Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Test: Contax Sonnar 135 2.8 vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 6:47 pm    Post subject: Test: Contax Sonnar 135 2.8 vs Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II Reply with quote

I did some testing today.
The Sonnar 2.8/135 was left in a corner since it arrived.
You told me it is not a top performer. I kind of looked down upon it.
However, I remember that the Zeiss MTF told me a different story...

So I set up my sturdy tripod and made some shots.
I compared it to the new Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II.
Apart from ultra-expensive, this lens is also considered ultra-sharp among Canon users. I agree with this statement.

Now, in my tests, the Sonnar 135mm f/2.8 turned out to be better.
Both in resolution and vignetting.

The target was a 50 X 75 cm ISO resolution chart printed by me (Kodak Europe actually), which was 3 meters away. Shooting conditions were controlled and stable. Timer & mirror lock-up

If the Sonnar outperforms the 70-200, it is not "one of the poorest performers in the Contax line".

ALL PHOTOS WIDE-OPEN AT 2.8 (100% crops at 21MP)

1A. Canon, center of frame


1B. Sonnar, center of frame


2A. Canon, frame edge
Upload error:
Image could not be uploaded.
DEBUG MODE
Line : 202
File : uploadpic.php



I uploaded full images in website:
Sonnar @ 2.8
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great test! Thanks for it.

Not surprising to me a prime lens, especially 135mm, is sharper than zoom. I suspect there are many budget 135mm lenses that outperform the zoom. There is a possibility a zoom in 'sweet spot' might outperform a prime of same focal length, but I have not seen an examples...

'If the Sonnar outperforms the 70-200, it is not "one of the poorest performers in the Contax line"' should be interpreted to mean there are no 'dogs' in Contax line? Laughing

PS Upload error happens when uploading multiple photos server connection resets or timeouts.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It`s MM or AE Sonnar ?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:

I suspect there are many budget 135mm lenses that outperform the zoom.

I wouldn't be so sure. This zoom is VERY good.
It is better at 2.8 than Canon's 135mm f/2 prime @ 2.8
See the crops here

This and the Nikon 14-24mm are the only zooms with a score of 9.9 at FredMiranda.com.
And the score of 14-24 will drop as more reviews come in.
visualopsins wrote:

'If the Sonnar outperforms the 70-200, it is not "one of the poorest performers in the Contax line"' should be interpreted to mean there are no 'dogs' in Contax line? Laughing

Probably yes Smile

Anyway. I am now again confident that $200 for this lens was a bargain Smile


Last edited by Nikos on Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:52 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 7:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karabud wrote:
It`s MM or AE Sonnar ?

It is one of the last MM Japan.
S/N : 8.079.XXX


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sonnar 135 is a very good lens, especially the MM version, whereas the AE is a bit soft wide open.

It is true however that it isn't the top performer in the Contax line so if it did blow away the supermega Canon L lens, what will happen with say the Sonnar 3.5/100? Probably will turn the Canon L to dust! Laughing


Last edited by Orio on Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:12 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nkanellopoulos wrote:
karabud wrote:
It`s MM or AE Sonnar ?

It is one of the last MM Japan.
S/N : 8.079.XXX


I got AEJ and unfortunately is less sharp therefore i`m selling it Wink
btw i don`t like mfd of this lens - 1,6m....


Last edited by karabud on Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:13 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

karabud wrote:
nkanellopoulos wrote:
karabud wrote:
It`s MM or AE Sonnar ?

It is one of the last MM Japan.
S/N : 8.079.XXX


I got AEJ and unfortunately is less sharper therefore i`m selling it Wink
btw i don`t like mfd of this lens - 1,6m....


But the AE has excellent 3D... you lose some you win some...


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
karabud wrote:
nkanellopoulos wrote:
karabud wrote:
It`s MM or AE Sonnar ?

It is one of the last MM Japan.
S/N : 8.079.XXX


I got AEJ and unfortunately is less sharper therefore i`m selling it Wink
btw i don`t like mfd of this lens - 1,6m....


But the AE has excellent 3D... you lose some you win some...


Now i`m looking for good CZJ 135 3,5 or 135L maybe...


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
Sonnar 135 is a very good lens, especially the MM version, whereas the AE is a bit soft wide open.

