I thought the previous image was with a 135mm Sonnar?
Yes they are. I mentioned the Otus since I was able to try it with the D800 during a photo exhibit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Zeiss 135mm f/2.0 Apo-Sonnar ZF.2 Lens
- Thread starter gqtuazon
- Start date
Yes they are. I mentioned the Otus since I was able to try it with the D800 during a photo exhibit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ok so which is really better......in your opinion. 200 f2, 135 f2, or Zeiss 55 1.4? I mean, which lens just made you go wow this is the ultimate. If you were to be trapped on a deserted island with a D800e and one lens and had to do a photo-essay on being trapped on a deserted island, which lens would you choose? I'm ready to get the 135 f2 but then there's the manual focus....just how easy is it to focus? Is the image bright enough? Would you use a lens like that for a wedding? How does the bokeh compare on these lenses. Is the 200 f2 bokeh really the king? Is there something about the 55 1.4 that sets it apart from the 135 f2 even though the resolution and DxO score is pretty comparable? I'm just thinking, is the 135 f2 really the one or am I missing something by not getting the 200 f2 or 55 1.4? I'm not so concerned about the size of the 200 f2, I just want an ultimate portrait lens. I love the close focus of the 135 f2 in photos....it is almost like a macro lens and short telephoto all in one! I don't know if with the 135 f2 quality I could justify the 55 1.4. So hard to decide....
I'm ready to get the 135 f2 but then there's the manual focus....just how easy is it to focus? Is the image bright enough? Would you use a lens like that for a wedding? How does the bokeh compare on these lenses. Is the 200 f2 bokeh really the king? Is there something about the 55 1.4 that sets it apart from the 135 f2 even though the resolution and DxO score is pretty comparable? I'm just thinking, is the 135 f2 really the one or am I missing something by not getting the 200 f2 or 55 1.4? I'm not so concerned about the size of the 200 f2, I just want an ultimate portrait lens. I love the close focus of the 135 f2 in photos....it is almost like a macro lens and short telephoto all in one! I don't know if with the 135 f2 quality I could justify the 55 1.4. So hard to decide....Ok so which is really better......in your opinion. 200 f2, 135 f2, or Zeiss 55 1.4? I mean, which lens just made you go wow this is the ultimate. If you were to be trapped on a deserted island with a D800e and one lens and had to do a photo-essay on being trapped on a deserted island, which lens would you choose?
I would suggest that you "rent" the 135mm f2 and 200mm f2 if you are going to invest on these lenses. The problem is, if and once you have both, you will probably want both which is not good for your wallet.
I will eventually get the Nikon 200mm f2 in the future.This is more of a personal choice since some people are good in using MF and some are not depending on their skill and eyesight. Most Nikon 200mm f2 owners that I know rarely use their lens after the honey moon period because of its bulk, it attracts unneccessary attention, and occupies or requires it's own bag. I wouldn't use the 135mm on a wedding unless you are a second shooter and you have time to focus while the couples are not moving much. IT is great for studio work.
IQ wise, I think they are very good. Same goes with the Bokeh when you shoot at minimum focusing distance. I am now more biased with the Zeiss due to its portability. My eye sight is still 20/20 since I had Lasik done with both of my eyes 7 years ago.
Last edited:
Thanks for the great first-hand advice. Well I grew up using MF lenses so used them for years, so I can focus, just a question of how fast with the 135. Very good points about the 200 f2. So what would you use the 200 for if you still want one but recognize its drawbacks? I also need a backup FX camera so its hard to decide. I'm a little aversive to renting because if I rent all three then I want all three and so I'll just suffer withdrawal symptoms. :grief:
Wedding season is coming soon!
Wedding season is coming soon!
Thanks for the great first-hand advice. Well I grew up using MF lenses so used them for years, so I can focus, just a question of how fast with the 135. Very good points about the 200 f2. So what would you use the 200 for if you still want one but recognize its drawbacks? I also need a backup FX camera so its hard to decide. I'm a little aversive to renting because if I rent all three then I want all three and so I'll just suffer withdrawal symptoms. :grief:
Wedding season is coming soon!
