Vario-Sonnar 35-135 Contax - road test

[Orio]

The other day I took out the Vario-Sonnar 35-135 for a quick "road test". Not scientifical, just impressions from use.

01.
Tested immediately in a strong backlit scene with no hood on. I've been rewarded with a nice orange hexagon ghost. Zoom lenses are dreadful when it comes to ghost reflections and this factor coupled with the huge front glass (82mm) are too much to handle also for the T* if no hood is mounted


02.
In a favorable light condition everything changes and the lens delivers good colours and a nice, quasi-film-like organic quality


03.


04.
This shot was taken with the lens in the "Macro" position


05.
Here a series of macro, the first two are the same subject first wide open then stopped down. In macro mode, the image quality is superb. Bokeh is great at all aperture settings, with a pleasant quasi-impressionist rendering. Colours are full as you would expect from a Contax lens.
Notice how wide open the colour tone is warmer than when the lens is stopped down.


06.


07.


08.


08.
This is a 100% crop from the previous image. The sharpness is not super, but it's adequate, also considering that the picture was taken hand held and in an uncomfortable position. It's the first time that I see a bee wearing Rayban sunglasses.


09.


10.
The barrel distortion at 35mm looks more Sigma than Zeiss


11.


12.
at 135mm the lens performs best in my opinion


13.
There's a reason for the rain, so there is also a reason for f/16!


14.


15.
Another macro


16.
Second try at backlight. When you manage to control the light source (in this case by attenuating with tree leaves), you can control the flare...


17.
... but as soon as you abandon protection, the dreadful orange hexagon is back (no hood on, remember)


18.
Nice work with the greens and tone separation here. Not as crisp as a Contax prime. But good enough.


19.
Backlight translucent leaves. Here the job is done excellently in my opinion. The lens renders well the crisp highlights and maintains a good spacial depth in a difficult situation where flat danger is behind the corner


20.
Another backlit leaves, brilliantly resolved


21.
Wild Cotinus (Smoketree). Not easy to find in wild state! Great discovery. Great Contax colour (no surprise)


22.
Cotinus closeup. Notice the ability of the lens in rendering the different shades of red (not easy with a DSLR). Top rating performance here


23.
Another backlit closeup subject and another great performance. Don't know if you can see those bright tiny spots at this enlargement. May look like dust, but they are gnats.


24.
Landscape in favorable light looks good, however it lacks the "kick" and "punch" of Distagons. I could have optimized the image in Photoshop but I decided to leave it as is to show how the lens renders


Conclusions: it is a nice walkaround lens for people who are not obsessed with size and weight. Sure it's not light and it's not small. But, if you take this lens with you, it's because it's going to be your only lens for the day. You don't take this type of zoom and a bag of other lenses. So in the end carrying this one zoom or 3-4 primes is about the same in weight and size.
QUality wise it's a zoom and so one can not expect the same performance as the primes: it is not as absolutely sharp, it is not distortion-less as the Contax primes, and it does flare when unprotected in backlight.
On the positive side, it has great colours, does a very very nice macro, and it's the lens to take with you when you don't want a bag around, as with 35-135mm range you can cover at least 80% of photograpic situations (and the rest you can manage with stitching or with cropping).
Would I use this lens in a professional situation (job) when it's not possible to swap lenses continuously? Yes, with some precautions, a lens hood in primis - but it's the same precautions that you would have to use with any other zoom lenses.
Would I use this lens in a job situation where I could instead swap lenses with ease? No, for as handy as it is, it is no substitute for top quality prime lenses such as Contax.

[ManualFocus-G]

Orio, many thanks for the review of this illusive zoom

Despite the few drawbacks that the lens has, you have managed to take some super images with it...super colours and sharpness...very impressive indeed!

I'm presuming you coupled it with a 5D Mk II? I think it makes a very good travelling combo...

