The Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar ZE/ZF2

[Paulo Bizarro]

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

• "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

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).

[kers]

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.

[Jim Kasson]

Are you trying to say a person can't focus the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar on a D810 without an external monitor?

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

[Jim Kasson]

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

[RobertJ]

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.

[Jim Kasson]

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

[kers]

...
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.

[Jim Kasson]

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

[Michael Erlewine]

Another shot, cropped, taken with the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO and Nikon D810

[JKoerner007]

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:



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

[JJon]

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

[Michael Erlewine]

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

[Krug]

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" !

[Michael Erlewine]

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.

[Krug]

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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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.   

[JKoerner007]

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:


(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:


(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:


Zeiss 135 Apo 100% Crop @ f/4


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

[JKoerner007]

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)

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):

[JKoerner007]

And here is a 54-image stack I took of this morning's praying mantis with the CV:

[Krug]

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 .