Apo-telyt 135 v 55-135/3.5-4.5 ASPH

[mustafasoleiman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am using the Apo-telyt 135 with a Sony F6 and I am considering replacing it with the CL and the 55-135/3.5-4.5 ASPH... does anyone know how the two lenses compare in terms of quality?

 

Many thanks

 

@alessandro_durini_di_monza

[Jared]

You've got a few too many variables for anyone to give you an absolute answer.  Not just two different lenses, but a zoom vs. a prime and two different cameras from two different manufacturers.  Plus, one is primarily autofocus and the other is only manual focus.  

 

If you look at just image quality on the CL specifically, both do a really good job.  The zoom is better at 55 than it is at 135, but it's still no slouch even at its longest focal length.  I'd say that in the middle of the frame they are quite comparable--both are really exceptional performers.  The prime is better off axis.  It's also a full stop faster if that makes a difference to you.  No vignetting in the prime, either (which you would expect, given it's a full frame lens).  If you look at the MTF data, the zoom has significant astigmatism off axis, though it's not bad enough to be obvious with anything other than a point source.  The prime is actually a touch lighter, but that goes away by the time you add the adapter.  It also has a LOT fewer elements which results in slightly better throughput.  I'd say the zoom has better close focus performance.  

 

Honestly, if I had to choose one based purely on image quality it would be the 135mm APO Telyt-M, but the difference is not nearly as large as one might expect.  Frankly, all three TL zooms are really, really good if a bit slow.  If you want a zoom, the 55-135 is a great choice.  If you will be using it almost exclusively at 135mm and don't mind the extra cost and don't need the autofocus, I'd take the M lens.  While my 135mm APO-Telyt doesn't get used all that much just because of its focal length, when you really want that field of view it almost can't be beat.  Very pricey, though (as I'm sure you already know).

 

As far as performance on the Sony... I have absolutely no idea.  With a longer focal length like the 135 I wouldn't expect corner smearing to be an issue, but I have never used a Sony system camera (APS-C or full frame), so hopefully someone else will chime in.

[Advertisement]

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

[mustafasoleiman]

You've got a few too many variables for anyone to give you an absolute answer.  Not just two different lenses, but a zoom vs. a prime and two different cameras from two different manufacturers.  Plus, one is primarily autofocus and the other is only manual focus.  

 

If you look at just image quality on the CL specifically, both do a really good job.  The zoom is better at 55 than it is at 135, but it's still no slouch even at its longest focal length.  I'd say that in the middle of the frame they are quite comparable--both are really exceptional performers.  The prime is better off axis.  It's also a full stop faster if that makes a difference to you.  No vignetting in the prime, either (which you would expect, given it's a full frame lens).  If you look at the MTF data, the zoom has significant astigmatism off axis, though it's not bad enough to be obvious with anything other than a point source.  The prime is actually a touch lighter, but that goes away by the time you add the adapter.  It also has a LOT fewer elements which results in slightly better throughput.  I'd say the zoom has better close focus performance.  

 

Honestly, if I had to choose one based purely on image quality it would be the 135mm APO Telyt-M, but the difference is not nearly as large as one might expect.  Frankly, all three TL zooms are really, really good if a bit slow.  If you want a zoom, the 55-135 is a great choice.  If you will be using it almost exclusively at 135mm and don't mind the extra cost and don't need the autofocus, I'd take the M lens.  While my 135mm APO-Telyt doesn't get used all that much just because of its focal length, when you really want that field of view it almost can't be beat.  Very pricey, though (as I'm sure you already know).

 

As far as performance on the Sony... I have absolutely no idea.  With a longer focal length like the 135 I wouldn't expect corner smearing to be an issue, but I have never used a Sony system camera (APS-C or full frame), so hopefully someone else will chime in.

 

thank you Jared for the helpful answer.

I bit the bullet and got the CL with the 55-135 zoom, we'll see how it performs.

The AT 135 on the Sony worked very well, the lens is superb... I just did not like the Sony very much for its complex interface and it was getting a bit long in the tooth by now.

I have never used a zoom as I prefer the primes, but I like the idea of covering the mms between the 50 on the M10 and the 202 on the CL... For the same reason I also got the 11-23 to cover the mms below the 35 on the M10.

 

I also got the M adaptor so I might try the AT135 on the CL as well.

The CL is a lovely camera, I like that it is similar (if a bit more complex) to the M10 in terms of use... I just need to use it more in the field.

 

Alex

[jmahto]

135 on a Sony crop frame will perform without issue. Haptics issues aside.

[YellowBelly]

I’m interested in your final thoughts as I have just bought a CL I have the Apo 135 M and was also interested in the zoom but would be comfortable with just using M glass as have a few  I already and bought the 11-23 zoom and  had the 24-90 & 90-280 for the SL. I really liked 135mm in the past and 200mm primes for portraits on slr’s but slightly got left behind with the limited use on my M9 or M8 and then having the wonderful 90-280 on the SL. I’m thinking of the CL as getting back into a minimal sized quality kit that doesn’t make people uneasy. Thank you for any input as I know this is never really a lens in many camera bags

[lct]

On 10/24/2019 at 2:30 PM, YellowBelly said:

I’m interested in your final thoughts as I have just bought a CL I have the Apo 135 M and was also interested in the zoom but would be comfortable with just using M glass as have a few  I already and bought the 11-23 zoom and  had the 24-90 & 90-280 for the SL. I really liked 135mm in the past and 200mm primes for portraits on slr’s but slightly got left behind with the limited use on my M9 or M8 and then having the wonderful 90-280 on the SL. I’m thinking of the CL as getting back into a minimal sized quality kit that doesn’t make people uneasy. Thank you for any input as I know this is never really a lens in many camera bags

I have no experience with TL lenses but the M 135/3.4 works fine on the CL. It is sharp at all apertures on this body. See crop at 1.5m, f/4 below (full size here). Only con the lens may flare when the sun is just outside the frame so that making more shade with the hand or otherwise can be necessary.

 

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!

 

 

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 55-135 is an excellent lens and pairs very well with the CL. But it's important to play around with the various autofocus settings to learn how to get it to snap into focus the way you want. For me, it was a difficult transition, and I almost sold it (I have 3 M and R mount longs already). Fortunately, at the last moment I got comfortable with it. Now it's the default kit when I combine it with my Q for hiking.

I think if you also have the 11-23 (as do I), you'll like the 55-135 quite well. I have them both because I figure that, inevitably, there will be a larger pixel camera (SL2?) in my future, and, for me, as great as the L zooms are, they are just way too big for me to carry casually.

Edited October 25, 2019 by bags27