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

Twelve 2.8/135mm lenses compared on 5DmkII
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 9:30 am    Post subject: Twelve 2.8/135mm lenses compared on 5DmkII Reply with quote



Another boring and repetitive comparison of my lenses, this time 2.8/135mm telelenses. For many experienced users it's surely waste of time, but lot of MFL beginners can find those comparisons usable because they can help them to decide if it's worth to go for more pricey lenses and what is the difference - I hope, at least. It's nice to study MTF graphs and reviews done on flat test diagrams, but measured numbers are one thing, real world photos made under daylight often tells you quickly different story.

Testing methodology is similar to my Sonnars comparison, but I slightly changed some tests.

First test is sharpness at infinity from wide-open to f5.6. Focus point is clock on church tower. This test shows how much details can the lens resolve and how uniform is the sharpness in the field. You can check, how does the image quality improve when stopping down. On edges with strong contrast you can check how well is the lens corrected for lateral CAs. If you are interested mainly in landscape photography, this is most important test for you.

Second test checks lateral and longitudinal (bokeh) CA, near distance sharpness, bokeh quality a rendering of highlights and shadows. Focus point is test image on the front bumper of the car. Here you can see the amount of LaCA and sharpness. In the unsharp areas (car, trees, city in background) you can compare LoCA, bokeh smoothness and character. In the grass at bottom you can check sharpness uniformity in the field and corners at near distances. Test is done from wide-open to f5.6. Check how the lens does improve when stopping down.

Third test is my torture backlighting situations and close distance sharpness test. Check how well the lens retains its contrast in this situation and how does the contrast change when stopping down. Focus point is top left corner of the cacao box.

Because fixed WB was used, it's possible to compare color rendering in all tests.

If you are interested in APS-C performance of the lenses, just crop the images.

All tests on 5DmkII. Done on tripod with infrared remote control and 2s mirror lock-up. Lens hood was always on. WB set to daylight. Focused with liveview (on 5D is really usable). For sharpness and CA test I switched back to RawTherapee 3.0b, because DPP sharpening hides some CA. Owl images converted in Canon DPP, sharpening set to Unsharp mask with parameters 1,10,1.

PRECAUTION: don't judge the sharpness from one particular test, always check all three tests. I'm trying to do my best when focusing,but I still can't avoid slight focusing errors. Another quality factor is copy variability, always is possible,that I've got lemon copy or otherwise and yours experience may vary. When I had opportunity to try more copies, it will be mentioned in text.



I divided lenses in three performance groups, with every better performing group, my rating is more rigorous. It's not worth of discussion
6 aperture blade, when the lens is soft with lot of CAs and low contrast. (BTW Some call it character... Well, I call this badly corrected lens)

Here is list of lenses, which I already sold. None of them performed better than Pentacons:
Vivitar 2.8/135 (Komine made)
AutoRevuenon 2.8/135
Sigma YS 2.8/135
Yashikor 2.8/135
Tamron 2.8/135 BBAR

In bottom group I'd put Soligor, Enna, Tairs and Porst

Soligor auto 2.8/135mm T2 mount
Not much positive can be say about this lens, but you can usually get it very cheaply.
- low overall sharpness
- low contrast
- strong CA

Sharpness @f2.8, f4, f5.6


CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f5.6



Enna Tele-Ennalyt 2.8/135mm
This lens is nothing spectacular too, but due to its compactness, it can serve as good travel lens.
- low overall sharpness
- lower contrast
- strong CA
- front pupil and aperture control rotates when focusing
+ probably one of smallest and lightest 2.8/135 lens
+ nice rounded aperture