It is true however that it isn't the top performer in the Contax line so if it did blow away the supermega Canon L lens, what will happen with say the Sonnar 3.5/100? Probably will turn the Canon L to dust! Laughing


Yes, as long as you have a good tripod handy and the time to focus with LiveView.
You can only take handheld photos at 200mm and 1/20 sec. with the Canon.
We, happy owners of the Canon 70-200, are not completely stupid Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice test
my 135 have CA and lack of pop compared to other Contax
I have tried a zoom Apo Leica that was much better at 2.8
but the Leica could not touch my 85 primes or even the 80-200:4
1/20s at 200mm is only useful to capture sleeping mountain


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:

1/20s at 200mm is only useful to capture sleeping mountain


Hahahahaha!
You put it the best way Very Happy
In fact, what is the use for a 200mm? Either landscape, or action (moving people, animals etc)
For landscape, the caring photographer uses a tripod.
For action, what good is to shoot shake-free at 1/20, if your subject moves at more than 1/200? Wink
To freeze a moving subject (human and even more so animal) you need at least 1/250 - a shutter speed that is also fast enough to freeze your handshake.

I think the usefulness of image stabilization is overestimated in the photographic communities.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:

1/20s at 200mm is only useful to capture sleeping mountain


It is pretty obvious you have a wife Twisted Evil Very Happy

Anyway, what do you think is a good price for the Contax 80-200 ?


Last edited by Nikos on Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:18 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
poilu wrote:

1/20s at 200mm is only useful to capture sleeping mountain


Hahahahaha!
You put it the best way Very Happy


Orio, it seems like you never go hiking Smile

When your backpack is more than 12 kg without the photo stuff,
would you also add/carry a heavy tripod ? You cannot follow the others...

I also enjoy street photography at night. But using a tripod makes you both slow and conspicuous.

200mm 1/20 sec handheld


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nkanellopoulos wrote:

When your backpack is more than 12 kg without the photo stuff,
would you also add/carry a heavy tripod ? You cannot follow the others...


Tripod does not have to be heavy. There are very lightweight ones.
And, I never go out to photograph in a company of people who don't care about photography. Or, they go their way i go mine, and let's meet at lunch. That's how it works for me. When I photograph I don't want non-photographing people messing around with me, or that I have to follow at all costs, leaving after me untaken photos that I would regret after.

Quote:
I also enjoy street photography at night. But using a tripod makes you both slow and conspicuous.


I don't think you would have had many problems if that motorbike had spotted you Laughing
While if instead of a parked motorbike there was a person there, at 1/20 sec you would have the photo of a nice ghostly blur - over a perfectly still background, I'll concede that . Wink Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
I don't think you would have had many problems if that motorbike had spotted you Laughing

Yes, because it is a "sleeping motorbike" Very Happy
Orio wrote:

While if instead of a parked motorbike there was a person there, at 1/20 sec you would have the photo of a nice ghostly blur - over a perfectly still background, I'll concede that . Wink Laughing

Unfortunately, you also have to concede that the person would be equally blurred using a tripod Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nkanellopoulos wrote:
Anyway, what do you think is a good price for the Contax 80-200 ?

between 200 and 300 euros
I got the 80-200 in a kit and I use it once a year
joking aside, if I had to buy a zoom it would be something like the Canon 70-300 IS
IS can be useful for video but I don't use this focal enough to justify higher cash


PostPosted: Sat Sep 18, 2010 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nkanellopoulos wrote:
Orio wrote:
I don't think you would have had many problems if that motorbike had spotted you Laughing

Yes, because it is a "sleeping motorbike" Very Happy
Orio wrote:

While if instead of a parked motorbike there was a person there, at 1/20 sec you would have the photo of a nice ghostly blur - over a perfectly still background, I'll concede that . Wink Laughing

Unfortunately, you also have to concede that the person would be equally blurred using a tripod Twisted Evil


Yes but I wanted to prove that you can't take that photo with IS - not that I could take it with a tripod Wink


PostPosted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sleeping motorbike with 200mm???
you must try with Planar 1.4/50 and tripod ...
and Plasticity Rulez


PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

metallaro1980 wrote:
sleeping motorbike with 200mm???
you must try with Planar 1.4/50 and tripod ...
and Plasticity Rulez

OK, you made a lot of noise out of a test shot with a motorbike.
How about this?
Handheld at 1/200 with 1.4X
This is both awake and moving (and heavy!)
If I were you, I would not go near it with a 50mm.
I would be afraid of too much "plasticity" Very Happy
Yes, I know, image stabilization is useless Smile



PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You should get a macro lense and shoot it's nails. Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woman portrait till death !!!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nkanellopoulos wrote:
metallaro1980 wrote:
sleeping motorbike with 200mm???
you must try with Planar 1.4/50 and tripod ...
and Plasticity Rulez

OK, you made a lot of noise out of a test shot with a motorbike.
How about this?
Handheld at 1/200 with 1.4X
This is both awake and moving (and heavy!)
If I were you, I would not go near it with a 50mm.
I would be afraid of too much "plasticity" Very Happy
Yes, I know, image stabilization is useless Smile



I think this: if a bear is running to you ...the IS is useless !!!
do you have a shotgun ?