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

[JKoerner007]

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:


(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,

[mbaginy]

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.

[kers]

very nice photo !
and yes very sharp.
I like this type of 'working' photo better then the more idealized polished kind.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[Michael Erlewine]

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

[Miles]

Impressive image, Michael.  I appreciate your insight and comments on the zeiss line of lenses.
Miles

[Krug]

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.

[hogloff]

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.

[Jim Kasson]

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

[JKoerner007]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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

• "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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[JKoerner007]

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.

[Jim Kasson]

Would be interested in seeing your images with the subject lens, Jim. Thanks.

The 135/2 Apo Sonnar works well at IR. This is with the DF.2 version.

Jim

[NancyP]

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 Kasson]

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

[JKoerner007]

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?

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.

[JKoerner007]

The 135/2 Apo Sonnar works well at IR. This is with the DF.2 version.

Jim

Very nice images, Jim.