The Nikon 200mm f2 has been and is still on my wish list. I plan on buying a "Used" copy of the lens since I recognize that these are rarely used after someone buys it because of what it can produce. This will be more of a "nice to have" for me but not a must have. Like my other lenses, some do not get a lot of use after owning them. A good example is my Nikon 300mm f4. I do not shoot a lot of wildlife, hence I've only used it around 5 times since I've owned it. If you plan on doing a lot of wedding photography, I would suggest getting a "used" D3s to compliment your D800. I think they will be a great combo.
Thanks Ted. It is a truly sharp lens starting from f2 and on. It is a specialize lens and when focused correctly, it will produce amazing results. I wouldn't use this with older folks since you'll see all of the skin imperfections. LOL!
I'm currently looking into this lens. I have a prime gap between 50 and 200mm in which she'd fit and on the D810 she should be close to perfection in terms of IQ, at least according the DxO numbers.
The question is: is she worth paying 2k or are there others in that length delivering a similar quality, at least what we can perceive, at a better price?
What makes me stall too is a degree of fear she might be too good and the quality of my other lenses could become disappointing. It wouldn't be the first time.
The question is: is she worth paying 2k or are there others in that length delivering a similar quality, at least what we can perceive, at a better price?
What makes me stall too is a degree of fear she might be too good and the quality of my other lenses could become disappointing. It wouldn't be the first time.
rocketman122
Senior Member
135mm and f/2 is very difficult to focus. you will have to shoot a few shots at minor adjustments to get a keeper. I had the 85 1.4 AIS and you could get focus on the lash and not the eye at times. I used to use it in weddings with film, on the dance floor. 1 in 15 came out good. now about 1 in 4 with the 85 1.8D
Great questions. Unfortunately the best way to find out if this lens will work out for you is to try it for yourself. First hand experience works best since it is not a cheap lens.
You already know that this is a specialized lens. One that requires taking your time to compose work with your subject. But once you nailed the shot, everyone will drool over the lens.
I have a lot of great Higher end Nikon lenses and I will be willing to part with them except for this lens.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the replies.
I know it is not a point and shoot lens and requires work but I personally don't mind that. The problem is that I can't test the lens and afterwards make up my mind. It would be possible if its a standard lens that the store carries but this type of lenses they have to order themselves and they'd not be happy bunnies if I take some shots and then tell them I don't need her. If I order, I buy.
I can only check some stats online and look at shots taken. Those I see are fantastic but you seldom find SOOC RAW files which would be more interesting. Good processing can make (almost) any lens shine while a RAW shows what's really there.
I guess I'll read up some more and check out the competition before I make up my mind.
I know it is not a point and shoot lens and requires work but I personally don't mind that. The problem is that I can't test the lens and afterwards make up my mind. It would be possible if its a standard lens that the store carries but this type of lenses they have to order themselves and they'd not be happy bunnies if I take some shots and then tell them I don't need her. If I order, I buy.
I can only check some stats online and look at shots taken. Those I see are fantastic but you seldom find SOOC RAW files which would be more interesting. Good processing can make (almost) any lens shine while a RAW shows what's really there.
I guess I'll read up some more and check out the competition before I make up my mind.
I've never used this lens, but I do have the Zeiss Makro-Planar 100 f/2 and Distagon 25 f/2, and I love those two lenses! Not only do they produce great images with fantastic micro-contrast and sharp detail when you nail focus, but their manual focus ring has a very precise feel and butter smooth rotation that makes them a pleasure to use. They have a solid heft and quality feel that lets you know they're built to last forever.
The Zeiss 135 f/2 APO Sonnar is touted as being even better optically than the Makro Planar 100 f/2, which blows my mind. I've never read a single negative comment about this lens except for the price tag and the fact it's MF only. Every quantitative test I've seen on this lens has pretty much confirmed its optical excellence. Based on available evidence, Zeiss's reputation, user reports, the photos I've seen taken with the lens, and my own experience with Zeiss lenses, I have no reason to doubt the claim that the 135 Sonnar is one of, if not THE best lens of its focal length available.
The Zeiss 135 f/2 APO Sonnar is touted as being even better optically than the Makro Planar 100 f/2, which blows my mind. I've never read a single negative comment about this lens except for the price tag and the fact it's MF only. Every quantitative test I've seen on this lens has pretty much confirmed its optical excellence. Based on available evidence, Zeiss's reputation, user reports, the photos I've seen taken with the lens, and my own experience with Zeiss lenses, I have no reason to doubt the claim that the 135 Sonnar is one of, if not THE best lens of its focal length available.