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

First tests to see if the CZJ135mm f3.5 is something special
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excuse me for butting in. This thread is about the CZJ 135/3.5 is it not? Were any of these pics taken with this lens? I'm getting a bit tired of discussions about 3D pop Smile but if you want to carry on with this perhaps you could split this thread and start a new one. Oh, just to mention also that pics here should be max 1024 wide, so please split it into the Oversized Gallery if you would. Thanks.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
I think i need some help here to clarify what you guys mean by 'pop' or 3D effects.
what criterias must have, maybe a closer definition - we are not talking about lenses yet.
if you are talking about an object in focus (sharp and contrast) and blurred background, (almost) any lens can do it, may be not webcam or cellphone cam.


Well probably to above.....but the consensus is:- that some lenses give you a better chance to achieve a "pop" and as most of are us are just ordinary photographers (including me)....... a pop in some boring shots can make all the difference, so if the sonnar can increase my chances by just 1% for pop (and I know it's sharp) it will be my top 135mm lens if I wanted to use a 135mm f3.5 lens at a particular time e.g. great for sunny Ibiza Wink


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IMO, the 135 has better chance to have *pop* than wide, but also depend on distance to subject and distance to background. The field may be too narrow to have a full body; i found it a bit more difficult than 85mm. personally i like to balance the f-stop - not to blur out completely, but just enough. 85mm at f4 or f5.6 works fine, or 135mm at f5.6. another way i use to proceed is find out the sweet spot of the lens and find shooting condition around that.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
IMO, the 135 has better chance to have *pop* than wide, but also depend on distance to subject and distance to background. The field may be too narrow to have a full body; i found it a bit more difficult than 85mm. personally i like to balance the f-stop - not to blur out completely, but just enough. 85mm at f4 or f5.6 works fine, or 135mm at f5.6. another way i use to proceed is find out the sweet spot of the lens and find shooting condition around that.


Indeed the telescopic effect can be nice and my Kiron 80-200 f4 can give some pop, but maybe the sonnar can give a bit more pop and sharpness for these sort of family scenes when I go to Ibiza next year Wink

Both shots Kiron 80-200 f4, Reala film




PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, beautiful contrast from the Reala film!
It is always like this, or was it a particularly strong light day?


PostPosted: Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Wow, beautiful contrast from the Reala film!
It is always like this, or was it a particularly strong light day?


The sun was so strong I really needed flash as the film couldn't cope with shadows and highlights, so quite a few shots were ruined, of course we don't post our failures Wink


PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really love te CZ Sonnar, great sharpness, warm colors, lovely bokeh and a close focus distance of just 1m. I used it on full format and it performs already wide-open just great.

Two examples @3.5. The first one at some distance, the second close-up:


Wolfhound in attention von FBeer! auf Flickr


CZJ Sonnar - 3D Effect von FBeer! auf Flickr

Just for a softer bokeh, I prefer the Zenit Tair11A 2.8/135. Which is slightly faster and renders bokeh very soft due to the 20 blades:


From Russia with Love von FBeer! auf Flickr


PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2011 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi Frank...the dog was very good and had pop, but I couldn't see pop in the other two? But in this shot everything that creates a pop in depth was there (whatever that is), and the right lens would have made the difference and I'm sure the sonnar would have been better than this Vivitar 135mm f2.8.

Vivitar 135mm f2.8 nearly there for sharpness and pop in depth....but not good enough IMO


PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
^That's an extremely poor quality scan, IMO. That shot doesn't tell you anything about the rendering of the lens; it looks like the scanner is only capturing a fraction of the density of your negatives. Severely clipped colors and highlights. The whole shot is posterized as if it's a 256 color image. You can probably get much better quality even with the cheapest flatbed scanner that has a transparency module.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
^That's an extremely poor quality scan, IMO. That shot doesn't tell you anything about the rendering of the lens; it looks like the scanner is only capturing a fraction of the density of your negatives. Severely clipped colors and highlights. The whole shot is posterized as if it's a 256 color image. You can probably get much better quality even with the cheapest flatbed scanner that has a transparency module.


You are absolutely right it is a crappy scan to a knowledgeable person, but the post wasn't about a review of the Vivitar 135mm f2.8 lens, but was just an example of a scene that with a excellent lens might have made the difference in pop in depth and sharpness. In other shots at other times the Vivitar had everything in it's favour e.g. 1/500 sec at f5.6 or F8 but it's just not a razor sharp lens and the same shots of the Kiron 80-200mm (posted previously) were on the same film, so if a zoom can give better/equal results why bother with this Vivitar.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
That's an extremely poor quality scan, IMO. That shot doesn't tell you anything about the rendering of the lens; it looks like the scanner is only capturing a fraction of the density of your negatives. Severely clipped colors and highlights. The whole shot is posterized as if it's a 256 color image. You can probably get much better quality even with the cheapest flatbed scanner that has a transparency module.


