Twelve 2.8/135mm lenses compared on 5DmkII

adityap · Joined: 11 Aug 2010 Posts: 51 Location: Pune, India

Fantastic review! TFS

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

Interesting review, but I still love Tair 11A, Pentacon Preset & CZJ MC 135.

bazza59 · Posted: Mon May 23, 2011 9:11 am Post subject:

very interesting test. thank you for spending the time and effort to do this and provide such excellent information.

natebarnz · Expire: 2013-01-23

Great post. I can certainly vouch for the Contax135 for its quality and value. It can be found for under $200 often enough.

Thanks for sharing!

symphonic · Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 550 Location: SE Europe, Croatia

The other day I did a brief* test of my three 135mm lenses:
*(disclaimer: it's a casual test, nothing scientific or to be taken very seriously, but it gives an aprox. relation of the sharpness performance and it should be an ok addition to this brilliant thread)

Contax Sonnar 135mm f2.8 AEJ version
CZJ Sonnar MC 135mm f3.5
Tair 11A 135mm f2.8

I hope no one object me adding the results in this thread instead of opening a new one. I didn't test so thoroughly as BRunner did, but the results are in my opinion in complete accordance with BRunner's conclusions.

I tested it on APS-C sensor (450D), this is an infinity sharpness test. I also did a close focus test, the sharpness results are similar, so I won't include that one.

Center crops:

Center f2.8, Contax left, Tair right

Center f4, Contax, CZJ, Tair

Center f5.6, Contax, CZJ, Tair

Corner crops:

Corner f2.8, Contax left, Tair right

Corner f4, Contax, CZJ, Tair

Corner f5.6, Contax, CZJ, Tair

These 100% crops were too wide when I uploaded them to photobucket, so they were automatically slightly resized. It shouldn't matter too much for the comparison, but anyone wanting to see the individual 100% crops here are two albums where you can see them:
center: http://s642.photobucket.com/albums/uu146/forhiller/135test/
corner: http://s642.photobucket.com/albums/uu146/forhiller/135testcorner/

In short, I think the Contax is clearly the best out of three. At least sharpness wide, but from the short time I'm using it I think it also has the best bokeh. Of course, the contrast is very high, which in this test proved not entirely great (the white bark of the tree was a bit burned/overexposed, so maybe the CZJ gaves a more natural look, but I'm fine with Contax still).
The difference is very visible in corners, where the Tair is obviously worst, while the CZJ holds not badly against the Contax. For landscape use (my primary use for this focal length), the Contax should be most fitting.

The thing I'm interested most right now is the sharpness difference between AE and MM versions, which according to some is pretty big (I remember reading Orio's comment in other thread about the MM being very much sharper and AE with more 3D effect). The valid question for me is also whether my 450D sensor would even benefit from a sharper lens, probably not.

Comments and critics welcomed.

JohnBee · Joined: 11 Mar 2010 Posts: 179

symphonic · Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 550 Location: SE Europe, Croatia

Thanks for the comment. You raise valid points. I'm certainly not much skilled to interpret these kind of tests in the best way as I normally tend to take the contrastier image to be sharper. Which of course, is not what sharpness is all about... (I'm aware of the resolution and acutance components of sharpness, but I guess I should read some more on it).

Perhaps in the case of Contax, I should have took slightly underexposed images to compensate for the high contrast (in order not to have blow-outs with subjects like that white tree bark).

Directly related to this (but perhaps a discussion for a new topic), I often thought about the effect that original lens contrast has in PP, that is - whether it's better to have very contrasty original image (like all T* lenses have) or a lower contrast (some Zuiko's come to mind) with the digital negative thus having more maneuverable space in PP. I've read contradictory statements elsewhere...