Sharpness @f2.8, f4, f5.6


CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6



Tair-11A 2.8/135mm and Tair-11 2.8/133mm M39
Let's start with with good news. Center sharpness is good from wide-open (later 11A version resolves slightly more details at this aperture), but corners are unsharp even at f8 on FF, on APS-C this aperture is enough to get good corners. Silver Tair can't reach infinity with M42 adapter, it shows overall slightly better contrast but never version has more neutral color rendering. Tair is better on APS-C and is capable of fantastic images, just use search button on this forum, but from technical point of view it's poor performer and you need to consider it's limitations. To avoid speculations, I've checked four copies of 11A version and all performed this way.
- bad field and corner sharpness, even stopped down
- strong CA wide-open
- loss of contrast when stopped down in backlighting situations
+ perfectly rounded aperture
+ sharp center from f2.8
+ good CA stopped down to f5.6

Tair-11A 2.8/135mm
Sharpness @f2.8, f5.6 (I accidentally deleted f4 image...but not much different from f5.6)


CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6



silver Tair-11 2.8/133mm M39
CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6



Porst MC 2.8/135mm
This lens shows some strong sides, but worst CA in entire tested group kills it's ambitions to go between better performing lens. On crop cameras stopped down to f5.6 it is capable of delivering very high resolution, but still spoiled by nasty CAs.
- very strong CA
- corner sharpness lacks behind center
+ good colors and contrast
+ high resolution center at smaller apertures
+ good handling of backlit situations

Sharpness @f2.8, f4, f5.6


CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f5.6



In the middle group I'd put Pentacon family and Rolleinar

Rolleinar/Color-Dynarex 2.8/135mm
Sorry, no infinity test. This lens can't reach infinity with my adapter. But from two remaining tests, this lens has interesting behavior. It shows it's best already wide-open and when stopping down it hardly improves. CA wide open is on lower side, but stays same till f5.6. Another plus worth of mentioning is good neutral color rendering, one of best in test.
- bad handling of backlit situations
- loss of contrast when stopping down
+ one of lowest CA wide-open
+ good sharpness wide-open
+ good color rendering

CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6



Pentacon preset, Pentacon MC, Prakticar MC 2.8/135mm
These lenses share same optical scheme and perform roughly same.
The preset version shows slightly better contrast than newer MC versions, but it has warmer color cast. Sharpness is good and goes better when stopping down, but never reaches the finest detail quality of lenses from first group.
In time I tried about ten different copies of preset and newer non-MC and MC versions. There is some copy variation in color rendering and contrast, but overall you can't go wrong with any of them.
This lens is something like dark horse in this "race", it offers great value for it's price.
- lower field sharpness which goes better stopped down
- stronger vignetting wide-open
- resolution of smallest details is not on pair with lenses in first group
+ CA at acceptable levels
+ very good performance in backlighting test
+ nice rounded aperture on preset version

Pentacon preset 2.8/135mm
Sharpness @f2.8, f4, f5.6


CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6



Pentacon MC 2.8/135mm
Sharpness @f2.8, f4, f5.6


CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6



Prakticar MC 2.8/135mm
CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6


In the first group I'd put APO Telezenitar, Elmarit and C/Y Sonnar:

Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/135mm (first version with Series VII filter produced around 1969)
Well, the 135mm Elmarit was never top Leitz/Leica lens, but it offers respectable performance in all areas and best CA performance from f4. At f5.6 it is at its best and not so far behind C/Y Sonnar. I'd like to try someday this lens with newer coatings made after 1990, as it can offer slightly better contrast and more neutral color rendering.
In comparison to C/Y Sonnar this lens is somewhat overpriced I think, but you know....it's Leica...
- field and corner sharpness can be better
- backlighting situation handling is not impressive
- stronger CA wide open
+ best CA handling from f4
+ very good center sharpness from wide open
+ overall this lens offers well balanced IQ
+ 8 blades rounded aperture

