, while replacing with the MF Voigtländer as my dedicated macro lens.
There have been many field-instances where the Nikkor 300mm + 2xTC enables me to capture "macro" shots ... from 7-10 feet away ... that I would never be able to capture whilst trying to get close enough with my "macro" lens to achieve the same framing. However, for "close-stacking field macro opportunities," the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo is a peerless tool ... and I thank Michael for turning me on to this lens.
That said, it was with this same open mind that I believed I might incorporate the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar T* ZF.2 into my lens stable as well, trusting Michael's review. However, while I truly do believe Michael's opinion of the lens was justified, the lens itself is just not a very useful tool to me, as a wildlife photographer. Where the Voigtländer Apo could do things my other lenses could not do ... at the end of the day there was nothing the Zeiss 135mm could do that I couldn't do as well (or better) with another lens choice.
With regard to sharpness, it was very close, with the advantage to the Zeiss. However, because of the Zeiss' min. focus distance being 2' away, this impediment proved to be "a buzz-kill" to me ... because the Voigtländer can get right up there to a subject and achieve 1:1 magnification. Here, again, is the image I took with the Zeiss (from about 2' away), which is the closest I could get with the Zeiss:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Wow2.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Wow.jpg)
(Zeiss 135 Apo: Click on the image, then click-again, for full-size view)
In comparison, here is another mantid image that I took, this morning, using the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar SL Macro from the same 2-feet away:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Voigt2.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Voigt.jpg)
(Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo: Click on the image, then click-again, for full-size view)
Both images were taken at f/4, again from the same 2-foot distance. The fact is, the Voigtländer compares very favorably with the Zeiss. Further, with the Voigtländer, I can get even closer ... and achieve a true 1:1 magnification ... so whatever (minor) resolution-advantage the Zeiss has is gone ... because, at 1:1 I have far more pixels covering the subject. Yet, if you look at the above crops, the Voigtländer compares very favorably to the Zeiss even handicapping it by conforming to the Zeiss' distance limitations. Below are full-sized views of these 100% crops of the above two images:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Wow1002.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Wow100.jpg)
Zeiss 135 Apo 100% Crop @ f/4
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Voigt1002.jpg) (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/Voigt100.jpg)
Voigtländer 125mm Apo 100% Crop @ f/4
Thus, for me, there was no justification to hang onto the Zeiss. It was essentially just 2 lb of extra weight in my lens pouch ... offering me nothing I couldn't already get (as good or better) with the lenses that "made the team" and have proven their worth to remain in my bag. None of the other 135mm options can touch what the Voigtländer 125mm f/2.5 Apo-Lanthar SL Macro can do as an all-around field tool. IMO, this is precisely because they cannot get anywhere near 1:1, while the Voigtländer can, and (even operating within the other lenses' limitations), the Voigtländer can rock-and-roll with any of them as a short-telephoto as well.
Indeed, you really have to split-hairs to find a performance difference (at standard focal lengths) between the Voigtländer 125mm and the available 135 options ... but when it comes to getting close ... the Voigtländer blows them all out of the water. No 'crop' from any of these other lenses can match what the Voigtländer can achieve at 1:1.
Jack
-
I understand, but IMO the term "clinical" is too much used to refer to highly-corrected sharp lenses like the Otus series. To me, that only points to the inability of the photographer to know how use the lens. We could say that all of the Otus series are clinical, and so forth, and some have. My point here is to emphasize that to me, in my work, the 135 Zeiss is not just a lens, that I on occasions. I use it often and much more than the CV-125. I don't want to drone on here, but just to point out again that not all of agree with the above diagnosis about calling a lens like the 135 "clinical" just because it is sharp and well corrected. Etc.
Interesting that you keep referring to the Voigtländer as the "CV" (Cosina-Voigtländer) ... seeing as Cosina also manufactures the Zeiss 135 Apo (as well as all 3 Otus Apo's ;)).
So I guess we are talking about the differences between the CV and the CZ(s) :D
Anyway, here is the last image I took with the CZ 135 Apo ... (4-image stack) of a Sacred Thorn Apple (aka: Jimsonweed, Datura wrightii):
-
And here is a 54-image stack I took of this morning's praying mantis with the CV:
-
Oh dear - out of innocence/ignorance ?? - I appear to have drifted unintentionally into some crossfire.
I said that the Z135 'can' look clinical - which, to my eyes,it can just as the V125 can look a little 'fuzzy'. I used 'clinical' as term which might be approximately clearly understood whilst avoiding overlong specificity - 'fuzzy' might have been used in precisely the same way. We could explore the crevices of linguistics for quite a long time and be little more clear as much of the matter is subjective.
We are discussing two excellent lenses and some people seem to find one preferable to the other for certain types of work - and have given their reasons. That is interesting and informative and exactly what I have always thought Michael encouraged these fora to be used for.
I apologize if I have trodden upon any toes ... or shibboleths .
-
Oh dear - out of innocence/ignorance ?? - I appear to have drifted unintentionally into some crossfire.
I said that the Z135 'can' look clinical - which, to my eyes,it can just as the V125 can look a little 'fuzzy'. I used 'clinical' as term which might be approximately clearly understood whilst avoiding overlong specificity - 'fuzzy' might have been used in precisely the same way. We could explore the crevices of linguistics for quite a long time and be little more clear as much of the matter is subjective.
We are discussing two excellent lenses and some people seem to find one preferable to the other for certain types of work - and have given their reasons. That is interesting and informative and exactly what I have always thought Michael encouraged these fora to be used for.
I apologize if I have trodden upon any toes ... or shibboleths .
My definition of lens "character" is endearing flaws.
There are several things that stand out about the 135/2 Apo Sonnar:
An almost complete lack of focus shift (at least at 2 m). This is going to make the lens more convenient to use.
Extreme sharpness
Lots of LoCA, considering how sharp it is.
Excellent coverage if you stop it down a bit. The coverage is so great that you can easily use the lens on a 33x44 mm camera.
Relatively little sharpness falloff off axis. Again, so little that you can use it on a bigger sensor than the one it was disigned for.
