Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 2/135mm on SL

[orc999]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just found a 135 apo telyt used at a good price. I don't have a canon adapter for the sl to compare it to my 135 ze. If I get one I will send some comparisons as well. 

 

I have seen reviews where the telyt seemed better to my eyes, on others like the BMW building above the Zeiss "clearly" wins

 

Still the combo is about 600grams lighter, so there might be space for both.

[steppenw0lf]

@ orc999

 

enclosed Sony A7R II crops of the Leica M 135f3.4 Apo (1. crop) and the Zeiss ZE 135f2 Apo (2. crop)

 

- both @ f4

- both raw opened in ACR w/o any correction

- both saved as jpg (9)

 

nothing to comment, the difference it obvious

 

The Leica lens is apo corrected - so how is it possible that there are these colored rims ?

I do not live in Munich, so I cannot try it. I also do not own this lens, but I have the impression that none of my apo lenses produces this. (Isn't this impossible by the definition of apo ?)  Even my old Elmar seems better (but I have no access to the exact building.)

Definitely the new 90-280 has not the slightest trace of it.

And also the Nikon 135 DC does not show these strong faults (color fringes ?).

 

So what do others think ? Is this a normal result for a "apo" lens ? Or is this an indication that this item has a problem ?

Why buy an apo lens, if this is the result ?

Edited August 27, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ivar B]

@ orc999

 

enclosed Sony A7R II crops of the Leica M 135f3.4 Apo (1. crop) and the Zeiss ZE 135f2 Apo (2. crop)

 

- both @ f4

- both raw opened in ACR w/o any correction

- both saved as jpg (9)

 

nothing to comment, the difference it obvious

 

Very interesting. I am surprised that the difference is so obvious. Could it be that the Apo-Telyt you own is a substandard item or could it be camera related somehow?

 

I am surprised by the very obvious chromatic aberration with the Leica lens and the colour fringing. Like steppenw0lf points out, this should not happen with an apo-corrected lens and that is why I suspect that your findins are perhaps not general.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Ivar B

[chrismuc]

Chromatic means that the focal length for two wave lengths within 380-780 nm is the same

Apochromatic means that the focal length for three wave lengths within 380-780 nm is the same

Superachromatic (Zeiss) means that the focal length for four wave lengths within 380-780 nm is the same

 

for all wave lengths inbetween the focal length is not the nominal means the image is not perfectly sharp

the more wave lengths are in focus, the areas in between are also less out-of-focus

so of course Superachromatic is better than Apochromatic is better than Chromatic

but that does not mean all Apochromatic lenses are the same

 

the Zeiss design is much newer than the Leica and therefore better corrected

 

I use the Leica M 135f3.4 Apo on low resolution cams like my M9, there it works perfectly fine (plus little ACR post), and it is nicely small and light

 

optically the Zeiss is unbeatable in that focal range

I use it on Canon cams and Sony A7R II (with the new Sigma Canon-Sony adapter)

with focus crop-zoom, one very quickly can get precise focus

and it has ago-aperture, and the correct EXIF is recorded, so very comfortable

 

enclosed a ZE 135 + A7R II sample at f2.8

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[chrismuc]

just to show about what (low) level of aberrations we are talking here

 

the M 135f3.4 Apo is still good ... compared to the older M 75f1.4 (non Apo)

 

here two comparison out-of-center crops (A7R II)

 

Leica M 75f1.4 @ f2

Zeiss Batis 85f1.8 @ f2 

 

these recent Zeiss lenses like Batis, Loxia 21, ZE 135, Otus are REALLY good (especially for the price)

(I think they don't call it "Apo" but it certainly is)

 

(a pity that Zeiss does not seam to have the intention to offer the Batis and Loxia lenses with Leica SL mount)

 

I don't have the M 75f1.4 any longer on hand, but I got the M 75f2 Apo

I should do a new comparison :-)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited August 27, 2016 by chrismuc

[chrismuc]

another remark:

 

the visible color aberration at contrast edges quite easily can be reduced/removed in photoshop ACR

 

M 135f3.4 Apo

 

sample 1: @ f3.4 without removing (de-fringe off)

sample 2: @ f3.4 with removing (de-fringe on)

 

so one can achieve a pretty perfect image with the M 135f3.4 Apo even on the high-res Sony A7R II with a little post :-)

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Ivar B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

just to show about what (low) level of aberrations we are talking here

 

the M 135f3.4 Apo is still good ... compared to the older M 75f1.4 (non Apo)

 

here two comparison out-of-center crops (A7R II)

 

Leica M 75f1.4 @ f2

Zeiss Batis 85f1.8 @ f2 

 

these recent Zeiss lenses like Batis, Loxia 21, ZE 135, Otus are REALLY good (especially for the price)

(I think they don't call it "Apo" but it certainly is)

 

(a pity that Zeiss does not seam to have the intention to offer the Batis and Loxia lenses with Leica SL mount)

 

I don't have the M 75f1.4 any longer on hand, but I got the M 75f2 Apo

I should do a new comparison :-)

 

I have heard from a user that the Batis lenses are almost as good as the Otus lenses, at half the cost. If this is true or not, I don`t know.

 

Probably the SL mount is patented, so it is highly unlikely there will be any Zeiss lenses with SL mount.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Ivar B

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have heard from a user that the Batis lenses are almost as good as the Otus lenses, at half the cost. If this is true or not, I don`t know.

 

Probably the SL mount is patented, so it is highly unlikely there will be any Zeiss lenses with SL mount.