Sharpness @f2.8, f4, f5.6


CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6


APO Telezenitar 2.8/135mm
Three magic letters A P O, they are promise fantastic IQ without nasty color fringing....sorry, this lens don't deserve them... Telezenitar was my second APO lens after APO-Telyt 180 and at first it was huge disappointment, the CA correction is nowhere close to Leica or Cosina APO lenses. Nevertheless, after some time I gave it another chance and now it even managed to go between top names in this test. Telezenitar is probably best Russian 135mm lens and one of best M42 135mm lenses, it offers very good field sharpness on FF (only lens which can come close to C/Y Sonar), low CA @f2.8 and good color rendering. Contrast is slightly lower (especially in dull lighting conditions), but this is common to all Russian lenses. It reaches great performance at f4, but Elmarit shows better CA corrections at this aperture. Stopping down to f5.6 starts to lower contrast.
- backlighting situation handling stopped down
- CA stopped down can be better
- slightly lower contrast
+ second best field sharpness uniformity in this test
+ lowest CA wide-open and overall low CA
+ 8 blades rounded aperture

Sharpness @f2.8, f4, f5.6


CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6 this shots are slightly frontfocused, I'll try to redo this shots with my next round of 135mm lenses


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6



Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/135mm T* C/Y AEJ
This lens is undoubted winner of this comparison. It shows fantastic sharpness uniformity over entire field straight from full aperture. Color and contrast rendering is unmatched too. Backlit handling is top. Only weaker point is CA handling. LaCA at full aperture is one of lowest, but you need to stop down to f5.6 and beyond to match Elmarit performance @f4. Anyway, if I can keep only one 135mm lens, this is the one.
- CA stopped down can be tad better
- only 6 blades aperture
+ fantastic sharpness and uniformity from wide open
+ great color and contrast rendering
+ low CA wide-open
+ great backlit handling

Sharpness @f2.8, f4, f5.6


CA @f2.8, f4, f5.6


Contrast @f2.8, f4, f5.6



The bokeh thing...
It's hard to compare bokeh on these scenes, but when I study blurred buildings in background of the CA car images, smoothest bokeh wide-open provides silver Tair-11, followed by C/Y Sonnar and Rolleinar. Most distracting OOF areas rendering shows Porst lens. Stopped down, the differences becomes smaller.
If you can suggest good test setup for bokeh comparison, I'll do it with some of the lenses.
More rounded aperture (more/better shaped blades) is counted as plus, because in some situations it really helps to retain smoother bokeh at smaller apertures. See this two samples at f4:

Pentacon preset


C/Y Sonnar



Sonnar vs. Sonnars
For comparison, here are same images made with CZJ MC Sonnar 3,5/135mm and silver CZJ Sonnar 4/135mm at same time as other lenses here. In comparison to C/Y Sonnar (and entire first group) both CZJ versions have slightly lower CAs (except Elmarit at f4) at same aperture, while C/Y Sonnar (and entire first group) has better field sharpness. C/Y Sonnar shows better color rendering. Backlit situation handling of silver CZJ Sonnar stays unmatched. But there is some crispness in the finest details rendering in C/Y Sonnar photos, which the east German Sonnars can't match.

CZJ Sonnar MC 3.5/135mm

Sharpness @f3.5, f5.6


CA @f3.5, f5.6


Contrast @f3.5, f5.6



silver CZJ Sonnar 4/135mm

Sharpness @f4, f5.6


CA @f4, f5.6


Contrast @f4, f5.6



Final words
I read somewhere on this forum that it's hard to make bad 135mm lens... I would add, that is even harder to make excellent 135mm lens. The C/Y Sonnar comes very close and it quickly became my reference 135mm lens, but the "holly grail" in this focal length probably stays APO-Lanthar 2.5/125...

I'll keep these lenses: C/Y Sonnar, Elmarit, silver Tair-11 and preset Pentacon. Other lenses will be sooner or later sold...

Anyway, those are my own opinions... I provided all test images for your own "pixel-peeping". Please share your own experience and analysis in discussion.


Last edited by BRunner on Fri May 20, 2011 4:56 am; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well done...more please


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 10:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nice big review, thanks for your time!