Well, let me play the maverick and say that I like the scan Razz I like the contrast. This is film after all, in this digital era it is supposed to have character, not just to mimick the realism of a digital sensor.
I think that the difference between the Vivitar and the Sonnar in the previous pictures is obvious. The Vivitar image simply lacks detail whereas the Sonnar still provided it in spite of the contrasted scan. So I do think that it's the Vivitar that makes the last picture lesser.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
AhamB wrote:
That's an extremely poor quality scan, IMO. That shot doesn't tell you anything about the rendering of the lens; it looks like the scanner is only capturing a fraction of the density of your negatives. Severely clipped colors and highlights. The whole shot is posterized as if it's a 256 color image. You can probably get much better quality even with the cheapest flatbed scanner that has a transparency module.


Well, let me play the maverick and say that I like the scan Razz I like the contrast. This is film after all, in this digital era it is supposed to have character, not just to mimick the realism of a digital sensor.
I think that the difference between the Vivitar and the Sonnar in the previous pictures is obvious. The Vivitar image simply lacks detail whereas the Sonnar still provided it in spite of the contrasted scan. So I do think that it's the Vivitar that makes the last picture lesser.


Wise words and I'm sure you (Orio) with your lenses at the same place and time, would have made all the difference.......I wont be buying expenses lenses at high prices so I'll have to pick the best from the rest, so Sonnar is in, and Vivitar is out.
But every lens can be used for something, and I like this shot with the Vivitar 135mm f2.8


PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Here Vivitar performs better, maybe it's the close focus range.
Good lenses don't necessarily have to be expensive. One would be hard pressed to tell the difference between
a photo taken with a 100 Eur Jena Sonnar 135 and another taken with a 200 Eur Oberkochen Sonnar 135.
What should generally be avoided for safety is the 10 to 50 Euros range, although in there too there are notable stunning exceptions
(such as the Helios-44 or the Jupiter-37AM)


PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 12:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a number of 135s

Pentacon Preset 135/2.8: Quite a good lens, but the softest in my collection. Nice bokeh.
CZJ MC 135/3.5: Sharp, contrasty, nice bokeh and focus is close.
S-M-C Tak 135/2.8: Good all-rounder, but rather boring
Chinon 135/2.8: Small (and that's about it)
Tair 11a 135/2.8: It's like a combination of the CZ & Pentacon with swirly bokeh
And recently an AF lens, Canon 135 F2 L which means that all the above get a lot less use.

I did take the CZJ out last weekend for it's close focussing:
Wide open

IMG_8979 by martinsmith99, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
martinsmith99 wrote:
I have a number of 135s

Pentacon Preset 135/2.8: Quite a good lens, but the softest in my collection. Nice bokeh.
CZJ MC 135/3.5: Sharp, contrasty, nice bokeh and focus is close.
S-M-C Tak 135/2.8: Good all-rounder, but rather boring
Chinon 135/2.8: Small (and that's about it)
Tair 11a 135/2.8: It's like a combination of the CZ & Pentacon with swirly bokeh
And recently an AF lens, Canon 135 F2 L which means that all the above get a lot less use.

I did take the CZJ out last weekend for it's close focussing:
Wide open

IMG_8979 by martinsmith99, on Flickr


Ah! I see you are like most of us here with too many lenses...I keep buying lenses because I can't resist a bargain then waste time checking them out (but I enjoy it Wink ) Wise words from someone was:- don't waste your time (and money) on all these cheap lenses but save up your money until you can buy the best.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2011 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Here Vivitar performs better, maybe it's the close focus range.
Good lenses don't necessarily have to be expensive. One would be hard pressed to tell the difference between
a photo taken with a 100 Eur Jena Sonnar 135 and another taken with a 200 Eur Oberkochen Sonnar 135.
What should generally be avoided for safety is the 10 to 50 Euros range, although in there too there are notable stunning exceptions
(such as the Helios-44 or the Jupiter-37AM)


Although I haven't fully checked out my CZJ Sonnar 135mm f3.5 I'm impressed so far, and as others like the lens as well, someone should enter it into the best of lenses thread (if it isn't there already).


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Well, let me play the maverick and say that I like the scan Razz I like the contrast. This is film after all, in this digital era it is supposed to have character, not just to mimick the realism of a digital sensor.


