| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3221
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 2:26 pm Post subject: little test Nikkor Ai 135/2.8 vs aus Jena MC 135/3.5 |
 |
|
caspert79 wrote:
2 relatively compact 135mm lenses, the Nikkor faster @f/2.8 vs @f/3.5 of the Zeiss.
Nikkor is slightly bigger than the Zeiss, but not by much:
The Nikkor is a bit heavier with 421 gram vs 368. Not a world of difference though.
Bokeh test:
Obviously, the Nikkor is a bit better for subject isolation. Despite the 7-blade aperture, the Nikkor's bokeh balls are not as soft as the Zeiss with 6 aperture blades. At F/4 the difference is quite big, but don't forget that the Zeiss' blades are only folded a little bit, whereas the Nikkor's blades, being a faster lens, are folded significantly more.
Center sharpness test. The subject:
100% crops (Sony A7RII):
The Nikkor is already nice and sharp @ f/2.8.
At other apertures, the Nikkor and Zeiss are both sharp. I would say the Zeiss has sightly better contrast and more vibrant colors.
For some reason the f/4 shot of the Nikkor looks a bit better than the f/5.6 shot. Maybe there was some vibration of the tripod.
I did a corner test as well, but I noticed the Zeiss was a bit better one corner and the Nikkor in another corner. It is very hard to put the camera exactly perpendicular to the bookshelf, so probably my mistake. Corners were pretty good on both lenses though, already wide open.
Conclusion: off course this test is limited, but in my tests they perform both quite equally. The Zeiss offers softer bokeh, slightly more vibrant colors and a bit more contrast. But the Nikkor is very close, and offers more speed in a quite similar sized package. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
HansMoleman
Joined: 12 Jul 2019
Posts: 158
Location: MD USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HansMoleman wrote:
Thanks. First thing I noticed was color difference. Then the bokeh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3221
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| HansMoleman wrote: |
| Thanks. First thing I noticed was color difference. Then the bokeh. |
Yes there is a color difference. But don't look too much at the color of the christmas lights: they are blinking on and off. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018
Posts: 841
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
Nice comparison. I would say Zeiss' photo really stands out, for its color contrast. I was surprised to see the lower contrast by Nikon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3221
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| vivaldibow wrote: |
| Nice comparison. I would say Zeiss' photo really stands out, for its color contrast. I was surprised to see the lower contrast by Nikon. |
Yes, I'm also a bit surprised. I think the Nikkor is not the very best at anything, but just really good at everything (mechanical quality, ergonomics, optical quality, size, performance wide open). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4078
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:52 pm Post subject: Re: little test Nikkor Ai 135/2.8 vs aus Jena MC 135/3.5 |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
I did a corner test as well, but I noticed the Zeiss was a bit better one corner and the Nikkor in another corner. It is very hard to put the camera exactly perpendicular to the bookshelf, so probably my mistake. Corners were pretty good on both lenses though, already wide open.
|
That's why I usually test my lenses at infinity.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3221
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: little test Nikkor Ai 135/2.8 vs aus Jena MC 135/3.5 |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| caspert79 wrote: |
I did a corner test as well, but I noticed the Zeiss was a bit better one corner and the Nikkor in another corner. It is very hard to put the camera exactly perpendicular to the bookshelf, so probably my mistake. Corners were pretty good on both lenses though, already wide open.
|
That's why I usually test my lenses at infinity.
S |
Yes, absolutely the best way, but it was raining the whole day here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vivaldibow
Joined: 23 Jun 2018
Posts: 841
Expire: 2021-03-09
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
| vivaldibow wrote: |
| Nice comparison. I would say Zeiss' photo really stands out, for its color contrast. I was surprised to see the lower contrast by Nikon. |
Yes, I'm also a bit surprised. I think the Nikkor is not the very best at anything, but just really good at everything (mechanical quality, ergonomics, optical quality, size, performance wide open). |
The AIs 135mm f/2.8 has a very good reputation on the internet. I got a copy but didn't test it. Your post led me to get a Zeiss, which I have been longing for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3221
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| vivaldibow wrote: |
| caspert79 wrote: |
| vivaldibow wrote: |
| Nice comparison. I would say Zeiss' photo really stands out, for its color contrast. I was surprised to see the lower contrast by Nikon. |
Yes, I'm also a bit surprised. I think the Nikkor is not the very best at anything, but just really good at everything (mechanical quality, ergonomics, optical quality, size, performance wide open). |
The AIs 135mm f/2.8 has a very good reputation on the internet. I got a copy but didn't test it. Your post led me to get a Zeiss, which I have been longing for. |
Yes, It's quite an excellent lens for the price. I also like it has half-stop aperture control.
