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

Twelve 2.8/135mm lenses compared on 5DmkII
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Vivitar one touch 70-150/3.8 is not a bad lens, it's only lacking a bit of contrast (not surprising for a zoom lens).


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
The Vivitar one touch 70-150/3.8 is not a bad lens, it's only lacking a bit of contrast (not surprising for a zoom lens).


Indeed it is good, for example:-in my close up tests it was up with all my consumer primes like Helios, Canon, Oly and Hexanon...but my copy is not at it's best at 150mm.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My copy of vivitar 70-150mm (serial 22xxxxx) is a very sharp lens....only don´t like the one touch system!


PostPosted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Really nice read up!

I would like to say that the Konica 135mm F 2.5 is a strong contender for beeing a cheap and very, very good 135mm lense.. It has some problems vs direct light, but otherwise the contrast and sharpness is amazing.. I haven't seen many teleportrait lenses as sharp as the Konicas 135mm F 2.5 on my Sony A7..,. And I've tried alot.. Not the most expensive Zeiss lense etc.. and not the Son.. oh wait they haven't made one ofc..

Damnit.. Well, maybe konica and sony go well together with adapters, but I've had really good experiences with most of my Konica lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you!

Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
An oldie but goodie. I see from my post that I was pretty early into this MFL thing; less than two years. Since then, my Series 1 and Tair-11 are still at the top of my list, but Rokkor PF has joined them. Many others, while very good, fall behind due to slower speed or longer minimum focus distance. The Primotar does make it into the bag on occasion for the effects.


PostPosted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Plus one on Konica/Sony a7 marriages.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry for reviving this old thread but I'm in the process of looking for a good 135mm
Is it me or the Sonnar C/Y clearly has better microcontrast compared to the Pentacon preset shown in the first post comparing bokeh under the subtitle "The bokeh thing.."

Reposting the images here for clearer comparison

Pentacon preset


Sonnar C/Y


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 4:19 am    Post subject: Re: Twelve 2.8/135mm lenses compared on 5DmkII Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:


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.


Shocked


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2023 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I remember reading this comparison a few times before, very interesting.

If I'm not wrong the Rolleinar is the same lens as the Mamiya SX. The SX can be obtained for very little money, and is IMO a strong performer: very good wide open. I've never tested the Sonnar 135/2.8, but according to magazine publications the Mamiya/Rolleinar should be very close in this regard.

From multiple tests I did a few 135mm lenses always seem to perform very good:
- Mamiya SX 135/2.8
- CZJ Sonnar (MC) 135/3.5
- Konica Hexanon 135/3.2 (stopped down)

They are all relatively cheap lenses.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3