Solid mechanical qualities, and an excellent, but not absolutely top-notch helicoid.
Little LaCA and SA. Actually, incredibly little SA.
Jim
-
Oh dear - out of innocence/ignorance ?? - I appear to have drifted unintentionally into some crossfire.
I said that the Z135 'can' look clinical - which, to my eyes,it can just as the V125 can look a little 'fuzzy'. I used 'clinical' as term which might be approximately clearly understood whilst avoiding overlong specificity - 'fuzzy' might have been used in precisely the same way. We could explore the crevices of linguistics for quite a long time and be little more clear as much of the matter is subjective.
We are discussing two excellent lenses and some people seem to find one preferable to the other for certain types of work - and have given their reasons. That is interesting and informative and exactly what I have always thought Michael encouraged these fora to be used for.
I apologize if I have trodden upon any toes ... or shibboleths .
"Fuzzy" is not the same as "Clinical" in type, but enough is enough.. This is why I remind myself not to spend too much time here. Things just disintegrate.
-
I'm not sure why there has to be an emotional tailspin on the subject of these lenses.
They are all great lenses :D
To help underscore a point (mine, anyway) brought to light through this inquiry, I have harvested the LenScores for these respective lenses ... as they pertain to my bag ... as well as in reference to each other:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/LenScore.jpg)
It is pretty much unanimous that the Zeiss 100mm Macro is better than any Canon macro (I have owned them all) ... but that the Zeiss 100mm Macro is not as good as either the Zeiss 135 Apo or the Voigtländer 125 Apo macro. Those who have used both are unanimous that the Voigtländer 125 Apo Macro is better than the Zeiss Macro in pretty much every way (esp. in color-correctedness + the fact the Voigtländer is a true 1:1 macro whereas the Zeiss 100 is only 1:2) ... but a hair or two behind the Zeiss 135 Apo in sharpness/correctedness. Therefore, since LenScore hasn't measured the Voigtländer, I have added an arrow to illustrate (my opinion) of where the Voigtländer's placement belongs, within the scheme of things, for perspective.
The LenScore profile pretty much sums-up all subjective assessments that the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar is a much sharper, much more color-corrected lens than the Zeiss 100mm Macro ... but is a few notches down from the Oti. I don't think anyone, who's experienced all of these lenses, will argue with my placement of the Voigtländer 125 Apo in between these two Zeisses. (All 3 of them are made by Cosina.)
Harkening back to a couple of years ago, I was thrilled when I purchased the Sigma 180mm 'Apo' Macro (it is not a true Apo lens). It was significantly superior to the Canon macro lenses I had used for several years. Also, the Sigma's AF was faster than the Canons', which was important for shots of moving subjects.
Because macro photography is my mainstay, and because of Michael Erlewine's fascination with the Voigtländer, I too became interested in this lens. After switching to Nikon, for better DR, and after using the Voigtländer, I could see its superiority to my Sigma 180 ... but I didn't want to give up the AF + reach of the Sigma, either.
So I upgraded to the Nikkor 300mm VR II to meet my needs for quick focus. Immediately, I realized this lens was better than all of them, with better reach and better AF than the Sigma ... and it was so much better than a standard macro lens quality-wise ... that I could crop from the 300mm, standing 7-10' away, and get superior single macro shots than with my Canons up-close at 1:1.
In fact, the 300mm almost rendered my Voigtländer 125 Apo obsolete, too. While the CV 125 was superior to other macros, quality-wise, it was not superior to a Nikkor super-telephoto, and I started realizing that I could nail shots from a comfortable distance, that I might miss "trying to creep close enough" to (butterflies/lizards, etc.) with the smaller macro lens. The 300mm also opened-up a whole new outlet: bird photography (ah, but I digress ...).
Anyway, what the 300mm can't do, that the Voigtländer 125 Apo absolutely excels at (more than any macro lens on the planet), is macro stacks. With its 1:1 magnification, and its precise-turning 620° focus throw, the Voigtländer 125 Apo gives me something neither the Nikkor 300mm (nor the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo can do) 1:1 deep macro stacks.
IMO, as a hiking nature photographer (who's used more macro lenses than most), the Voigtländer 125 Apo is essentially like owning both the Zeiss 100mm macro and the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo telephoto, combined. It beats the Zeiss macro across the board, and it is close enough to the Apo Sonnar, quality-wise, to satisfy anyone as a telephoto ... adding the 1:1 dimension to the package. (Importantly, it is also much, much lighter to boot.)
In the end, there was nothing the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar could do that my Nikkor 300mm couldn't do better (quality-wise) ... and there was nothing that the Apo Sonnar could do (macro-wise) that my Voigtländer Apo couldn't do better, either.
Had the Zeiss 135 Apo been a macro lens, my choice might have been different. The deal-breaker was its hamstrung working distance in a focal length I already had. It is a beautiful lens, delightful to try, but it's just too limited in its applications to realistically bring with me, given what I already have.
-
I hate to be the spoilsport, but someone has to keep pointing out that the Zeiss 100mm macro, while sharp, is so poorly corrected as to be unusable, at least for my work. I sold my copy (and the 50mm Macro) years ago. IMO there is no comparison of the Zeiss 100 Macro with the CV-125 as far as being well-corrected is concerned. I have no understand why this myth keeps being passed on. Anyone who actually used the Zeiss 100mm Macro has to see the chromatic abberation (etc.) in that lens and it affects the color and sharpness, and so on.
And yes, the CV-135 may be the Swiss-army knife of macro lenses, but it is "soft" compared to the 135mm Zeiss APO or the 85mm Otus. It just is. If I want some atmospherics, I can use the CV-125 and do. But, if I want corrected sharp, well, I use the 135mm APO Zeiss.
And I love the CV-125, but like all lenses, it is what it is.