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great job!

my favorite - sonnar 135/2,8 c/y, i use it for photo and video


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow! This is great, thanks for the time and effort to do this. I love this kind of posts. Very Happy

The most interesting part for me is CZJ vs CZ c/y and I have to say that the Contax is quite convincingly the best and the MC is visibly worse in the corners.


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great work! This ties in with my findings that the Pentacon and Sonnar lenses are my faves Smile


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thabk you so much for taking the time to do tests like these, I think they are great and hope i can contribute someday in the same way.


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 12:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very good comparison - especially the CA tests.

Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow! This is probably one of the most useful posts in the forum 'till now! Thanks!

I have to ask you thought:

Quote:
I'll keep these lenses: C/Y Sonnar, Elmarit, silver Tair-11 and preset Pentacon. Other lenses will be sooner or later sold...


Considering your opinion on the Tair performance (which astonished me since it is so well regarded) I am assuming you are not keeping it for it's technical (dis)advantages, probably because of the status-quo?


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excelent test BRunner!!!

By the way try to avoid iso 50 on the 5Dii ... it's not better than 100 and it's actually a "fake" iso !
Actually is a overexposed ISO 100 setting since the 5dii's sensor does not support iso 50 and so expect blowing-out highlights & decreased dynamic range Wink


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What a huge amount of work! What a project!
Thanks a lot for sharing. I will look at it as soon as I have more time. Wink


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 3:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well done!!!!

Thanks.

Sonnar, Elmarit, Rolleinar.

Rino


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whow - much precise work well done!
Thank you very much!

Now I have only to compare my Steinheil Quinar against the Zeiss (C/Y)Sonnar Smile
And against the Prost 135/1.8 Wink


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A very comprehensive test. True it is boring to some. But to others (like me), this is really good stuff. Especially when it's been documented as well as you have.

Initially, I arrived at six favorites, based solely on the distance test. I found that there was not enough detail in or around the clock tower to make a sufficiently definitive judgment, so I selected the storefront immediately behind it with the word "CUKRARNA" emblazoned upon its wall. I found that only six of the lenses resolved this word well enough where it could be easily read. These lenses were:

Tair 11A 2.8/135mm
Pentacon MC 2.8/135mm
Leica Elmarit R 2.8/135mm
CZ Sonnar 2.8/135mm T* C/Y
CZJ Sonnar MC 3.5/135mm
Silver CZJ Sonnar 4/135mm

Then I took a look at your CA and Contrast tests, and was able to narrow things dow a bit further.

The Tair exhibited mild CA that was gone by f/5.6, but contrast dropped off noticeably by f/5.6, so it picked up a negative mark to me.

The Pentacon exhibited almost no CA at all apertures, but there was some fall-off in image contrast. So it also received a negative mark, albeit a minor one.

The Leica Elmarit showed only very mild CA at f/2.8 that was gone by f/4 and no fall off in contrast. It got two pluses for this.

The Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* C/Y also exhibited very mild CA at f/2.8, which was gone once stopped down just bit, and also showed essentially no fall-off in contrast, so it too got two pluses.

The CZJ Sonnar exhibited almost no CA at f/3.5 and just got better from there. No fall-off in contrast. So it too received two pluses.

And the Silver CZJ Sonnar showed essentially no CA at all and no contrast fall off. Again two pluses.

But if I had to get real picky about it, I'd say that the Silver CZJ Sonnar 4/135mm won the competition, albeit just barely.


PostPosted: Wed May 18, 2011 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excellent revue of these lenses. Thanks.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 3:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice work, (alot of), thanks for sharing.
If at any time you would think in extending the test, I'd like to see the Tamron 135 2.5 also compared Smile

Regards.
Jes.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Glad to see all the positive reactions, this is big motivation for me to continue with reviews. It's good too, that my conclusions coincide with experiences of wise members.

Excalibur wrote:
...more please

I already have finished test photos of my 180 and 200mm lenses. Now I "only" have to write the review.

