Canon 135L or Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar ZE / ZF.2

Wanting to get a 135 and really up in the air in regards which way to go. The Zeiss, from my researching may have slightly better IQ but what is holding me back is the lack of AF. Not for sure if "double" the price is worth it or not. Used Canon are going between $700 and $800 while the Zeiss used can be had for $1500 to $1600. Currently have the 70-200L 2.8 and the 24-105 4.0 so my MF experience is somewhat limited. Im thinking with the Zeiss, there would be times that I miss the shot due to MF. As with most things in life, with time a person should get the MF up to par. Just not for sure if the Zeiss is worth double the money.

Anybody been down this road? Really don't want to get something and have buyers remorse regardless of which way I go. Been saving up for the 100-400 II but this 135L thing just jumped up and bit me in the arse....lol

Thoughts?

Love my Zeiss Apo Sonnar 2/135mm ZE. It is ranked first in DXO's lens database. I also own the Zeiss Otus 55mm, another optically phenomenal lens, yet the Apo Sonnar is the equal of the Otus. I bought and love mine because it gives me the sharpest, contrastiest, aberration-freest, color perfectionest output possible. But, as you reference there are obvious drawbacks.

And the obvious drawbacks (manual focus, expensive, heavy), produce what might be a less obvious drawback: re-sellability. I know of two or three that have been trying to sell theirs on the FM Buy/Sell forum, and it' going to take longer to find a buyer who doesn't mind those drawbacks, and gives preference for optical excellence over light-weight/AF convenience.

So, think good and hard about that aspect too. In my experience no camera gear is easier to resell than Canon gear. The userbase is enormous; lots of prospective buyers. These Zeiss lenses - man I love 'em! - but they are total niche products with a much smaller user base.

On the other hand, you can exploit that too - buy one in immaculate condition and save a bunch.

David Arbogast wrote in post #17616112
Love my Zeiss Apo Sonnar 2/135mm ZE. It is ranked first in DXO's lens database. I also own the Zeiss Otus 55mm, another optically phenomenal lens, yet the Apo Sonnar is the equal of the Otus. I bought and love mine because it gives me the sharpest, contrastiest, aberration-freest, color perfectionest output possible. But, as you reference there are obvious drawbacks.

And the obvious drawbacks (manual focus, expensive, heavy), produce what might be a less obvious drawback: re-sellability. I know of two or three that have been trying to sell theirs on the FM Buy/Sell forum, and it' going to take longer to find a buyer who doesn't mind those drawbacks, and gives preference for optical excellence over light-weight/AF convenience.

So, think good and hard about that aspect too. In my experience no camera gear is easier to resell than Canon gear. The userbase is enormous; lots of prospective buyers. These Zeiss lenses - man I love 'em! - but they are total niche products with a much smaller user base.

On the other hand, you can exploit that too - buy one in immaculate condition and save a bunch.

Actually, the 135/2 ZE *is* an Otus. There's an interview with Dr. Nasse of Zeiss where he says that the only reason the 135 wasn't an Otus was because the Otus nomenclature wasn't invented yet.

I have both options. For anything static then it's the Zeiss every time and I keep the Canon version for the AF (my high speed dexterity isn't what it used to be). The rendering is fantastic and colour is saturation second to none (of my lenses at least)

Bob

In the reviews I've seen, the Zeiss has much better IQ, particularly sharpness in the corners.
I would love to buy the Zeiss, but it is twice the cost (outch...) and for portraits on the 5d, I really don't need razorsharp corners. The 5d is only 13 mp, so I would never notice the difference .
Oh, don't forget the Samyang 135! It also has better IQ than the 135 according to the reviews I´ve seen, but is a cheaper than the Canon and a LOT cheaper than the Zeiss.

the reviews I've seen of the Samyang were pretty positive. one pitted it against the Canon and the Sony A mount Zeiss f/1.8 (I'm guessing due to price) and it did a better job than both

I really don't how the 135 L could have much better IQ. It is one of Canon's best lenses and it is a bargain right now at its current price.

http://www.diyphotogra​phy.net …-compared-canon-135mm-f2/

It's interesting reading material . The chromatic abberations on the Canon are very interesting to see.

