Well, we differ here. I would never get rid of the CV-125. It is just too useful and lovely. I use the CV-125 and the Zeiss 135 f/2 for different things.
Would you care to share an example of where you'd use the 135 f/2 and not the 125 f/2.5? (Again, to me, they seem duplicative.)
Here again, we differ. The Otus 55mm takes extension well and is very, very useful in my work.
Not for me. I am either shooting landscape (terrain) shots 28mm or wider ... or I am zeroing-in and shooting macro (or telephoto) at much longer focal lengths.
Very rarely do I use my Nikkor 50mm f/1.2 AIS, and do not forsee the need to spend the kind of money it would take to get an Otus of this approximate focal length.
I have many lenses, some of them of the same focal length, but having different qualities and IQs.
I get rid of lenses that have bad CA and related issues. I tend to judge lenses as to how corrected they are.
Understood. I will probably be duplicating my primes into two categories (MF and AF).
My MF primes are themselves eventually going to be divided into two categories "elite" MF primes vs. "tough" macro-reversible MF primes.
Right now, with the exception of the Zeiss 15 mm, and the CV-125, all of my MF primes are Nikkor AIS. This will change when I get the Zeiss 135mm tomorrow.
None of the Otii are reverse-macro friendly; none of the Otti are "tough" like a Nikkor AIS lens is tough; and, finally, no way would I carry 2 Zeiss Otii in a pouch, with another at the end of my camera, while hiking mountains and deserts: they're too heavy and too fragile. The CV-125 is the only "fragile" lens I carry in my pouch.
The smaller, lighter, much tougher Nikkor AIS lenses are perfect for hiking in any conditions. While not Otus-like in image quality, they are pretty darned good. Better still, I can reverse any of these lenses to get 1:1, 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1 life-size magnification right there in the field. Would not want to do this with an Otus, either, even if it were possible (which it is not— their filter threads are too large).
Yet I would like to get some pristine MF lenses, of similar focal lengths as my AISes, for use around the home, the garden, as well as for my work. Would also to get AF lenses of similar focal lengths, for moments when I don't believe I will have the time to compose + focus manually. So I "get" having two lenses of similar focal lengths, with each having its advantages/applications.
However, with the CV 125 and the Zeiss 135, they each essentially do the same thing IMO, with the CV 125 having the 1:1 macro advantage. Thus, the Zeiss 135 will have to be significantly better than CV 125 to remain. In that case, I may have to bite the bullet and keep both
![Shocked :o](https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/Smileys/default/shocked.gif)
So I am curious where you find the need to use the Zeiss 135 over the CV.