Carl Zeiss Lenses, anybody use them?

humm interesting, i came across these reviews online.

http://oomz.net/135/

http://www.rickdenney.​com/bokeh_test.htm

the carl zeiss 135mm 3.5 jena sonnar, is almost exactly like the 70-200 IQ wise, we'll to me anyways. i could not tell the difference at all.

I'll post up some examples tomorrow when i get it

Is it safe to assume that the adapters won't do damage to the body? I have a good bit of Hasselblad glass and really would like to use them on my 5D. I have no problem with no AF, I even use AF lens in MF mode quite a bit. Also I was told that lack of coating on the rear element can cause some degradation of the image due to the reflective nature of the sensor. Any thoughts?

Hmmm - 135/3.5 on an XTI, for a car.

Sooooo - angle of view of the 135 on the xti will be about:
a = 2 arctan (d/2f) = 2 arctan (25/270) = 10.6°

Say the subject car is 4 m long. It will fill the frame at (4/2)cot(5.3°) = about 21.5 m.
You'll have to have room to work.

At f/3.5, 135 mm on an XTi at 21.5 m, your DoF will be approximately from 20-23.2 m - over 3 m. Any reasonable car will always be within the DoF, but it'll have to be several metres from the background to get the blur you want.

(OK - I probably made some blunders there - anyone want to check me on this?)

e r y k wrote in post #4241850
humm interesting, i came across these reviews online.

http://oomz.net/135/

http://www.rickdenney.​com/bokeh_test.htm

the carl zeiss 135mm 3.5 jena sonnar, is almost exactly like the 70-200 IQ wise, we'll to me anyways. i could not tell the difference at all.

I'll post up some examples tomorrow when i get it

PS EDIT: Thanks again to eryk - I looked again at the bokeh tests - the lens I've settled on stood up very well in the Bokeh Tests.

Thanks for posting the link to "oomz". I've read the Bokeh link and in fact have referenced it here when someone asked about bokeh, and I recall that the Zeiss 135 really stood out.

I surely don't mean to rain on your parade; it's just that I go back a long ways, and the Zeiss lenses were always held up to be the best. (I'm talking in the early sixties).

However, times change, and lens design also changes. I was seriously looking at the Zeiss 70-300, and found one on a German site that looked pretty good. However when I saw the photozone review, I did an about turn.

I hadn't seen any results on the 135 mm Zeiss, and was only interested in the 70-300 zoom (which really seems to be over-rated). It seems that the 135 is a real stellar lens, so you will enjoy it. These Zeiss lenses are built like tanks, but they feel like velvet.

My (obviously) obscure point was that not all "fine old Zeiss lenses" are stellar performers. Newer lenses have benefitted from computer technology (which wasn't used in 1960 to any great extent), and many have surpassed older lenses (or should have by now).

Certainly the technology of camera bodies has moved ahead; why not lenses?

One has to be careful about getting into the "good old days" syndrome. It's a problem for me - my first good camera was a Pentax S - manual diaphragm and obviously manual focus - so I date back more than a few years.

Most importantly, the bottom line is that you have a winner. Congratulations.

I've got a Contax Aria 35mm film camera and several Zeiss lenses. I bought an adapter for my XT and... it's so-so. The good news is that it does the infinity focus correctly (I had an earlier adapter that would not - anything past 50 yards was blurry no matter what). The bad news is that after you focus the lens a few times, the motion begins to loosen the adapter. I love the idea overall, I just don't like the adapter. I guess that's what you get on ebay though, I wish I'd had a hands-on with it before purchasing. I have an idea to modify and fix the adapter but have not tried it yet.

I for one don't mind the manual focus at all, it takes almost no time to get used to. As to the quality of the lenses, I know they are great but in my very limited time shooting with them on the Canon I just can't tell a lot of difference between them and my better Canon equipment.

Canon's 50mm 1.4 was not any worse than the Zeiss 50mm 1.4, nor better. Equivalent enough to not bother.

Canon's 17-85mm (which I got rid of) was *much* worse at 50mm than the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 though, maybe not a huge surprise. I was never happy with the lens though even before I tried comparing it.

I have a 17-55mm IS Canon lens now, but haven't done a comparison, I've been totally happy with the 17-55, and since I don't care for the adapter ,I haven't tried it in a comparison against the Zeiss lens. I predict they'd be indestinguishable when tested at similar settings.

e r y k wrote in post #4241850
humm interesting, i came across these reviews online.

http://oomz.net/135/

http://www.rickdenney.​com/bokeh_test.htm

the carl zeiss 135mm 3.5 jena sonnar, is almost exactly like the 70-200 IQ wise, we'll to me anyways. i could not tell the difference at all.

