View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:41 pm Post subject: Zeiss 135mm Planar vs Sonnar: a quick comparison |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
I had some difficulty getting satisfactory results from my 2/135.
So I did a quick comparison, just to make sure my 2/135 Planar is OK and that (as expected) the problem is the photographer.
I took a few shots of an ISO resolution chart from a distance of 3 meters.
These are 100% crops from in-camera JPEGs without any post-processing.
The target is 50x75 cm in size:
Of course there is much more to comparing two lenses than a resolution chart. Nevertheless, you may find it interesting.
I think I have not made any serious mistake in taking these shots.
The exposure was exactly the same for both lenses.
Planar @ f/2.8
Sonnar @ f/2.8
Planar @ f/4
Sonnar @ f/4
I think the Planar has clearly the upper hand. It also better in terms of distortion. _________________ Νίκος • www.diafragma.gr
Cameras: Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Sony α7R, Sony NEX-5N
MF lenses:
SLR:
Canon TS-E 17mm f/4, Zeiss 2.8/21 ZE, Zeiss 2/28 Contax, Zeiss 2/35 ZE, Zeiss 1.4/50 Contax, Zeiss 1.4/85 Contax, Zeiss Makro 2/100 ZE,
Zeiss 2/135 Contax, Zeiss 2.8/135 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300 Contax, Zeiss F-Distagon Rollei, Canon FD 24mm f2, Minolta MD Rokkor 35mm f2.8
Rangefinder:
Zeiss 4.5/21 C Biogon ZM, Zeiss 2/35 Biogon ZM, Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 Heliar L39, Leica Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90mm, Zeiss 2/45 Contax G, Zeiss 2.8/90 Contax G, Canon 50mm 1.8 LTM
AF lenses: Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, Canon 70-200 f/4 L, Canon 300 f/4 L IS, Canon 100 f/2.8 macro
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
and 3 or 4 times more expensive _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
Attila wrote: |
and 3 or 4 times more expensive |
And, what's worse, 2 times the weight |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
As first thing, you need to consider that Zeiss lenses are optimized for infinity. A resolution chart at 3 mt. distance is not going to bring the best out of the lenses.
The difference in performance at f/2.8 is obviously due to the fact that the sonnar is wide open, while the planar is stopped down. At f/4, the performances are closer, although at the edges the planar is better (do you have a MM Sonnar or AE Sonnar?)
The Planar shows the typical purple fringing that it displays at high contrast edges. This rarely affects real pictures because the planar is a lens that is usually used in low light situations, or in studio situations, where you control the lighting. In bright sunlight, and for landscapes, the Sonnar is a more convenient performer.
Finally I have to say that my copies of the Sonnar 135 perform better than what I see here also at closeup. Maybe you don't have a lucky copy. Try replacing it with another copy, of MM type (AE sonnar 135 have lower edge performance). _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
Orio, my Sonnar is MM type.
I am very happy with its performance. Else I would have chosen another lens to compare the Planar to.
In another quick test I found the Sonnar sharper than the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II, which is an impressive lens.
Perhaps quality control got worse in the end of the Contax line (S/N is 8.0XX.XXX).
However, a resolution chart is a very tough target.
Perhaps it is not very safe to compare lenses without photos of the same target.
To give you an example, I would never believe that the edges of the 2/35 ZE at f/2 are so much better than the Vario-Sonnar 35-70 at f/3.4.
The Vario-Sonnar does not stop to amaze me every time I use it. But I took the photos myself and the Vario-Sonnar
looks (comparatively) like a cheap Sigma zoom (of course the ZE has very annoying vignetting and a lot of CA). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jjphoto
Joined: 17 Mar 2009 Posts: 414
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
jjphoto wrote:
I like the 135/2.
Last edited by jjphoto on Sat Mar 16, 2013 1:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
congrats for your new planar! _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
poilu wrote: |
congrats for your new planar! |
Thank you!