-
I hate to be the spoilsport, but someone has to keep pointing out that the Zeiss 100mm macro, while sharp, is so poorly corrected as to be unusable, at least for my work. I sold my copy (and the 50mm Macro) years ago. IMO there is no comparison of the Zeiss 100 Macro with the CV-125 as far as being well-corrected is concerned. I have no understand why this myth keeps being passed on. Anyone who actually used the Zeiss 100mm Macro has to see the chromatic abberation (etc.) in that lens and it affects the color and sharpness, and so on.
And yes, the CV-135 may be the Swiss-army knife of macro lenses, but it is "soft" compared to the 135mm Zeiss APO or the 85mm Otus. It just is. If I want some atmospherics, I can use the CV-125 and do. But, if I want corrected sharp, well, I use the 135mm APO Zeiss.
And I love the CV-125, but like all lenses, it is what it is.
I think Michael is right about the Zeiss 100 Makro. It has a lot of LoCA, and strong differences in resolution with wavelength:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-zeiss-1002-makro-planar/
Compare that to the CO 60/4:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-coastal-604-at-110/
Or even the Sony 90/2.8:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/focus-shift-and-loca-in-the-sony-90mm-f2-8-at-110/
Jim
-
It seems that you're both making a case that's already been admitted: e.g., I said “the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar is a much sharper, much more color-corrected lens than the Zeiss 100mm Macro,” and, “the Voigtländer 125 Apo Macro is better than the Zeiss Macro in pretty much every way (esp. in color-correctedness + the fact the Voigtländer is a true 1:1 macro whereas the Zeiss 100 is only 1:2).”
However, compared to other macros the Zeiss 100 rates pretty high. The truth is, most macro lenses are of very poor quality compared to telephotos (Oti, etc.). Therefore, I think the Zeiss Makro Planar achieved 'legendary status,' in comparison to other macros (Canon's, Nikon's, Sigma's, Tamron's), but it certainly doesn't stand up to what a lens connoisseur needs. The figures above pretty much show the Zeiss Makro's weakness in the CA area (compared to the finest lenses). Sharpness and bokeh-wise, the Zeiss is superior to the standard macros. The Voigtländer Apo macro is essentially a Zeiss macro ... with better color-correction and even creamier bokeh ... and it is a true 1:1.
I think Michael has gotten a little spoiled, since purchasing the Zeiss 135 and Oti lenses. I remember when, in his eBook (http://spiritgrooves.net/pdf/e-books/Lenses%20for%20Close-up%20and%20Macro%20Photography%20V1.1.pdf), Michael said of the Voigtländer:
- “I could write a book about this lens, but I will spare you. The CV-125 is, hands down, the best macro lens I own and I use it all the time, even though I have a shelf full of some of the best macro lenses in the world at the ready. It has no major negatives. It is very fast, very sharp, focuses close, reproduced to 1:1, has 9 blades (great bokeh) – the works. If I want to complain, it is on the heavy side, but I am always happy to carry this piece of glass in the field.
...
“Despite all the good qualities, probably the features that set this lens apart from other fine macro lenses are the fact that it is truly apochromatic (APO) and has such exceptional bokeh (lovely out-of-focus blur in the background). Of course, IMO, I would add that it has a 'magic' quality that words can’t express and a very-long focus throw that makes macros and stacked-photos so very easy. I find it very stable when it comes to handling various types of light in the same frame, like shade with rays of sunlight. This is a real workhorse and I have used mine day in and day out for years. It focuses to 1:1 and lets you get very close in on your subjects. A feature not often mentioned about this lens is that it is also very sharp at mid-range and even at landscape distances. This is the little lens that could and it does. If you ever find one, buy it. You will never be sorry.”
I 100% agree with Michael's assessment. Adding this lens has been a huge bonus for me and my needs, especially when I bring 2 cameras with me.
I can't say anything remotely close to this about the Zeiss. In fact, I also agreed with Michael's assessment of the Zeiss lens, too, particularly where he says, “It is perfect, but is not the easiest to use. It has a great focus-throw, but a not-so-great minimum close-focus distance of 2.62' (.80m), which is a ways back.” These facts were the deal-breakers.
My own findings were, while the Zeiss 135 was sharp, and is nicely-corrected, my Nikkor 300mm is even sharper ... and it's better-corrected. So what do I need the Zeiss for? Macro? Nope again. Doesn't do it here either. As a macro lens, the Zeiss 135mm is a crippled option compared to the absolutely useful Voigtländer IMO. At best, in instances of 1:4 or greater, the Zeiss 135mm would produce slightly-better images than my Voigtländer ... but not as good as my Nikon 300.
Sorry, but I am just not willing to carry an extra (fragile) 2lb barbell plate at my hip for a 1:4 to 1:8 magnification window, after which my 300mm blows it away.
For anything over 1:4, so does the CV 125. At 1:2 or 1:1, no 'crop' from the Zeiss 135mm is going to equal full-frame capture with the Voigtländer.
Beyond 1:4, I can get anything the Zeiss could get with my 300mm.
While the Zeiss 135 is a delightful lens, its usefulness was very limited, given what I already have.
Now if I were only shooting flowers and plants in my studio, or in garden, and wasn't carrying a whole bunch of gear already, then maybe selecting the Zeiss 135 Apo would be a real treat, ideal actually.
Flowers and whole plants are actually the perfect subjects for this lens (as would portraits). But as an unnecessary extra for wildlife? Mmm, not so much.
My two existing lenses, the 300 mm and the 125 CV, form a great team for my purposes.
The Zeiss 135 was an added 2 lb of weight that didn't do a thing for me that I could do already.
And it was not good enough to stand on its own right, taken on a hike by itself.
I can go out with my 300mm, by itself, and have a great, well-rounded day. (Would miss virtually nothing.)
I can go out with my 125mm macro, by itself, and do the same (Would miss birds, only).
Yet I would miss every bird with the 135 ... and I would wish I had the CV 125, 8x out of 10, on virtually every macro opportunity.
This is not an indictment of the Zeiss' quality, but of its usefulness as a field lens.
There is no 135mm on the planet that is as useful as the Voigtländer 125mm Apo macro, and that's precisely because of its ability to get up close and go 1:1.
Michael may have cooled down on Voigtländer, but I sure haven't.