I have, and love, both. The Zeiss is sharper with less CA and better micro contrast, at least wide open. Stopped down the differences are less apparent. It's my first choice for landscapes.

But for portraits, it's really very difficult to beat the Canon. It's got just the right blend of sharpness and a little fairy dust that can create magic in the right settings. Plus it has absolutely world class bokeh. Oh, and the quick, accurate auto focus is a life saver for moving subjects and particularly portraits where the subject is not stationary.

If I could only have one, I'd pick based on the most likely subject matter.

Rent them both, take lots of photos, then make your decision!

What are you planning on shooting with it?

FTb wrote in post #17618011
Here's a very recent example of the sharpness and rendering of the Canon from a shot a couple of days ago. I almost never use flash or stop down nearly this much, but a friend had set up his flash and we were testing it out.

The original is actually a bit sharper than this photo. I've softened a few areas of her skin because I found things a bit TOO sharp and with too much skin detail for my tastes.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vouv​kP IMG_8968 by brusbybrusby, on Flickr

Looks super-sharp to me, and a lovely capture.

At f/2 there is more of a sharpness disparity between the two lenses. And I'm not suggesting a big "disparity", just saying that at f/2 you'd notice more CA and softness with the 135L than with the Zeiss. My guess is at f/13 there is likely not much difference.

And that really is what the Apo Sonnar (along with the two Otus lenses) are all about - corner to corner razor-sharp performance at maximum aperture. Realistically, that level of performance isn't typically needed. It's a nicety. But, I do really like it. I don't often shoot my Zeiss 135mm above f/2. And if you capture some signage (black letters on white), you see an amazing level of sharpness and contrast: black blacks and white whites, with zero CA.

Bottom line is I think the Canon 135L is absolutely wonderful and would be the lens I would recommend of the two to all but the most discriminating of users provided they do not shoot subjects that pose a focusing challenge. I have always greatly admired the bokeh and color rendition of the 135L as especially beautiful. The Zeiss bokeh feels a bit more detailed. It is perfectly smooth and elegant - it suffers no distracting qualities - but the 135L bokeh seems to have more of a buttery/creamy smooth look to it

Have the Canons 50 1.4, 24-105 F4, 100 macro 2.8, 70-200 2.8 (camera is a 5d mark III). After looking at some of the pictures here and elsewhere I really like the bokeh that I am seeing with the 135L. I have almost talked myself out of the Zeiss (price vs what you get). I was wanting something to shoot my grandkids (14) either in static or movement. Very anxious to shoot some wildlife and landscape also. As I am now entering retirement I want to pursue or try astrophotography. (Another reason I was leaning towards the Canon instead of the Zeiss (AF).


Not to confuse the SUBJECT matter but I got to thinking...I ultimately was saving up for the new Canon 100-400 F4.5-5.6 II and I saw what the 135L was producing and it just kinda WOW'ed me. I don't want to sound so wishy washy but in my mind this is a lot of coin to put out for a lens. With that thought in mind I don't want to look back after I get another lens. Some days I think the heck with the 135L and go for the big boy. Other days I think, the 135L would be good for now and wait another year for the big boy.


Wonder what the 100-400 F4.5-5.6 II would do at 135L?


Is it just me or do some of you people have a hard time with this type of decision....


thanks everyone for shedding your thoughts on this thread...very helpful indeed!!

john

FTb wrote in post #17617124
I have, and love, both. The Zeiss is sharper with less CA and better micro contrast, at least wide open. Stopped down the differences are less apparent. It's my first choice for landscapes.

Is this a personal observation or something you've read?

yogestee wrote in post #17620107
Is this a personal observation or something you've read?

It's what I've noticed from owning and using both.