The Batis lenses are sharp but I find they have busy and occasionally nervous blur. They also benifit from stopping down which the otus hardly require. I prefer the Sony GM lenses over the Batis line. They are truely stunning.

 

I would think the main reason we won't see Zeiss AF lenses in an SL mount is because there isn't enough demand to justify the investment. Since the best Zeiss lenses are manual focus we'll just have to struggle by with those.

 

Gordon

[chrismuc]

Batis 85f1.8 @ f2

 

nervous blur?

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[steppenw0lf]

The Batis are fully compatible and therefore like "native" lenses. So I expect nice (automatically corrected) results as for the Sony lenses.

The Leica lenses are foreign to the Sony camera - so they are not supported. So the result is typically not optimal. (That's what I expect, and that's why I use the R and M lenses on the SL as almost "native lenses").

 

A comparison with the Leica lens on a native camera -  SL or M - would be more realistic for me. ("aussagestärker")

 

That the 1.4/75 is a "dreamy" lens is one of the reasons I have it. I would never send it into a competition. So let's take it out of this.

If you want, take the Apo-R 3.4/180 into the test. On my cameras (5Ds and SL) I never noticed anything like that and it is also a very old lens.

[jrp]

The Batis lens line is excellent in performance and offers both AF, in some cases OIS, and low weight.  The Otus, GM and, to some extent Loxia, lines may offer slightly better performance in some, but not all, cases, but they lag in one or more of these other characteristics.  It would be a shame if Leica did not allow Zeiss to provide versions of its lenses for the SL mount.

[Guest VVJ]

It would be a shame if Leica did not allow Zeiss to provide versions of its lenses for the SL mount.

 

I would actually go further and say that I would be stupid if Leica did not allow it.  Part of the appeal of the M-mount is a/o the availability of cheaper Zeiss and Voigtlander alternatives.

 

That being said, I am not sure whether Zeiss would even be interested as the volumes must be pretty small.

[james.liam]

How would that actually work? Because it's a relatively new mount, must they obtain permission from Leica and pay a royalty? 

[chrismuc]

IMO Leica fears the competition if they officially would allow Zeiss to offer their Loxia and Batis lenses in Leica SL mount. I think Zeiss would be interested because regarding their ZM lenses, I guess they expected to sell them mainly to users of digital Leica M cameras, less to users of their own M-mount analogue rangefinder camera.

 

But Leica generally is not very open to cooperations with other brands. Alpa for example suggested Leica to offer a Leica S mount adapter for their FPS camera (they already have shift and non shift adapters in Canon EF, Contax 645 and Hasselblad H mounts, all with full auto-aperture and EXIF support), but no interest by Leica.

[EoinC]

Here is the ZE 135 from today, using an EF adapter on my 246 Monochrom (It was raining heavily, and I would have been better off with a Nikonos)...

B001 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

 

B004 by Eoin Christie, on Flickr

[Ivar B]

It looks like Zeiss has now "discontuinued" the lens as it is no longer listed in their "classic" Collection, but it has resurfaced as a 2/135 Milvus lens. Optically they are perhaps the same.

[james.liam]

Well then, it will be a buyer's market for the 'Classic' 2/135 if you can do without the weather sealing. It is such a superb lens, Leica will have a challenge on its hands bettering it.

 

In fact, the CV 2,5/125 APO Makro was nearly as good (hands down, my favorite lens on Nikon) and arguably the best in-house design ever by Cosina.

 

I emphatically recommend it to all you SL shooters.

[jrp]

I would actually go further and say that I would be stupid if Leica did not allow it.  Part of the appeal of the M-mount is a/o the availability of cheaper Zeiss and Voigtlander alternatives.

 

That being said, I am not sure whether Zeiss would even be interested as the volumes must be pretty small.

Yes, but if they have already designed the lens for other mounts then the costs of making a lens mount must be marginal. Having a wider lens selection would make the SL a more attractive platform, especially if we get only one or two native lenses a year. That said, the two zooms are very capable and so the need for additional lenses is for those with a specialised purpose (macro, very low light, sports, tilt & shift) or more compact lenses for travel. The M lenses are great for the latter, but they are not weather sealed and, of course, lack AF.

 

Judging by what Sony, Zeiss and even Canon/Nikon, not to mention Leica, have been putting out recently, there is a market for fast, very high performance primes, with no weight/size compromises. I would find those to not offer enough of an advantage over the zooms to bother with them on the SL.

 

If you really want bokeh, it seems that the iPhone 7+ will provide it in software.

[phongph]

I wanted a slightly long and fast portrait lens for my SL and bought the Zeiss Apo 2/135 in ZF.2 (Nikon) Mount and I use it with the Novoflex adapter. First pleasant surprise was how easy it was to focus the lens with the SL. The viewfinder is really superb and manual focus lenses is not a problem at all.

 

The lens is also a really stellar performer - bitingly sharp from f2.

Hi Ivar B!

Pls. advise your adaptor Zeiss - L/T for Zeiss Apo 135 on SL 601?

I intend to get the Novoflex LET/NIK - Nikon F to T/L to shoot the Zeiss Apo 135 f2 ZF2 on SL601, Is it work well?

Have a nice day!

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[mmradman]

I tried Milvus 2/135mm (which is latest version of lens named in the thread) with Kippon Nikon F to Leica M and M-L adapters stacked, works like a charm. I can even select M 135/2.8 lens as nearest Exif equivalent.

 

Thinking buying it once I find a good deal.