I'll post up some examples tomorrow when i get it

Here is a good site I came across when I was searching for info & images.

http://galactinus.net …retro/eos350d_c​zj135.html

wow received this lens this morning. although the lens doesnt look that aesthetically pleasing, the MF on this lens is soo smooth, better than any lens ive dealt with.

im still trying to get good at MF, but its kinda hard with the XTi. but hopefully it will get easier.

i can say, that this lens is very impressive, tack sharp when you hit the focus right on.

heres a test pic, ignore the nikon :P

Some of the old stuff is truly great and the best have a certain feel that is hard to pin down. I spend 3-4 months using nothing but Pentax and Zeiss MF's and got some of my best shots. Use teaches you how to use a camera and slow down and compose. I still have a superb Pentax 50mm 1.4 (some say the very best 50mm!) and a 1.7 plus a fab Pentax 200mm 4.0 ... I don't use them much now but not quite ready to sell them as I enjoy it when I do use them. All are as good as the several L's I have owned. There is something 'real' about the images they make.

Enjoy your Zeiss. Not easy with a 350D but I managed OK.

e r y k wrote in post #4245027
wow received this lens this morning. although the lens doesnt look that aesthetically pleasing, the MF on this lens is soo smooth, better than any lens ive dealt with.

im still trying to get good at MF, but its kinda hard with the XTi. but hopefully it will get easier.

i can say, that this lens is very impressive, tack sharp when you hit the focus right on.

heres a test pic, ignore the nikon :P



will post more samples if wanted.

Focus is looking good so far, I know its not that much fun with an XTi but you could always buy either a split focus screen, or the AF enabled converter, I would say the converter myself as the problem with the focus screen is that its great on subjects where you can align the 2 images, lamp posts etc, but on something like grass or bushes its hard.

i am very pleased with this lens, outdoors, MF is much easier!

I own the Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.7 for the CO/Y mount. The colors and bokeh are insane! Only thing I hate is having to put in the split-screen to focus. Old MF lenses are really great though. The colors and sharpness are completely different (usually better) than modern lenses, IMO. Additionally, they are DIRT cheap. I have a Russian Helios 58mm f/2 lens that I think I spent $15 on from ebay.

Oh gosh and the construction...old MF lenses are built like TANKS!

Payed $110 for it from ebay, and they were still fairly available. Now I never see them on ebay.

I'd get an MF lens anyday over the POS 50 1.8 by Canon.

jcw122 wrote in post #4273404
I own the Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.7 for the CO/Y mount. The colors and bokeh are insane! Only thing I hate is having to put in the split-screen to focus. Old MF lenses are really great though. The colors and sharpness are completely different (usually better) than modern lenses, IMO. Additionally, they are DIRT cheap. I have a Russian Helios 58mm f/2 lens that I think I spent $15 on from ebay.

Oh gosh and the construction...old MF lenses are built like TANKS!

Payed $110 for it from ebay, and they were still fairly available. Now I never see them on ebay.

I'd get an MF lens anyday over the POS 50 1.8 by Canon.

I got rid of my split screen and use a focus confirmation adapter instead.
Focus is spot on

Nikolas wrote in post #4273721
I got rid of my split screen and use a focus confirmation adapter instead.
Focus is spot on

Really? You like it better then? I might have to try that.

Where did you get yours?

I just started getting into these zeiss lenses after using canon Ls for the past 10 years.

There are a few things that stand out to me:

1) lack of lens flare. It's practically impossible for me to get these lenses to flare. Now, I'm noticing just how much my canons really were flaring.
2) really bright and clear for focusing...in comparison, my L lenses look like they are 2-3 stops darker when trying to focus and compose.
3) ultra-sharp - I've never shot a single L lens that is as sharp as my zeiss's
4) ultra contrast - non of my Ls have crisper contrast than the zeiss's. I never have to adjust contrast in PP for my zeiss's. IF anything, I end up lowering the contrast.
5) vibrant but true colors - My Ls seem kind of muted and untrue in comparison. I'm also having a much easier time achieving accurate color balance.
6) my in-camera canon meter works better with the zeiss lenses than my Canon lenses. I can actually trust it! Usually I end up making +/- 1/6th(ish) of a stop changes in photoshop with my Ls. My zeiss's are dead-on with the in camera meter.

I'm using the zeiss with nikon mounts and a novoflex adapter. There is no confirmation focus signal, but I don't really need it. By next week I should have all Zeiss from 25,35,50, and 85. I've been ebaying my Ls. These lenses really are not for everybody. They are pretty unforgiving as well as a bit slow to work with. I would never use these for a portrait business or to shoot people. But, for what I plan to do (document cityscapes and record urban sprawl)...they are perfect. In the future..I might post some samples. Right now, I still want to experiment a bit more.

thanks for the input unity gain, i was thinking of using the 135mm for some portraits, i think it would work pretty well with people... i dunno though.