ChromaticAberration wrote:
Considering your opinion on the Tair performance (which astonished me since it is so well regarded) I am assuming you are not keeping it for it's technical (dis)advantages, probably because of the status-quo?

I'm keeping the silver Tair because is part of my Russian M39 Zenit lenses collection and it's weaknesses combined with sharp center can be used to produce interesting images - like Trioplan 2.8/100. But I don't think the 11A version is worth of keeping too as I will hardly ever use this lens for landscape photography and colors can be corrected in PP.

Keysersoze27 wrote:
By the way try to avoid iso 50 on the 5Dii ... it's not better than 100 and it's actually a "fake" iso !
Actually is a overexposed ISO 100 setting since the 5dii's sensor does not support iso 50 and so expect blowing-out highlights & decreased dynamic range Wink

According DXOMarks real measured base ISO for 5DII is ~73, which is slightly closer to 50 than to 100. ISO50 really gives me lower dark current read noise than ISO100, but comparing DR is much more difficult.
I'm not sure, how to interpret the DXO results. Does this mean, that when I take photo at ISO100, camera in reality measures for ISO73 and marks the image like ISO100 in EXIF and for ISO50 slightly underexposes? Or for ISO50 slightly underexposes (as in previous case) and for ISO100 slightly overexposes, but in reality both images are again made at ISO73?
In the second case, I never get image at real base ISO. In first case at "ISO100" I get real base ISO, but true sensitivity is ISO73?

ZoneV wrote:
Now I have only to compare my Steinheil Quinar against the Zeiss (C/Y)Sonnar Smile
And against the Prost 135/1.8 Wink

My friend promised me to borrow his silver Quinar 2.8/135 for next round...Wink
I have Weltblick 1.8/135 (probably same lens as Porst), but the aperture is missing, so it can't be stopped down (but for 30, don't buy it Smile). From the wide-open performance I don't expect much...
If you do some comparison, please share your results. It would be interesting to match our findings.

cooltouch wrote:
Initially, I arrived at six favorites....
But if I had to get real picky about it, I'd say that the Silver CZJ Sonnar 4/135mm won the competition, albeit just barely.

Thanks cooltouch for your deep analysis. Nice to read your viewpoint, as you emphasize rather different performance aspects. I hope for more replies like this.

Jesito wrote:
If at any time you would think in extending the test, I'd like to see the Tamron 135 2.5 also compared Smile

I had and already sold some Tamron lenses (2.5/28, 2.8/135 BBAR and 3.5/200), none of them impressed me...the only one I'm keeping is 2.5/90 Macro. But if I can find 2.5/135 for cheap or borrow it, I'll give it a try Wink
For next round of fast 135's I'll have 5/4 Takumar 2.5/135, Vivitar (Tokina) 2.5/135, silver Quinar 2.8/135, Panagor 2.8/135, Weltblick 1.8/135 (but only wide-open, aperture is missing on my copy) and maybe some Nikkkor 2.8/135. Can anyone suggest which version is best? I can borrow it from my friends Nikkor collection, but I don't want to go thru gazillion of Nikkor 135mm lenses Wink
Lenses on my wish-list are Takumar 2.5/135 v2 and APO Lanthar 2.5/125.


Last edited by BRunner on Thu May 19, 2011 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks a lot for this test - but be careful, that google will not fire too many people, cause you find everything in one page Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good job well done Sir! Smile

I finally found the answer of Contax Zeiss 135/2.8 vs Elmarit 135/2.8 in this post. Thanks for your efforts.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:

According DXOMarks real measured base ISO for 5DII is ~73, which is slightly closer to 50 than to 100. ISO50 really gives me lower dark current read noise than ISO100, but comparing DR is much more difficult.
I'm not sure, how to interpret the DXO results. Does this mean, that when I take photo at ISO100, camera in reality measures for ISO73 and marks the image like ISO100 in EXIF and for ISO50 slightly underexposes? Or for ISO50 slightly underexposes (as in previous case) and for ISO100 slightly overexposes, but in reality both images are again made at ISO73?
In the second case, I never get image at real base ISO. In first case at "ISO100" I get real base ISO, but true sensitivity is ISO73?