As Michael admits, when he was leading field explorations, he wanted "all purpose" lenses.
I would bet a hundred dollars to a penny, that is Michael went on an all-day hike in the mountains, he would leave the Zeiss 135 at home, and would bring the CV 125 ;)
At the end of the day, no one is going to see a well-composed, well-taken shot from the Voigtländer 125 macro and not like it.
It does everything the Zeiss 135mm can do, and a whole helluva lot more that the Zeiss cannot do.
It doesn't have to be the best damned lens in the universe ... it just has to be damned good ... and the CV 125 most assuredly is that :D
Cheers.
-
It seems that you're both making a case that's already been admitted: e.g., I said “the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar is a much sharper, much more color-corrected lens than the Zeiss 100mm Macro,” and, “the Voigtländer 125 Apo Macro is better than the Zeiss Macro in pretty much every way (esp. in color-correctedness + the fact the Voigtländer is a true 1:1 macro whereas the Zeiss 100 is only 1:2).”
Just because I agree with Michael doesn't mean I disagree with you. You've found a kit that works for you/. Great.
What do you think of the CO/Jenoptik 60/4?
Jim
-
What do you think of the CO/Jenoptik 60/4?
Jim
This might be the right time to use the word "clinical," although forensic might be a better word. It is a great lens, but:
Focus through is way to small. Need to mount the lens/camera on a rail.
Not so well made, IMO.
F4 is a hardship for me.
Does not handle mottled light well, like a forest canopy and sunlight.
Has a terrible hotspot at close range.
Otherwise, very well corrected.
My comments about the CV-125 were BEFORE the advent of the Zeiss 135mm APO, although I still reverence the CV-125. I just don't use it a lot.
-
This might be the right time to use the word "clinical," although forensic might be a better word. It is a great lens, but:
Focus through is way to small. Need to mount the lens/camera on a rail.
Not so well made, IMO.
F4 is a hardship for me.
Does not handle mottled light well, like a forest canopy and sunlight.
Has a terrible hotspot at close range.
Otherwise, very well corrected.
I agree with all that, except that f/4 is fine with me and I never noticed the problem with mottled light (flare?). Not the sharpest thing in the world, either. On my copy, the name plate is upside down and the diaphragm markings are not accurate. I wonder, is it like with stamps and printing errors? Maybe my copy is worth a fortune! Good IR lens if you stay away from the hot spot distances.
Jim
-
Just because I agree with Michael doesn't mean I disagree with you.
There was no disagreement as to the Zeiss macro. We all agreed.
It's on the usefulness of the Zeiss Sonnar where some of us disagreed.
You've found a kit that works for you/. Great.
Indeed. Others who have both (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5807.msg93540.html#msg93540) leave the Zeiss Apo Sonnar at home and travel with the Voigtländer: it's lighter and does more. The Zeiss is heavier and does less.
Whatever (slight) advantages the Zeiss has in contrast/sharpness are overshadowed by its weight and limitations.
What do you think of the CO/Jenoptik 60/4?
Jim
I've never used it. I've read Michael's review of it, but it appears to have a very limited (non-existent) usefulness as a wildlife lens.
Jim, I am not a lens collector at all. I am actually the opposite: I am a lens discarder, except for those lenses which are irreplaceable.
I am a firm believer in the adage: "A man with one watch knows what time it is ... a man with many watches is never sure."
I don't want to have duplicate-lenses of the same focal length. I only want to keep the one which best-addresses my needs.
The C/O 60mm appears to have zero advantages over the CV 125, only disadvantages.
Have a good one.
-
The C/O 60mm appears to have zero advantages over the CV 125, only disadvantages.
For your uses, I think that's true.
Jim
-
I hate to be the spoilsport, but someone has to keep pointing out that the Zeiss 100mm macro, while sharp, is so poorly corrected as to be unusable, at least for my work.
I just couldn't bring myself to buy the Zeiss 100 f/2 makro. By now, it seems severely outdated, no matter how sharp it is. The purple and green fringing is out of control, especially when you compare it to the Sony 90mm f/2.8 macro, which is a lens I really love.
PhillipReeve.net has a test that shows that the Laowa (VenusOptics) 105mm f/2 (T/3.2) STF has basically ZERO purple/green fringing by comparison to the Zeiss 100mm f/2, even wide open, and especially in the out of focus areas. It is also sharper wide open.
I bought the Laowa in E mount, and decided to sell it, because the performance of my Samyang 135mm f/2 is in a different universe by comparison at f/2 and stopped down, and I already have the 90mm f/2.8 macro. The 90mm was also sharper than the Laowa.
Waiting for a good, corrected 85mm other than the Otus. The Loxia looks good, but I may well end up with an Otus, even if I have to use an adapter.
-
Waiting for a good, corrected 85mm other than the Otus.
Fuji 110/2 on the GFX? :)
Jim
-
My comments about the CV-125 were BEFORE the advent of the Zeiss 135mm APO, although I still reverence the CV-125. I just don't use it a lot.
Both lenses were featured in the same eBook.
Since most of your macro work is nowhere near 1:1, I can see why you'd find the Zeiss extremely useful.
Since most of my macro work is right around 1:1 (often going beyond 1:1), the Zeiss is much less useful to me.
Nice photo of the enshrined Voigtländers btw ...
We both agree that if Zeiss ever made an Otus-level, 1:1 macro lens, that it would be purchased instantly.
-
...beyond 1:1, jkoerner? How? Extension ring on existing lens? bellows lens? Studio or field?
-
...beyond 1:1, jkoerner? How? Extension ring on existing lens? bellows lens? Studio or field?
How? is the reason I use MF Nikkor AI-S lenses: they play a double-role in my gear bag (they're very light, they take great wide shots, and they reverse and become super-macro lenses). They are so useful, I really do love these little lenses :)
I have a set of MF AI-S lenses (18mm, 20mm, 28mm, 50mm) that reverse and achieve 4.1x, 3.4x, 2.1x, and 1.1x macro magnification, respectively.
