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

Three times 135mm (now with PART 2!!)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:29 pm    Post subject: Three times 135mm (now with PART 2!!) Reply with quote
Tuesday! Office day! The only day with a lunch break!

Today's break I used to compare three lenses at 135mm.

"Contenders, are you ready?" (Remember?)

From left: Carl Zeiss Super-Dynarex 4/135; Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4/135 1Q (later version); Soligor C/D 3.5-5.6/35-200 MC Macro
(The UV filter on the Sonnar does not have a glass inside, it just works as a kind of hood.) Wink

"Standard" development from RAW with exposure adjustment, resizing and slight resharpening. Crop-pictures are not sharpened!

1. Soligor Zoom @ 135mm, wide open (about f4.5)

100% crop


2. Carl Zeiss Super-Dynarex 4/135

100% crop


3. Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4/135 (later version)

100% crop


I have also brought the Jupiter-11 4/135 but I have forgotten to bring a M42-EOS-adapter. Embarassed So, no pictures here.

>> I think the Sonnar is a little ahead of the Dynarex. What do you think?

The Soligor zoom lens does, of course, not play in the same league, but it performs not too bad. It is a very nice and versatile lens with an excellent macro functionality and a creamy bokeh. Look at this:


Last edited by LucisPictor on Tue May 20, 2008 4:48 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hallo!
The soligor is so bright in the green, but not worse. The others are better ans equal, I can´t see a difference. .. Wait ... After a study the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 4/135 (later version) seems a little bit sharper in the greenery.
Superb lens.

Thank you Carsten.

respectfully Peter


PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 6:33 pm    Post subject: Re: Three times 135mm Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:

>> I think the Sonnar is a little ahead of the Dynarex. What do you think?

The Soligor zoom lens does, of course, not play in the same league,


Not at all in the same league; the backlit leaf edges are a smeary mess. The Sonnar is indeed a little ahead of the Dynarex.

A comparison with your Nikkor-Q.C Auto 3.5/135 would be interesting, particularly as you suspect they have a common design heritage.


PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rats! I have been ignoring that Sonnar for some time now - perhaps it should go on the "sooner" list. Thanks Carsten

patrickh


PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
patrickh wrote:
Rats! I have been ignoring that Sonnar for some time now - perhaps it should go on the "sooner" list. Thanks Carsten


Laughing

And it is one of the cheapest Zeiss lenses you can find. Wink


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hi. The Sonnar seemed to be the best. The Super dinarex is very good performer too. It's a Carl Zeiss lens- with the 4 elements design of voigtlander for his Bessamatics and Ultramatics -manufactured by Zeiss for the Icarex (class B - consumer- equipment, the A -professional- was the contarex with the sonnar 135 mm F/4, and the planars and the distagons). Remember that in 1968 Zeiss purchased Voigtlander and produced the 45 mm pantar (3 elements, zeiss design) 50 mm tessar (4 elements, zeiss design and remplaced the voigtlander's 4 elements skopar), 90 mm dinarex (4 elements voigtlander design) 135 mm super dinarex (4 elements voigtlander design) 200 mm telonar (the improvened to the super dionarex of voigtlander, reeally a good lens), the 400 mm and the ultron 50 mm 1,8 (7 elements, but not with the traditional 4 rear elements, but 4 front with the first concave). That's my recollection. Sorry for the mistakes. Juan


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm,

I should test my Olympus Zuiko 135/3.5 vs Takumar 135/2.5


PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2008 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I should test my Olympus Zuiko 135/3.5 vs Takumar 135/2.5


I vote for Oly in advance Smile


PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Quote:
I should test my Olympus Zuiko 135/3.5 vs Takumar 135/2.5


I vote for Oly in advance Smile


I don't know about the 135/2.5 Tak but I have a 135/3.5 SMC Tak and it's a hell of a sharp lens


PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zuiko's are amazing.

The Zuiko @ f/3.5 destroys the Tak @ f/2.5

However I think the Tak @ f/5.6 may be sharper than the Zuiko @ f/5.6, that was in changing lighting conditions, ill have to do a proper test...

Nothing quite like zuiko colour Smile


PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zuiko, excelents lenses. Sure, the Z 3,5 win. The tak 2,5 is good, indeed, but the tak 3,5 is sharper. The 135 F/3,5 are sharper and contrastier than the 135F/2, F/2,5 and F/2,8. Exception: Canon 135 F/2 L. In the 3,5, for me, they are all Very Good or better (Zuikos, S.Taks, Sonnars, Nikons, Elmars M -this like an apo lens). The Zuiko is small design, no? YOU ARE LUCKY. What si the best F, 4? 5,6? 8?. Please, tell us. Thank you.


PostPosted: Sat May 17, 2008 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
3.5/135mm SMC or SUPER Takumars are better lens than 2.5/135mm equivalent lenses.


PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 12:52 pm    Post subject: my 135mms Reply with quote
Well I reshot my 3 135mms the other day. I'll get samples up soon but in terms of sharpness it looks to be a draw. I saw a slight difference in color and shadow detail and that is about it. So the little Tak SMC 135/3.5 held it's own against a Contax Zeiss 135/2.8 and a Leica R 135/2.8.


PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2008 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
Zuiko, excelents lenses. Sure, the Z 3,5 win. The tak 2,5 is good, indeed, but the tak 3,5 is sharper. The 135 F/3,5 are sharper and contrastier than the 135F/2, F/2,5 and F/2,8. Exception: Canon 135 F/2 L. In the 3,5, for me, they are all Very Good or better (Zuikos, S.Taks, Sonnars, Nikons, Elmars M -this like an apo lens). The Zuiko is small design, no? YOU ARE LUCKY. What si the best F, 4? 5,6? 8?. Please, tell us. Thank you.


think f/5.6 is best on this lens.

On my G.Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 though, it achieves sweet spot/max sharpness at f/4, which completely beats down the canon ef 50mm f/1.8 @ f/4 Very Happy


PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Part 2...

The contenders this time:


Olympus Zuiko 3.5/135 | Nikkor-Q.C 3.5/135 | CZJ Sonnar 4/135 (winner first round) | Jupiter-11 4/135

All shots wide open!

1. CZJ Sonnar 4/135


non-sharpened crop

2. Nikkor-Q.C 3.5/135 (pre-AI)


non-sharpened crop

3. Olympus Zuiko 3.5/135


non-sharpened crop

4. Jupiter-11 4/135



My rankings:

Crispiness:
1. Nikkor-Q.C 3.5/135
2. CZJ Sonnar 47135
3. Olympus Zuiko 3.5/135 (A little suprise, perhaps slightly misfocussed.)
4. Jupiter-11 4/135

CAs:
1. Jupiter-11 4/135
2. Nikkor-Q.C 3.5/135
3. CZJ Sonnar 4/135
4. Olympus Zuiko 3.5/135

OoF area: (That's very hard to tell...)
1. Jupiter-11 4/135
2. CZJ Sonnar 4/135
3. Nikkor-Q.C 3.5/135
4. Olympus Zuiko 3.5/135

Post-producability: Wink
1. Nikkor-Q.C 3.5/135
1. CZJ Sonnar 4/135
3. Olmypus Zuiko 3.5/135 (due to the considerable CAs)
3. Jupiter-11 4/135 (due to the slight lack of details)

Overall impression:
1. Nikkor-Q.C 3.5/135
2. CZJ Sonnar 4/135
3. Olympus Zuiko 3.5/135
3. Jupiter-11 4/135 (a draw)

This was not surprising to me:
- The Nikkor and the Sonnar are very good lenses.
- The Jupiter-11 is really close to the "newer" ones, but it lacks a little sharpness.
- Each of these 135mm lenses performs well. Each shot can be used and optimised.
- Almost no distortion on a crop cam.

This was surprising to me:
- Quite heavy CA in the Zuiko picture. (Really a surprise!)
- Visible CAs in each shot.
- Zuiko loses against the Nikkor and CZJ. I thought it to be on one level! I have a much better impression of the Zuiko lens than this comparison shows.


PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nice test but you should place crop side by side in horizontal for easy compare

Carsten wrote:
This was surprising to me

that doesn't surprise me, my oly 135 3.5 is my worst 135
on center it's good but not border for sharpness and CA
I also don't like the results in real shots


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the test. Yes, the nikkor and the CZJ are the bests and I think tha if compare both with all the 135's in the market, the result will be the same (excep for the canon L 2/135 and elmar-M 4/135, this in the middle focus distance - not close focus - as with all M's lenses and cameras).
In the nikkor and CZJ differences, both are close for my, and in my taste I like the global image of the CZJ. Endeed, nikkor is super too. Continues with the tests, you do it very weel.


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, I have read several times that the EF 2/135 L is a really excellent lens.
But look at the price tag! Shocked You can easily get all of the three best manual focus 135mm lenses for the same money.


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
EF 2/135 L

Friend of mine has this lens and CZJ 135mm f3.5 he said Canon reach Jena quality Smile


PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
EF 2/135 L

Friend of mine has this lens and CZJ 135mm f3.5 he said Canon reach Jena quality Smile

Laughing Twisted Evil Wink


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Yes, I have read several times that the EF 2/135 L is a really excellent lens.
But look at the price tag! Shocked You can easily get all of the three best manual focus 135mm lenses for the same money.


I would not hesitate to call my CZ Planar 135/2.0 one of the best manual focus 135mm lenses. Too bad you can't get three of those for the same money...


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dickb wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
Yes, I have read several times that the EF 2/135 L is a really excellent lens.
But look at the price tag! Shocked You can easily get all of the three best manual focus 135mm lenses for the same money.


I would not hesitate to call my CZ Planar 135/2.0 one of the best manual focus 135mm lenses. Too bad you can't get three of those for the same money...


No, but I think it is still considerably cheaper than the EF 2/135L, isn't it?


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
this is the best 135 today Smile
Zeiss 135 1.8


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
this is the best 135 today Smile
Zeiss 135 1.8


This might easily be true. But for this you also have to add the costs of a nice Sony DSLR. Laughing


PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
dickb wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
Yes, I have read several times that the EF 2/135 L is a really excellent lens.
But look at the price tag! Shocked You can easily get all of the three best manual focus 135mm lenses for the same money.


I would not hesitate to call my CZ Planar 135/2.0 one of the best manual focus 135mm lenses. Too bad you can't get three of those for the same money...


No, but I think it is still considerably cheaper than the EF 2/135L, isn't it?


Sorry, think again Smile Try locating a decent example for less than €800. Some nice ones on eBay right now, anywhere between $1380 and $3140 (well, that's a special 60 years edition offered by the famously bargain-priced photo-arsenal Smile )
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2