Zeiss 135mm Planar vs Sonnar: a quick comparison

[Nikos]

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.

[Attila]

and 3 or 4 times more expensive

[Nikos]

[Orio]

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).

[Nikos]

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).

[jjphoto]

I like the 135/2.

[poilu]

congrats for your new planar!

[Nikos]

[symphonic]

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!

[agent_cooper]

I would rather accept the apparent softness of the 2.8 sonnar than the purple fringing of the 2.0 planar

[Nikos]

[martinsmith99]

Performance charts may give some info, but real world testing and personal preference are not covered by charts.

[AhamB]

[metallaro1980]

@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.

[Orio]

[Nikos]

[metallaro1980]

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 .... ♥

[Nikos]

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.

[metallaro1980]

[ersatz]

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.

[metallaro1980]

please look my last post ...

[metallaro1980]

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...