I use all of them in the studio, but I typically only bring either the 20 or 28 into the field (to act as a wide-angle for landscape/terrain shots ... or, if needed, to reverse as a super-macro).
Since the 50mm only reverses to 1.1x, I don't really need it outdoors as the Voigtländer covers that.
The 18mm reverses to 4.1x, which is not something that is very easy to accomplish in the field (wind, etc.)
Meanwhile, the 28mm reverses to 2.1x (which is quite doable), while the 20mm reverses to 3.4x (which is trickier, but doable).
If I plan on a heavy macro day, I will bring both; otherwise, I only bring one.
To reverse-mount an AI-S lens, you need two adapters: the BR-2A (mounts to the camera on one end, allows you to screw-into the lens filter threads on the other end) and the BR-3 (acts as a lens shade for the exposed rear element of the lens). Like this:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/reverse1.jpg)
Reversed lens ready to receive the BR-3 and the BR-2A
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/reverse2.jpg)
Reversed lens now-attached to camera via the BR-2A
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/reverse3.jpg)
Reversed 28mm lens now-ready for use as 2.1x macro, with the BR-3 acting as lens shade
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/examples/reverse4.jpg)
To reverse the 20mm (and get 3.4x) need a third adapter (BR-5), between the front filter and the BR-2A to convert the 62mm thread to 52mm size.
Hope this makes sense ...
Studio or field?
Both. It is very hard to do a deep stack live in the field over 2:1. I was able to get deep stacks with the mantises (preceding pages), because they were not quite 1:1 as they're fairly big for insects, etc.
At 2x (and especially 3x) any little movement matters. I can get 4-12 image stacks at 2:1 (if I'm patient) ... but beyond that I need to bring the specimen into the studio so there's no wind movement at all.
Hope this clarifies,
-
28mm f/2.8 AIS? I have the BR2A already, didn't know about the BR3
How is it for a landscape lens? That lens would hit a sweet spot for me as well in a hiking kit.
I have a gap between my Zeiss 21 and my Canon Shorty 40 (or AIS 50 1.2)
I like and use my dad's old AIS Nikkor lens 105 f/2.5, not as sharp as some modern lenses but it has a nice look. And the AIS 50 f/1.2 is a lovely light MF lens. If I am going to work on tripod in live view, no reason not to use MF.
I admit that I haven't yet tried to work with greater than 1:1 in the field.
-
28mm f/2.8 AIS? I have the BR2A already, didn't know about the BR3
How is it for a landscape lens? That lens would hit a sweet spot for me as well in a hiking kit.
I have a gap between my Zeiss 21 and my Canon Shorty 40 (or AIS 50 1.2)
I like and use my dad's old AIS Nikkor lens 105 f/2.5, not as sharp as some modern lenses but it has a nice look. And the AIS 50 f/1.2 is a lovely light MF lens. If I am going to work on tripod in live view, no reason not to use MF.
I admit that I haven't yet tried to work with greater than 1:1 in the field.
Nancy, the 2.8/105 Micro Nikkor manual lens is a beauty. I use it mostly betwen f4 and f11 (obviously depending on what I want to achieve) and is indispensable when I use it. The landscape and close-up specialist John Shaw writes about using it with perfect faith both as a normal tele lens and as a close-up tool. If it works for him... he has a book on close-up work that I bought; well worth buying if you have that interest.
I never owned a 28mm focal length; felt it neither fish nor fowl, which could be reread today as meaning it has its own perfect niche.
Rob C
-
Thanks, John.
-
28mm f/2.8 AIS? I have the BR2A already, didn't know about the BR3
How is it for a landscape lens? That lens would hit a sweet spot for me as well in a hiking kit.
IMO, the 28mm AI-S is one of the most valuable tools in my hiking arsenal: light, good, and extremely flexible, which is why Nikkor lensman, Kouichi Ohshita, wrote a passage about it in Nikon’s Thousand and One Nights (https://web.archive.org/web/20161117055757/http://www.nikkor.com:80/story/0057) series. If you don't want to read the whole article, the important passages descibing this lens are these:
- If a lens is too large and heavy for users to carry with them, it ultimately will not be used, regardless of how good it is.
- I think that more importance should be placed on minimum focus distance and maximum reproduction ratio. These aspects are directly related to the degree of flexibility a lens offers.
This is exactly why the Zeiss 135mm didn't make the team and the CV 125 did: the Voigtländer was lighter and a 1000x more flexible.
By contrast, the Zeiss (while a high-quality optic) was heavy and very limited in what you could actually do with it.
Ohshita goes on to describe the 28mm AI-S:
- For example, have you ever photographed flowers with a normal (sic) lens, and then switched to a telephoto lens to make the flowers appear larger or closer, only to find that you couldn't make the flowers appear any larger or closer because the minimum focus distance for the telephoto lens was quite long? ... Therefore, with actual shooting, the minimum focus distance is every bit as important as focal length. If we look at (lenses) in this way, the unique characteristics of the AI Nikkor 28mm f/2.8S covered in this tale become clear. It has a minimum focus distance of just 20 cm (7.9"), one of the shortest among wide-angle lenses, and a high maximum reproduction ratio of 1/3.9×. This is one of the reasons this "approachability" is still included in our manual focus lens lineup.
That pretty much sums up why the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S is such a useful lens to me in the field. It's only 250g, it takes very nice landscape images (contrasty, decently-sharp), and it allows you to get right up on a subject for an intimate shot, while capturing a lot of the background. The fact that you can flip it over and turn it into a 'super-macro' makes it even more valuable as a field lens.
I have a gap between my Zeiss 21 and my Canon Shorty 40 (or AIS 50 1.2)
Yep. My Nikkor 20mm is the same valuable tool: it's light (270g), it takes terrific images, it's tough, it allows close approach (9"), and it flips to become a 3.4x macro.
I like and use my dad's old AIS Nikkor lens 105 f/2.5, not as sharp as some modern lenses but it has a nice look. And the AIS 50 f/1.2 is a lovely light MF lens. If I am going to work on tripod in live view, no reason not to use MF.