EDIT: I just saw your edited post with the samples. Great work! That mostly answers my questions on lower contrast vs. higher contrast in PP. Smile

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

I've just read this excellent thread again and it shows how good a DSLR has become........esp when enlarging an image as it would be very difficult to get near (or even try to equal) the resolution with a 35mm colour neg using the same lens/lenses without lab assistance.

noddywithoutbigears · Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:36 pm Post subject:

This is an excellent review, well done. These types of reviews are in my eyes more meaningful than looking at charts because these are real world situations in which we are more likely to take pictures in, again many thanks for your time and effort. Very Happy

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

my_photography · Expire: 2016-12-25

Thanks for your effort and sharing.

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

I'm beginning to repeat myself, so if you've heard this point from me before, please excuse. While I do see purpose in these comparisons and do have interest in looking, I'm not as influenced as I have been in the past. I now give more consideration to overall IQ than test results. The tests I have done, comparing sharpness and even bokeh, have been very fruitless for me because I typically see so little difference. However, when I go about using a lens, that's when I get the best sense of its character and how well it performs to my liking.

This 12 lens comparison contains only three or four, depending on how you consider my Meyer Orestegor (which I haven't used yet anyway), so I cannot comment on the others. However, I do have some that perform well technically, like the Jupiter and Series 1 Vivitar, which is my sharpest. But when I consider the focal length, I realize that I do not use it for landscape and rarely use it at infinity, so the edge to edge, or corner sharpness is of much less concern to me. The Vivitar Series 1, with all of its faults, has been my number one lens at this focal length until I got a Tair-11 133mm. I should point out that the OP did mention this lens' ability in producing interesting results, so I'm more in agreement than am I taking exception with the test results. For me, the Tair has trumped the sharpness of the Vivitar with its overall IQ, and especially the unique bokeh. I find no issue with the sharpness until I compare side by side with the Vivitar, but that doesn't happen in practical use. I do look forward to seeing the results of the Meyer, but for now the Tair is my bokeh monster (Godzilla). I will post three recent examples to illustrate my point (forgive that they are posted elsewhere):

Orio · Expire: 2012-12-04

Woodrim,
what fine fine photographs. Thanks for sharing!

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

woodrim · Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston

dimitrygo · Joined: 01 Apr 2009 Posts: 561

picareto · Joined: 16 Jun 2013 Posts: 40 Location: Portugal

The best i�ve ever tried was the Steinheil Munchen auto quinaron 135/2.8 ....it�s a masterpiece!

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2921 Location: The Netherlands

I have very good experiences with the M42 SMC Takumar 135/2.5 (Japan made version).
IMO it has great contrast, sharpness and colors. And it's very usefull wide open.

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

***The best i�ve ever tried was the Steinheil Munchen auto quinaron 135/2.8 ....it�s a masterpiece!***

*****I have very good experiences with the M42 SMC Takumar 135/2.5.
IMO it has great contrast, sharpness and colors. And it's very usefull wide open.****

Well the above could be true, so how do you prove it without comparing with other lenses like the OP Wink

and then there could be copy variations Sad

DR.JUAN · Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2921 Location: The Netherlands

Excalibur · Expire: 2014-04-21

Well the Pentacon and Vivitar put up a good show compared to the Pentax when stopped down, but thought it was a bit unfair comparing to a Tak, as I too have the Meyer 135 f2.8 and Vivitar one touch 70-150mm and while they are good lenses would not consider them to be in the same class as a very good 135mm prime for sharpness. Mind you with no cropping on a A4 print it might be difficult to see the difference....Thanks for posting.
In my tests of 135mm lenses (all stopped down at f5.6 as I'm not a WO man) my favourite zoom couldn't match my best lenses (with very large crops) and I ended up with two lenses that I couldn't separate as they were better than my V750 scanner Sad

and were the Canon 135mm f3.5 breechlock and CZJ Sonnar f2.8...I chose the Sonnar for general 135mm lens use because I think it would give me more chance of achieving pop in my shots....h'mm which leads onto my latest 135mm lens:- the Hoya 135mm f2.8 which seems to be good at pop, maybe one day I'll test it against the Sonnar. Wink