As soon as I get interesting photos outdoors, I will post here. _________________ Νίκος • www.diafragma.gr
Cameras: Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Sony α7R, Sony NEX-5N
MF lenses:
SLR:
Canon TS-E 17mm f/4, Zeiss 2.8/21 ZE, Zeiss 2/28 Contax, Zeiss 2/35 ZE, Zeiss 1.4/50 Contax, Zeiss 1.4/85 Contax, Zeiss Makro 2/100 ZE,
Zeiss 2/135 Contax, Zeiss 2.8/135 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300 Contax, Zeiss F-Distagon Rollei, Canon FD 24mm f2, Minolta MD Rokkor 35mm f2.8
Rangefinder:
Zeiss 4.5/21 C Biogon ZM, Zeiss 2/35 Biogon ZM, Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 Heliar L39, Leica Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90mm, Zeiss 2/45 Contax G, Zeiss 2.8/90 Contax G, Canon 50mm 1.8 LTM
AF lenses: Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, Canon 70-200 f/4 L, Canon 300 f/4 L IS, Canon 100 f/2.8 macro
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
symphonic
Joined: 23 May 2010 Posts: 550 Location: SE Europe, Croatia
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
symphonic wrote:
Nice test, thx for sharing! I also like to look at infinity tests (landscape comparisons) more then resolution charts, not just because, as Orio points out, CZ lenses are optimized for it, but because it's more interesting.
And also, I found out that when you want to get a better sense of the performance of great lenses like these, you have to conduct a series of tests and only then come up with a final conclusion, there are just too many factors in it.
Looking forward to seeing some real-world samples from your Planar! _________________ Toni,
EOS 450D
CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5 MC | Pancolar 50/1.8 MC
Contax Planar 50/1.4 AEJ | Contax Sonnar 135/2.8 AEJ
Yashica ML 28/2.8 | Zuiko 28/3.5
Vivitar Series1 105/2.5 OM
AF: Tokina 12-24 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
agent_cooper
Joined: 06 Oct 2010 Posts: 139 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
agent_cooper wrote:
I would rather accept the apparent softness of the 2.8 sonnar than the purple fringing of the 2.0 planar _________________
MF: Samyang 3.5/8mm Fisheye, Komine Vivitar 1.9/35mm, Komine Vivitar 2.8/90mm 1:1 macro
CCCP: Helios 44-4, Helios 40-2.
ZUIKO: 2.8/35mm, 1.8/50mm
ZEISS C/Y: 2.8/25 MM, 1.4/50 MM, 1.4/85 MM, 2.8/135 MM.
TILT&SHIFT:Canon 3.5/24mm TS, Arax 2.8/80mm TS.
AF: Canon 1.8/85mm, Tokina zoom 2.8/11-16mm, Tokina zoom 2.8/28-70mm Canon zoom 70-300mm.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
symphonic wrote: |
And also, I found out that when you want to get a better sense of the performance of great lenses like these, you have to conduct a series of tests and only then come up with a final conclusion, there are just too many factors in it.
|
Like I said, this was intended as a quick test to verify that my Planar is optically sound.
In this forum, we usually talk about the character of a lens. This can never be observed in resolution charts... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008 Posts: 6950 Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
Performance charts may give some info, but real world testing and personal preference are not covered by charts. _________________ Casual attendance these days |
|
Back to top |
|
|
AhamB
Joined: 22 Jun 2008 Posts: 733 Location: Germany
|
Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
AhamB wrote:
nkanellopoulos wrote: |
Perhaps quality control got worse in the end of the Contax line (S/N is 8.0XX.XXX).
However, a resolution chart is a very tough target.
Perhaps it is not very safe to compare lenses without photos of the same target.
To give you an example, I would never believe that the edges of the 2/35 ZE at f/2 are so much better than the Vario-Sonnar 35-70 at f/3.4.
The Vario-Sonnar does not stop to amaze me every time I use it. But I took the photos myself and the Vario-Sonnar looks (comparatively) like a cheap Sigma zoom (of course the ZE has very annoying vignetting and a lot of CA). |
I've only heard very positive things about the 80xxxxx serial Contax lenses.
With regard to the VS 35-70: I've seen a test that shows that at medium distance the VS 35-70 has better corners even than the Z* Makro-Planar 50/2 at apertures until f/5.6. I have the feeling that the copies of this lens are quite variable though. Some are not aligned correctly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metallaro1980
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 Posts: 385 Location: West Emilia - Fidenza (PR) 43036 - Italy
|
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
metallaro1980 wrote:
@nkanellopoulos
could you take a picture of a mountain with Planar and the same with Sonnar?
so we can see the microcontrast.
again it is better to see the differences in pictures where there are a lot of details. _________________
Olympus OM: 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.8 Made in Japan
Contax: 50 1.4, 85 1.4
Zeiss: 135 2.0 Apo-Sonnar ZE
Leica-R: 180 3.4 Apo-Telyt-R (Leitax)
Rollei QBM: 135 2.8 Rolleinar (Leitax), 50 1.4 HFT
Canon: 50 1.8, 40 2.8
M42: Helios 50 2.0, Jupiter-37A, Jupiter-21 200 4.0
Binocular: Hensoldt & Wetzlar DF 8x30
http://andreaverdi.altervista.org/ Vivaldi lives in my lenses.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
metallaro1980 wrote: |
@nkanellopoulos
could you take a picture of a mountain with Planar and the same with Sonnar?
so we can see the microcontrast.
again it is better to see the differences in pictures where there are a lot of details. |
At the widest aperture, the Sonnar has more contrast.