I've seen some nice shots taken with the 105 f/2.5. I don't need it though, because I have the CV 125. And, while l love my AI-S 50mm, for the studio and family photos, one of the reasons I seldom take it in the field is because (unlike the above two), the 50mm AI-S has a 1.7' min. focus distance, which makes it less appealing than its two little brothers.
I admit that I haven't yet tried to work with greater than 1:1 in the field.
It's best done either with a flash, if mid-day ... or on cool mornings, when the air is heavy (still), and the tiny subjects are still resting.
-
Did anyone test it against the 135mm f1.8 lens from Sigma;
As it seems it is even sharper; and - not unimportant at f1.8- autofocus.
According to Lenstip only the longitudinal aberration is slightly worse than the Zeiss.
To answer your question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSKbMh_nGF4&t=517s
Dustin Abbot tests at close, mid-range, and long range.
Up close, there is no comparison: the Zeiss' micro-contrast and detail handily best the Sigma up to f/5.6.
At mid-range, they're equivalent (Zeiss' vignetting looks bad wide-open)
At long-range, Zeiss edges Sigma in micro-contrast, though vignetting spoils its advantage wide-open.
-
To answer your question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSKbMh_nGF4&t=517s
Dustin Abbot tests at close, mid-range, and long range.
Up close, there is no comparison: the Zeiss' micro-contrast and detail handily best the Sigma up to f/5.6.
At mid-range, they're equivalent (Zeiss' vignetting looks bad wide-open)
At long-range, Zeiss edges Sigma in micro-contrast, though vignetting spoils its advantage wide-open.
Diglloyd also compared the two lenses and his findings are somewhat different, but he sees the Sigma as a reference for some types of photography.
Upclose the Zeiss is better. Both are outstanding.
I always thought the 85 mm was the easiest lens to produce into perfection but now it seems to be the 135mm.
My first 135 mm lens was a nikkor Ai 135mm f3.5 and it was really soft.
-
Diglloyd also compared the two lenses and his findings are somewhat different, but he sees the Sigma as a reference for some types of photography.
The Sigma would be the choice for weddings, etc., with a lot of action and moments to be captured, due to its AF.
The Zeiss would be the choice for nature and perhaps model-like portraiture, where you have time to compose (esp. nature when you can compose in Live View).
I don't like the way Diglloyd tested compared to Dustin Abbot. I believe testing at the different ranges (close, mid, and far), and providing the Lightroom examples by video was more helpful than using still photos and written opinions.
Not just 'discussing,' but showing the difference between 'sharpness' and micro-contrast was also quite helpful in understanding the enormous advantage of the Zeiss.
Upclose the Zeiss is better. Both are outstanding.
Yes, up-close, they're not even in the same league.
Farther away, the Zeiss still has far better micro-detail, but the vignetting hurts it (wide-open). I thought the Sigma looked better in the corners, but not in the same league as far as micro-contrast. Still, I would never shoot a long-range shot at f/2; any landscape-type shot would typically be shot at f/8 or so, where the vignetting isn't a problem. I found the Zeiss best at f/4 up close, where it still handily trounces the Sigma in micro-contrast and color detail.
Again, I think differentiating between 'global sharpness" and micro-contrast was helpful in understanding the difference between the two.
I always thought the 85 mm was the easiest lens to produce into perfection but now it seems to be the 135mm.
My first 135 mm lens was a nikkor Ai 135mm f3.5 and it was really soft.
Both lenses are far from perfect IMO, though I believe the Zeiss is closer to perfection.
The Zeiss has a 1:4 reproduction ratio; the Sigma a 1:5 ratio.
If they had a 1:1 reproduction ratio, they'd be perfect (for me).
Both are weak in the min. focus distance department: the Zeiss 2.62' (80 cm); the Sigma 2.87' (87.5 cm).
If they had a 9-12" min. focus distance, they'd be perfect.
The Zeiss would be anyway. I don't think the Sigma is anywhere near as close to perfection.
-
I have (or have had) most macro lenses that can be mounted on the Nikon DSLRs. For my work, I feel we very much need a very finely corrected, sharp, and fast macro lens for the F-mount. It there were an Otus macro, I would buy it in a minute. I would expect, hopefully soon, someone will release a better macro lens than we have now. Such a lens is conspicuous by its absence, IMO. And yes, I know and love the CV-125, but it leaves room for a better lens.
-
I have (or have had) most macro lenses that can be mounted on the Nikon DSLRs. For my work, I feel we very much need a very finely corrected, sharp, and fast macro lens for the F-mount.
Agreed. For mine too.
It there were an Otus macro, I would buy it in a minute. I would expect, hopefully soon, someone will release a better macro lens than we have now. Such a lens is conspicuous by its absence, IMO.
Macro lenses are typically relegated to 3rd class status.
It would be great if one of the companies tried to create a top-tier macro lens, instead of a 2nd or 3rd tier version ...
And yes, I know and love the CV-125, but it leaves room for a better lens.
As do I.
FYI, I re-purchased a Zeiss 135 Apo ZF.2. It's just too good of a deal right now to let a brand new version slide for $1499.
Although I may not bring it hiking with me, my dear 80-year-old mom always asks me to take photos of her flowers ... so I figured this would be the perfect lens for this specialized task.
At 1:4, I will doubtless find other key tasks for it, so I am happy that it is back in my hands again ...
-
FYI, I re-purchased a Zeiss 135 Apo ZF.2. It's just too good of a deal right now to let a brand new version slide for $1499.
Although I may not bring it hiking with me, my dear 80-year-old mom always asks me to take photos of her flowers ... so I figured this would be the perfect lens for this specialized task.
At 1:4, I will doubtless find other key tasks for it, so I am happy that it is back in my hands again ...
LOL. Well, that is a sign (like the first raindrop in a deluge) of liking to have good lenses just because they are superb, and not because we have to use them everyday. And blame it on your mom. :)
I predict more of that kind of lenses for you, and there are a bunch of them that I wouldn't sell. Although, I did just sell my El Nikkor 210 APO (too heavy), one of the great lenses, but I still have the El Nikkor 105mm AP0 version of the same lens, which is my most-used lens... probably.