50 & 100 = 73 ISO sensibility .

As I have stated you the fake 50 is in reality an overexposed 100 .
About DR differences look here :



from dpreview


By the way what's the s/n of the Elmarit 135 ? E55 ones start from s/n 2772618... Nice to see another Elmarit 135 with the yellow 135 letters missing or removed Laughing or it's there by design ...


Last edited by Keysersoze27 on Thu May 19, 2011 11:06 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

BRunner wrote:

For next round of fast 135's I'll have 5/4 Takumar 2.5/135, Vivitar (Tokina) 2.5/135, silver Quinar 2.8/135, Panagor 2.8/135, Weltblick 1.8/135 (but only wide-open, aperture is missing on my copy) and maybe some Nikkkor 2.8/135. Can anyone suggest which version is best? I can borrow it from my friends Nikkor collection, but I don't want to go thru gazillion of Nikkor 135mm lenses Wink


One of my most favorite images ever was taken with a Nikkor AI 135mm f/2.8. Sorry, can't be any more precise than that for you because I don't own the lens anymore. Dunno how many different flavors of AI 135s they made. I also like the pre-AI 135mm f/2.8 Nikkor-QC.

Too bad you can't test Canon FD without having to use an adapter. The FD 135mm f/2.5 SC is a fine lens.


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most excellent review!!!

For reference sake, could you post the exact model of the CZ 135 2.8 used in this test?

Also are other CZ 135's just as good or... is the one you reference the best there is type of thing?

Thanks again for all the hard work!


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nixland wrote:
I finally found the answer of Contax Zeiss 135/2.8 vs Elmarit 135/2.8 in this post. Thanks for your efforts.

And the answer is? Wink Bear in mind, that later Elmarit from '90s can perform better in terms of color and contrast rendering.

Keysersoze27 wrote:

50 & 100 = 73 ISO sensibility .

As I have stated you the fake 50 is in reality an overexposed 100 .


But this mean, that the ISO100 is fake too. Because the camera needs underexpose to get real ISO100 and this introduces more dark current noise and lowers the dynamic range in shadows... Sad This explains lower shadows noise on original 5D which has ISO100 = 90 ISO sensibility and doesn't need to underexpose so much.... I suppose, because when I set sensitivity to ISO100 both cameras meters same shutter time. Or am I wrong?

Keysersoze27 wrote:

By the way what's the s/n of the Elmarit 135 ? E55 ones start from s/n 2772618... Nice to see another Elmarit 135 with the yellow 135 letters missing or removed Laughing or they must be not been there by design ...

Sorry, my fault. The SN is 236xx with System VII filter. I've never tried put filtr on, but used 55mm front cap and it worked. I corrected this in first post already. The yellow focal lenght writing is missing. As on my v1 Summicron.

JohnBee wrote:

For reference sake, could you post the exact model of the CZ 135 2.8 used in this test?
Also are other CZ 135's just as good or... is the one you reference the best there is type of thing?

According the internet, mine is the "worst" model - AEJ Wink (SN: 596xx)

I don't know, if I understand your second question correctly, but I own only this single copy. Until now my reference 135mm to which I compared all other 135's was silver CZJ Sonnar 4/135.

I suppose that Orio is right person to explain all nuances of CZ AEx MMx lenses versions.


Last edited by BRunner on Fri May 20, 2011 4:48 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

poilu wrote:
nice big review, thanks for your time!

+10 lot of work!


PostPosted: Thu May 19, 2011 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, BRunner. I know how much work that is. There are so many 135mm lenses that there will always be some missing. Wish I could contribute some, but I suspect all evaluations must come from the same source for accuracy.