This of course can be easily explained by the 1 stop maximum aperture difference and by the large front glass of the Planar which has trouble controlling the flare caused by the incoming light.
This is also immediately controllable if you compare the wide open 10 cycles/mm lines of the MTFs published by Zeiss here:
http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/5ED01EB620D0B1CEC12570F80033CADA
The 10 cycles/mm line of the Sonnar 135 approaches the 0,9 value already at wide open, and stays basically the same through all the apertures (with only a small physiological increase at the optimal aperture of f/5.6)
The same line in the Planar 135 starts under the 0.8 value.
At f/5.6 the two lenses are virtually identical, with only a more pronounced falling curve of the tangential line in the Planar MTF, caused by the higher spherical aberration.
The Sonnar 135 is a very under rated lens in the Contax catalogue. This is really difficult to explain with anything else than a "fashion factor".
Of course the Planar is a fantastic value in low light, or when you need to blur the background.
But in full sunlight, the Sonnar performs just as well, and it's more portable. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
Orio wrote: |
The Sonnar 135 is a very under rated lens in the Contax catalogue. This is really difficult to explain with anything else than a "fashion factor".
Of course the Planar is a fantastic value in low light, or when you need to blur the background.
But in full sunlight, the Sonnar performs just as well, and it's more portable. |
My results fully confirm what you say Orio!
The MTF was my motivation to buy the Sonnar...
In a quick test I found the Sonnar to be sharper than the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS from Canon, which is a very sharp lens (and costs 2200 Euros). I think I got my Sonnar (mint) for $200. It is a really great value. _________________ Νίκος • www.diafragma.gr
Cameras: Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Sony α7R, Sony NEX-5N
MF lenses:
SLR:
Canon TS-E 17mm f/4, Zeiss 2.8/21 ZE, Zeiss 2/28 Contax, Zeiss 2/35 ZE, Zeiss 1.4/50 Contax, Zeiss 1.4/85 Contax, Zeiss Makro 2/100 ZE,
Zeiss 2/135 Contax, Zeiss 2.8/135 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300 Contax, Zeiss F-Distagon Rollei, Canon FD 24mm f2, Minolta MD Rokkor 35mm f2.8
Rangefinder:
Zeiss 4.5/21 C Biogon ZM, Zeiss 2/35 Biogon ZM, Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 Heliar L39, Leica Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90mm, Zeiss 2/45 Contax G, Zeiss 2.8/90 Contax G, Canon 50mm 1.8 LTM
AF lenses: Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, Canon 70-200 f/4 L, Canon 300 f/4 L IS, Canon 100 f/2.8 macro
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
metallaro1980
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 Posts: 385 Location: West Emilia - Fidenza (PR) 43036 - Italy
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
metallaro1980 wrote:
the mtf of sonnar 2.8/135 and planar 2/135 are not equal
the 40 cycles/mm curve and 20 cycles/mm curve of planar 2/135 are more high than sonnar (@5.6)
i like the sonnar but one thing... a very good fashion lens is the apo-lanthar 3.5/90 SL2 .... ♥ _________________
Olympus OM: 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.8 Made in Japan
Contax: 50 1.4, 85 1.4
Zeiss: 135 2.0 Apo-Sonnar ZE
Leica-R: 180 3.4 Apo-Telyt-R (Leitax)
Rollei QBM: 135 2.8 Rolleinar (Leitax), 50 1.4 HFT
Canon: 50 1.8, 40 2.8
M42: Helios 50 2.0, Jupiter-37A, Jupiter-21 200 4.0
Binocular: Hensoldt & Wetzlar DF 8x30
http://andreaverdi.altervista.org/ Vivaldi lives in my lenses.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nikos
Joined: 17 May 2010 Posts: 1077 Location: Greece
Expire: 2015-01-02
|
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nikos wrote:
metallaro, stop whipping that poor smiley! What has it done?
One good thing about the 135mm Planar that we have not mentioned is that it has negligible vignetting wide-open.