El Nikkor 105mm APO, Nikon D810
-
LOL. Well, that is a sign (like the first raindrop in a deluge) of liking to have good lenses just because they are superb, and not because we have to use them everyday. And blame it on your mom. :)
Actually, Michael, I blame you ... your articles ... and your lovely photos :)
I predict more of that kind of lenses for you, and there are a bunch of them that I wouldn't sell. Although, I did just sell my El Nikkor 210 APO (too heavy), one of the great lenses, but I still have the El Nikkor 105mm AP0 version of the same lens, which is my most-used lens... probably.
Probably. There are a few lenses I've wanted to buy, "just because," including our thread subject.
I actually sold (and re-purchased) 3 items in the last two months, 2 of which I realized I really needed, and this last one because I really wanted it.
They were the Zeiss 15mm UWA, because it was extremely useful for photographing interiors for casualty losses I investigate; I sold (and re-purchased) the D500, as it is just too good and customizable as a bird/wildlife camera; and this lens here, the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar ZE/ZF2. The latter is just a satisfying lens to use; but it's not really something I am going to carry much. Like you said, "just because they are superb, and not because we have to use them everyday." I just couldn't let a brand new Apo Sonnar slip away at that good of a price.
Regarding the El Nikkor, I've rubbed my chin while viewing them on eBay ... but so far haven't felt the urge to hit the 'buy' button yet ;)
I am also waiting for Nikon to upgrade the 200mm f/2 into an E FL ED version ... but not sure how much I'd need it, given the Zeiss 135 f/2 and the 300mm f/2.8.
The lens I am most wanting to save for, at this point, is a 600mm E FL ED. Not sure I would really need anything else after that.
El Nikkor 105mm APO, Nikon D810
Very nice!
-
Regarding the El Nikkor, I've rubbed my chin while viewing them on eBay ... but so far haven't felt the urge to hit the 'buy' button yet ;)
At your age and inclinations (hiking and finding critters, etc.), the El Nkkor, which needs to be used on a bellows (at least the PB-4) is not what you need, but as you get older (as I am now), it may look more appealing. And be sure to get the El Nikkor 105mm APO and not the standard El Nikkor 105mm, which is not the same lens.
Nikon D810, El Nikkor 105 APO
-
At your age and inclinations (hiking and finding critters, etc.), the El Nkkor, which needs to be used on a bellows (at least the PB-4) is not what you need, but as you get older (as I am now), it may look more appealing. And be sure to get the El Nikkor 105mm APO and not the standard El Nikkor 105mm, which is not the same lens.
True enough. I definitely haven't ruled it (or any new development) out ... but, right now anyway, most of my lens needs are met.
Thanks for the distinction, too.
-
Nice lighting, by the way, Michael.
People diss Canon, but every entomologist I know (admittedly, I know only a half-dozen or so, half of whom are amateurs - but everyone I know wants behavioral shots, not dead-bug-in-studio shots) swear by the Canon MP-E 65mm 1x to 5x lens, in combo with their own home-made flash diffusion setup. It is compact and sturdy, intended for field use.
-
Nice lighting, by the way, Michael.
People diss Canon, but every entomologist I know (admittedly, I know only a half-dozen or so, half of whom are amateurs - but everyone I know wants behavioral shots, not dead-bug-in-studio shots) swear by the Canon MP-E 65mm 1x to 5x lens, in combo with their own home-made flash diffusion setup. It is compact and sturdy, intended for field use.
Action shots? Here are a couple.
-
I am also waiting for Nikon to upgrade the 200mm f/2 into an E FL ED version ... but not sure how much I'd need it, given the Zeiss 135 f/2 and the 300mm f/2.8.
The lens I am most wanting to save for, at this point, is a 600mm E FL ED. Not sure I would really need anything else after that.
I have the 200/2 VR I. It is the sharpest 200ish lens I have. I understand the VR II is slightly better. If Nikon follows the trend, the new E version will be lighter, which would be welcome.
I have the Nikon 500/4 E lens. It is a fine lens, and the weight savings over the previous generation is welcome. Although it's a sharper lens than my 400/2.8 D non-VR in the lab, in the field the difference is negligible. The 600/4 E and 500/4 E are, I believe, closely related.
Jim
-
I have the 200/2 VR I. It is the sharpest 200ish lens I have. I understand the VR II is slightly better. If Nikon follows the trend, the new E version will be lighter, which would be welcome.
I have the Nikon 500/4 E lens. It is a fine lens, and the weight savings over the previous generation is welcome. Although it's a sharper lens than my 400/2.8 D non-VR in the lab, in the field the difference is negligible. The 600/4 E and 500/4 E are, I believe, closely related.
Jim
Thanks, Jim.
I have fantasized about the 800mm E FL ED ... but, while it is extraordinary, the size/weight/PRICE are somewhat crippling :o
I have also read that this focal length is extremely difficult to wield (like 'looking through a straw' in terms of being able to find most subjects, quickly).
The 500E is a worthy consideration, especially for the price, as it's lighter than the 600 E FL ED, and even 2.3 lb lighter than the 400mm f/2.8.
However, for this aperture, I would likely need to implement a 1.4x converter, which (x 500, and times my existing 1.5x crop) only gives me 1050mm effective reach.
Right now, my 300mm f/2.8 is serving me well, as it is still very good, same specs as a 500mm, with a 2x extender, where my effective reach is already 900mm (1.5x crop x 300 x 2x).
I never shoot long teles at f/2.8, so the fast glass of the 400 doesn't really do anything for me, besides add price, and weight, while shortening reach.
With the same 2x extender, on a D500, it would give me an effective reach of 1200mm.
With the 600 f/4, and a 1.4x teleconverter, I would get 900mm without a converter (superior image quality than what I am currently implementing) ... and it would give me 1260mm with a 1.4 TC ... which quality would be slightly better than a 400mm + 2xTC.
For a visual, this is 900mm (1.5x D500 x 300mm x 2x TC) on my current setup with a D500. I am already able to obtain very clean, and very good (IMO), results ... so I might just stay right here.