I like the Nikkor, don't get me wrong, but maybe its wonder status (and average selling price) is a bit exaggerated. I would like to see some other comparisons with 135mm lenses, like Canon and Minolta. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zamo
Joined: 08 Feb 2019
Posts: 168
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Zamo wrote:
I am surprised to see MarÃa Dueñas close to GarcÃa Márquez. She would be proud...  (in fact, she is a friend of my wife, she should mention it to her!).
As for lenses... I prefer the colors of the Zeiss in the bottle pics, but I am not sure if the difference in back lightning (Christmas lights) makes the camera change colors a bit. Sharpness, etc, I would not tell the lens apart in real situation pictures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2536
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
The Zeiss is a Sonnar and Sonnars are great.
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3221
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| Zamo wrote: |
I am surprised to see MarÃa Dueñas close to GarcÃa Márquez. She would be proud... (in fact, she is a friend of my wife, she should mention it to her!).
As for lenses... I prefer the colors of the Zeiss in the bottle pics, but I am not sure if the difference in back lightning (Christmas lights) makes the camera change colors a bit. Sharpness, etc, I would not tell the lens apart in real situation pictures. |
Fun to hear My wife is Argentinian, hence the Spanish literature.
I agree with you I’m splitting hairs here. You could make great pictures with both lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4078
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
I like the Nikkor, don't get me wrong, but maybe its wonder status (and average selling price) is a bit exaggerated. |
As I said before (in another thread) I've never been using the Nikkor AI/AiS 2.8/28mm. That said, I would be very surprised if it was really better than say the Canon nFD 2.8/135mm, the different Minolta MD 2.8/135mm, let alone the Zeiss CY 2.8/135mm.
Besides this, many good tele zooms from 1980-1985 (eg Canon 4/80-200 L, Minolta 4/70-210, Nikkor AiS 4/80-200, Zeiss CY 4/80-200) are clearly bettter at f=135mm (less CA, less distortion) than the corresponding 2.8/135mm lenses from the same manufacturer!
| caspert79 wrote: |
| I would like to see some other comparisons with 135mm lenses, like Canon and Minolta. |
Me too 
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2536
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
Here is the optical design of the ai 135/2.8
#1
The Pre ai Nikkors have a more sonnarlike design with big glass element but not a cemented group
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1662
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Perhaps the differences were more subtles if the comparison was between the zeiss and the 135/3,5 nikkor (4/4). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3221
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
Here is the optical design of the ai 135/2.8
#1
The Pre ai Nikkors have a more sonnarlike design with big glass element but not a cemented group
|
I’ve never tried the pre-ai, is it nice? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2536
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
| Quote: |
I’ve never tried the pre-ai, is it nice? |
Wouldn't know because I can't use Nikkors so I don't collect them. I have to wait for my K-1 to die before I go mirrorless :p
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4078
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
| Quote: |
I’ve never tried the pre-ai, is it nice? |
Wouldn't know because I can't use Nikkors so I don't collect them. I have to wait for my K-1 to die before I go mirrorless :p |
Not necessarily. You may get a used A7 for as little as CHF / EUR 350.--, and use it with almost any vintage lens.
I'm also using DSLRs and mirrorless in parallel.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2536
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| D1N0 wrote: |
| Quote: |
I’ve never tried the pre-ai, is it nice? |
Wouldn't know because I can't use Nikkors so I don't collect them. I have to wait for my K-1 to die before I go mirrorless :p |
Not necessarily. You may get a used A7 for as little as CHF / EUR 350.--, and use it with almost any vintage lens.
I'm also using DSLRs and mirrorless in parallel.
S |
True bit if I had wanted an A7 or A7II I would already be mirrorless. I think with the A7 III it matured enough but then I already had a K-1. (And I want more than 24mp so something like the A7R III, Nikon Z 7 or Panasonic S1R. That will drive up the price)
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11058
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 20, 2021 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Wow that's a well worn collection of literature!
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix
Joined: 30 Apr 2017
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2021 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
fiftyonepointsix wrote:
I have the compact 135/2.8- will have to test against the 135/3.5.
I need to find the sheets that came with them. The 135/2.8 went from 4 elements to 5 ~1976. I have both versions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 1662
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 23, 2021 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
| fiftyonepointsix wrote: |
I have the compact 135/2.8- will have to test against the 135/3.5.
I need to find the sheets that came with them. The 135/2.8 went from 4 elements to 5 ~1976. I have both versions. |
The 135/3,5 went from 4/3 to 4/4.
I had both. Great little lenses. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