This is not the case with many other f/2 lenses from Zeiss. _________________ Νίκος • www.diafragma.gr
Cameras: Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Sony α7R, Sony NEX-5N
MF lenses:
SLR:
Canon TS-E 17mm f/4, Zeiss 2.8/21 ZE, Zeiss 2/28 Contax, Zeiss 2/35 ZE, Zeiss 1.4/50 Contax, Zeiss 1.4/85 Contax, Zeiss Makro 2/100 ZE,
Zeiss 2/135 Contax, Zeiss 2.8/135 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70 Contax, Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 100-300 Contax, Zeiss F-Distagon Rollei, Canon FD 24mm f2, Minolta MD Rokkor 35mm f2.8
Rangefinder:
Zeiss 4.5/21 C Biogon ZM, Zeiss 2/35 Biogon ZM, Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 Heliar L39, Leica Tele-Elmarit 2.8/90mm, Zeiss 2/45 Contax G, Zeiss 2.8/90 Contax G, Canon 50mm 1.8 LTM
AF lenses: Canon 15mm f/2.8 Fisheye, Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, Canon 70-200 f/4 L, Canon 300 f/4 L IS, Canon 100 f/2.8 macro
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
metallaro1980
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 Posts: 385 Location: West Emilia - Fidenza (PR) 43036 - Italy
|
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
metallaro1980 wrote:
nkanellopoulos wrote: |
metallaro, stop whipping that poor smiley! What has it done?
One good thing about the 135mm Planar that we have not mentioned is that it has negligible vignetting wide-open.
This is not the case with many other f/2 lenses from Zeiss. |
I saw more vignetting with Canon 1.8/50 (wide-open) than Planar 1.4/50 (wide-open)...and maybe you can understand my avatar! _________________
Olympus OM: 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.8 Made in Japan
Contax: 50 1.4, 85 1.4
Zeiss: 135 2.0 Apo-Sonnar ZE
Leica-R: 180 3.4 Apo-Telyt-R (Leitax)
Rollei QBM: 135 2.8 Rolleinar (Leitax), 50 1.4 HFT
Canon: 50 1.8, 40 2.8
M42: Helios 50 2.0, Jupiter-37A, Jupiter-21 200 4.0
Binocular: Hensoldt & Wetzlar DF 8x30
http://andreaverdi.altervista.org/ Vivaldi lives in my lenses....
Last edited by metallaro1980 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ersatz
Joined: 29 May 2010 Posts: 45
|
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
ersatz wrote:
Now post some images from both so we can compare rendering. I don't care if both are wide open or at 2.8 but I'd like to see how the bokeh compares. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metallaro1980
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 Posts: 385 Location: West Emilia - Fidenza (PR) 43036 - Italy
|
Posted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
metallaro1980 wrote:
please look my last post ... _________________
Olympus OM: 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.8 Made in Japan
Contax: 50 1.4, 85 1.4
Zeiss: 135 2.0 Apo-Sonnar ZE
Leica-R: 180 3.4 Apo-Telyt-R (Leitax)
Rollei QBM: 135 2.8 Rolleinar (Leitax), 50 1.4 HFT
Canon: 50 1.8, 40 2.8
M42: Helios 50 2.0, Jupiter-37A, Jupiter-21 200 4.0
Binocular: Hensoldt & Wetzlar DF 8x30
http://andreaverdi.altervista.org/ Vivaldi lives in my lenses....
Last edited by metallaro1980 on Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:08 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
metallaro1980
Joined: 10 Sep 2009 Posts: 385 Location: West Emilia - Fidenza (PR) 43036 - Italy
|
Posted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
metallaro1980 wrote:
for me .. the shot with Sonnar @ f/2.8 is a bit wrong focus
if you compare this @ f/2.8 with http://forum.mflenses.com/test-contax-sonnar-135-2-8-vs-canon-70-200-f-2-8l-is-ii-t32415.html @ f/2.8 .....
is my impression but the numbers are more clear...
_________________
Olympus OM: 28 2.8, 35 2.8, 50 1.8 Made in Japan
Contax: 50 1.4, 85 1.4
Zeiss: 135 2.0 Apo-Sonnar ZE
Leica-R: 180 3.4 Apo-Telyt-R (Leitax)
Rollei QBM: 135 2.8 Rolleinar (Leitax), 50 1.4 HFT
Canon: 50 1.8, 40 2.8
M42: Helios 50 2.0, Jupiter-37A, Jupiter-21 200 4.0
Binocular: Hensoldt & Wetzlar DF 8x30
http://andreaverdi.altervista.org/ Vivaldi lives in my lenses.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|