However, a 600mm f/4 E FL ED would offer 1260mm on the same camera + 1.4x TC, and even better quality.
-
Action shots? Here are a couple.
Nice, esp. considering they're crops.
Are these both with the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF2?
The first one is cleaner than the second, although the second is prettier.
-
I never shoot long teles at f/2.8, so the fast glass of the 400 doesn't really do anything for me, besides add price, and weight, while shortening reach.
These are all wide open with the 400/2.8:
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/b1.jpg)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/b2.jpg)
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/b3.jpg)
I like that look, but what I'm doing with the lens here and what you're doing in the images you posted are quite different.
jim
-
Nice, esp. considering they're crops.
Are these both with the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar ZF2?
The first one is cleaner than the second, although the second is prettier.
These are probably the CV-125. I started taking nature shots in 1956. Later, when I was mainly a naturalist (herpetologist), I was mostly interested in field-guide photos, shots for identification, with any action or composition considerations often secondary. Then, over the years I lost my interest in hunting rare species and found myself concentrating more on "action" or shots that involved some sense of composition. And now that I am still older (76), i am interested in composition, focus, and bokeh, whether indoor or out in the field. I am no longer going to Tibet (2 times), Nepal, India, China, and so on. Not only do things and cameras change, but people do too.
One of my photos from 1956. I was 14-years old. I did not make an attempt clean it up or process it. That is what I was doing then...with a Kodak Retina 2A.
-
These are all wide open with the 400/2.8:
Nice (though the 2nd image is OOF, IMO).
I like that look, but what I'm doing with the lens here and what you're doing in the images you posted are quite different.
jim
True.
You also aren't hiking 2-6 miles in the mountains/deserts, with 2 cameras, a tripod, and 4-6 ancillary lenses :)
Also, my subjects are 1/30th -1/4 the size of yours :)
If I ever do get the 600mm/800mm lens, it will likely only be relegated to a blind. Can't imaging carrying this thing, plus all my other gear.
My 300mm is already heavy enough, with what I bring right now.
Still, it is good enough to take a 2xTC and still produce acceptable quality, way beyond zooms that get to 500-600 (IMO).
Because my 300mm VR II is tripod-mounted, via the lens collar, I can leave it positioned as-is ... and quickly-switch between 300-450mm (alternating between the D810 and D500, bare) and 600-900mm (alternating between the D810 and D500, with the 2xTC), just planting my tripod/lens atop. In every instance, it is superior to any mid-level zoom, including the Canon 100-400 II.
I am able to cover a lot of focal ground ("reach), 300mm to 900mm, with 1 lens and 4 options of dealing with it.
Here are some shots @ 300mm (with crops) using my D810:
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001358_large.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001364_large.jpg)
(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000001361_large.jpg)
Have a good one,
Jack
-
These are probably the CV-125. I started taking nature shots in 1956. Later, when I was mainly a naturalist (herpetologist), I was mostly interested in field-guide photos, shots for identification, with any action or composition considerations often secondary. Then, over the years I lost my interest in hunting rare species and found myself concentrating more on "action" or shots that involved some sense of composition. And now that I am still older (76), i am interested in composition, focus, and bokeh, whether indoor or out in the field. I am no longer going to Tibet (2 times), Nepal, India, China, and so on. Not only do things and cameras change, but people do too.
Thank you for that ... and (the older I get) the more I understand. (Funny how that works :D)
You've turned me on to a number of good lenses, I'd likely not have been exposed to without your input, so I appreciate your uncommon level of interest to devote the time required to produce all those articles/perspectives.
-
Nice (though the 2nd image is OOF, IMO).
You are correct. For the intended use, newspaper, poster and web publicity materials, that wasn't enough to make the image unsuccessful, and it's my favorite of the three I posted here because of the expression.
Lots of times, even most of the time, for me, pictures succeed or fail for other reasons than sharpness. Still, I wish it wasn't back-focused. I have lot's of others taken of the same person at the same time that aren't, but this is the one I like.
Jim
-
My point about the Canon 1x to 5 x lens is that it makes for a sturdy field-capable set-up, because no-one gets enthusiastic about taking a bellows set-up into the field. Keep posting those herp and bug and spider and flower and mushroom close-up and macro photos, people!
-
My point about the Canon 1x to 5 x lens is that it makes for a sturdy field-capable set-up, because no-one gets enthusiastic about taking a bellows set-up into the field. Keep posting those herp and bug and spider and flower and mushroom close-up and macro photos, people!
The MP-E 65mm was the hardest lens to let go of, when I left Canon.
Fortunately, I found an even more convenient solution. I will finish up my blog post on reverse-macro next weekend, then I will get into reverse-zoom lenses that duplicate (and, in more ways than not, surpass) the MP-65mm. Stay tuned :)
(http://johnkoerner.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/monolta3x-1x007.png)
The Original, The Minolta Maxxum Dynax 3x-1x AF Macro Zoom
(http://johnkoerner.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mpe.png)
The 1x-5x Canon MP-E 65mm came second.
Reversing certain Nikon zooms gives you more macro range than the (1:1 - 3:1) Minolta ... ranging from 1:4 - 3:1 ... albeit not quite as much as the Canon.
However, certain of these zooms offer = or greater quality images + far greater overall field flexibility than either.
Sharing too much of my article tho ;)
-
Well, I look forward to your article!
-
I still am enamored of the Zeiss 135mm F/2. Took this today with the D810 and the Zeiss 135mm.
Some other comments about APO lenses in my long post here:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=119139.0
-
Very nice.
I am going to take mine for a spin this weekend and hope to share a good one or two as well.
-
Very nice.
I am going to take mine for a spin this weekend and hope to share a good one or two as well.
You might get a kick out the long article I linked in the preceding post on how our photography changes with time.
-
You might get a kick out the long article I linked in the preceding post on how our photography changes with time.
I did get a kick out of it ... and in fact I had a response half-drafted last night ... but I was up at 2:30 am the night before, so I turned in early.
Will participate soon :)