IMO the poor scan destroyed the character of the film because of a huge contrast and saturation boost. I've rarely seen such an ugly rendering. Smile The posterization makes the kids and the rocks look like cut out 2D figures. Only the water still looks like it has some depth, but the saturation of the reflection of the sky is... Laughing
No offense intended, and I know film is generally not about realism, but I think this is just a one setting fits all method of scanning, designed to make low contrast shots look more attractive, but IMO it has gone horribly wrong with this example because it probably had very high contrast to start with. Fuji Superia is pretty contrasty, from what I remember.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
Orio wrote:
Well, let me play the maverick and say that I like the scan Razz I like the contrast. This is film after all, in this digital era it is supposed to have character, not just to mimick the realism of a digital sensor.


IMO the poor scan destroyed the character of the film because of a huge contrast and saturation boost. I've rarely seen such an ugly rendering. Smile The posterization makes the kids and the rocks look like cut out 2D figures. Only the water still looks like it has some depth, but the saturation of the reflection of the sky is... Laughing
No offense intended, and I know film is generally not about realism, but I think this is just a one setting fits all method of scanning, designed to make low contrast shots look more attractive, but IMO it has gone horribly wrong with this example because it probably had very high contrast to start with. Fuji Superia is pretty contrasty, from what I remember.


Artistic licence? come on the shot is not a complete disaster, and my grandson will never be in that place again at that age Wink


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Artistic licence? come on the shot is not a complete disaster, and my grandson will never be in that place again at that age Wink

No, it's not, but it can be improved. And if you have the negative then of course it can be scanned again. I agree with AhamB to an extent, I don't understand why the contrast and saturation has been pushed so far. I had a go at reducing them, you can probably do a lot better yourself


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Artistic licence? come on the shot is not a complete disaster, and my grandson will never be in that place again at that age Wink

No, it's not, but it can be improved. And if you have the negative then of course it can be scanned again. I agree with AhamB to an extent, I don't understand why the contrast and saturation has been pushed so far. I had a go at reducing them, you can probably do a lot better yourself


Hi...this is what is on the CD scanned by the supermarket, I think the shots are always bright and maybe it's because the machine is set up mainly for prints.



PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Even though it's a little too bright, that version is a lot better than the first. It still has all the detail you need. Sorry if you did that one yourself, I didn't mean to offend. You can reduce the brightness very easily with Levels, just slide the middle pointer to the right a little.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 06, 2011 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Even though it's a little too bright, that version is a lot better than the first. It still has all the detail you need. Sorry if you did that one yourself, I didn't mean to offend. You can reduce the brightness very easily with Levels, just slide the middle pointer to the right a little.


Peter don't worry about offending me about my shots, as I'm thick skinned...the Vivitar 135mm f2.8 didn't give me something extra special when I needed it and the neg is not thin so the exposure was correct....just wished I had taken my Canon 135mm f3.5 instead. Sad but the sonnar is looking good Cool


PostPosted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Hi...this is what is on the CD scanned by the supermarket, I think the shots are always bright and maybe it's because the machine is set up mainly for prints.

Thanks for showing that; that looks much more reasonable. I think it's fine as it is actually (if it was taken in bright mid-day sun).
If you like your boosted version that's perfectly fine of course. The subjects just look rather alien in it. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On test shots (on film) comparing the CZJ Sonnar 135mm 3.5 and Fuji 135mm f3.5 EBC and Sun 85-210 @135mm at about 80-100 yards using a tripod....and my Sonnar loses for sharpness erm it would seem it's only useful for near shots . This sun zoom is so good it's difficult trying to see a difference on a computer screen comparing it with a fuji EBC 200mm.
AAMOI I could never understand the thread about setting the lens to infinity being important as my Fuji 135mm lens is so far out that "in focus" at about 100 yards in the viewfinder shows about 20ft on the lens scale, and the lens stops way short of infinity.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 12:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm disappointed in the sonnar for initial test but although on a tripod there might have been some sort of camera shake (maybe bad focus). Anyway I'm going to retest against the Fuji ebc 135, Meyer 135, Canon FD 135mm, super Tak 135 and maybe Yashica ML 135mm...it's not a waste of time for me as when I want to use a 135mm lens, I want to know the best lens to take with me for sharpness, pop and bokeh (maybe I can get all three in one lens . Wink )

The overall scene for tests, in this example it's the Fuji 135mm f3.5 EBC and all scanned with Epson v750 at 4800dpi (which means about 2400dpi in the real world) film is Fuji superia 200.


Crop of Fuji 135mm f3.5........ the picture would be about 4.5 ft wide.


Crop of sonnar 135mm f3.5........ the picture would be about 4.5 ft wide.


Crop of sun 85-210 f4.5@135mm........ the picture would be about 4.5 ft wide.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3