New Carl Zeiss 135mm f/2 ZE

Newly announced lens from Zeiss, looks really good and would love to get a hands on to compare with the 135L. At twice the cost will it be worth it?

Nice! But the longer the focal length, the harder to handheld and MF.....?

I agree. I loved my zeiss 100mp but I sold it because I couldn't use it that well even if it was the best lens I ever had.

With the 135L being as good as it is, this would be a very difficult lens to justify.

Twice the price of 135L, no AF...and 135L is one of the best Canon lenses. It will be extremely difficult to use on recent canon bodies.... Cant understand who will by it and why..

I don't think I have clear vision for 135mm MF

Well..... Zeiss must see a market for them or they would not produce them. It will be an intresting to see the image quality from the Zeiss next to the Canon.

I have always wanted to own a Zeiss MF lens, but with the cost in relation to the AF Canon counter parts very hard to justify. Im not sure the IQ warrants twice the cost. In the end thats what you buy from the lens, IQ.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14962822
I have always wanted to own a Zeiss MF lens, but with the cost in relation to the AF Canon counter parts very hard to justify. Im not sure the IQ warrants twice the cost. In the end thats what you buy from the lens, IQ.

So if the Zeiss had AF, better image quality and a 2k price tag would you buy one? I think Zeiss would sell alot more lenses if they had AF.

Timsxsi wrote in post #14962867
So if the Zeiss had AF, better image quality and a 2k price tag would you buy one? I think Zeiss would sell alot more lenses if they had AF.

I would....but on the other hand...

I might say something strange here, but in reality with 70-200 II, even the 135L might become obsolete [I know, it doesn't do f/2]. So....135 Zeiss, MF....for 2000...strange.

I understand the 21mm being MF because you mostly use it for Landscapes and can always use Live View and a tripod.But 135 is typically for outdoor portraits....so if you have the AF of 5D MKIII or 1Dx...and can either use 70-200 II or 135L.....I do not really know where is the place for this only MF very expensive Zeiss lens.

Since it is an APO lens I would expect it to create less CA than the 135L. The mighty 135L is great but it's not perfect and there are a few lenses that are better like the 200L f2

Timsxsi wrote in post #14962867
So if the Zeiss had AF, better image quality and a 2k price tag would you buy one? I think Zeiss would sell alot more lenses if they had AF.

I would. But it won't be $2k with AF

With AF confirm and used to head and shoulder closeup, Zeiss 135mm could be very interesting. But seen from how well Canon 135mm makes it, it's a high price.

Ps. 've had Zeiss 100mm. f / 2, and it was great for portraits*

The Nikon mount would be excellent for video, not sure why you would choose this over a 135L for photos though.

I used to take pictures with 135 MF lens. It wasn't very difficult.
But. Zeiss has to realize if they manufacturing lens in Japan, they must price it as made in Japan.
When price is high, but reasonable.