[Orio]

[poilu]

nice reviews, this lens deliver 3D and colors are superb

[Minolfan]

Beautifull environment in very nice pictures.
My experience with such walk around zoom is with a less spectaculair one (Asanuma 45 -150mm 3.5) on film. Overall just too much longer, so I always put an extra 28mm in my pocket. But indead, it can be very relaxed with one easy lens for a trip. Certainly when you have Zeiss quality in your hands!

[LucisPictor]

"Zoom lenses are dreadful when it comes to ghost reflections" you say. OK, but can we accuse them of being bad? I don't think so, they cannot deny the laws of physics. Look at how many lenses there are inside! And you mentioned the huge front lens. I am sure this Zeiss is one of the best "allround" zoom lenses you can find!

"The barrel distortion at 35mm looks more Sigma than Zeiss" you say.
OK, this perhaps shows that the distortion is rather based on lens type than on manufacturer.

Orio, I think everybody (well, almost) would be glad to have such a zoom lens in his bag. I really like your shots!

[Orio]

Minolfan, I agree, 135mm is often all that you need from a walkaround lens, unless you go to places where you really need a long view (Cinque Terre is one of those places, for instance).

In normal situations, I find myself wishing more often to be able to get a 28mm view than to get longer than 135mm.

After all, a 28-85 range is probably more useful as walkaround than a 35-135. Although in the specific case, the Contax 35-135 has a very nice macro feature that the 28-85 lacks, so this makes it more interesting.

One could either take the 35-135 and fit in a pocket the Distagon 2.8/28 (or the 2.8/25), or alternatively, take the 28-85 and a macro lens.
Given the small size of a Distagon 28 or 25 compared to a 60mm Makro-Planar, and given the fact that you lose the 86-135 range, and given that both zooms (the 28-85 and the 35-135) are heavy and bulky, the first solution clearly shows itself as preferable.

[Orio]

Carsten, yes, zoom lenses offer versatility, but I can not ignore the shortcomings in my review. I try to make objective reviews. The large number of elements makes internal reflections easy. There is people who expect to buy a zoom lens and get the same quality than prime lenses. Often commercial reviews let people think into that. I need to open people's eyes into what is the reality: even a top class zoom like Contax can not avoid the problems that are inherent to zooms.

Regarding distortion being related to the type of lens and not to manufacturer, I have to disagree. If you compare the same type of lens made by Contax and made by Sigma, you will see Contax almost always (I'd say "always" but I don't want to sound extremist) have better distortion performance. This because it's the company's philosophy to take care about that. While Sigma does not care about that, they care about offering the sharpest possible autofocus lenses at the cheapest possible price, thinking that most of the amateur photographers they aim their products at, don't really care about things like geometric distortion, vignetting, edge performance, etc., they like to have their subject sharp and wallet full and hell with the rest. Ok, I forced the concept a bit but basically that is it.

[patrickh]

Very thorough road trip Orio. Clearly another desirable Zeiss with some (minor) shortcomings. The overwhelming effect as I see it is the beautiful colour emerging from this lens.


patrickh

[Ed28]

I enjoy looking at your photos very nice
I also like your sense of humor (your comments
on the bees wearing rayban)it makes me lol
it shows that you pay attention to minute details
good work please post more photos( by your exotic
lenses)

[AhamB]

Enjoyable series. Thanks for sharing.
The flares you can probably prevent with your hand or a hat held out in front of the lens at the right position, as an improvised lens hood (not very convenient though).

[Orio]

I'm sure that a lens hood will prevent the ghosts, but the purpose was to torture test the lens

[visualopsins]

[stevemark]

... would love to see the Zeiss CY 35-135mm and the Minolta AF 28-135 side-by-side ...

Anyone here from Switzerland here who owns the CY 35-135mm?

S

[hasenbein]

I see no real argument for the 35-135.

The 28-85 is optically better, a bit less unwieldy and has GREAT bokeh. The real rendering king. MFD of only 0.6m.
For the tele focal length you can take the 80-200 which also renders nicely and has more blur potential. Also quasi-macro capability at the longer end.

[marius.zaech]

[paulhofseth]

Orios texts accompanying each picture is an excellent addition to the portfolio; setting an exmple that should be followed by all who post such surveys.

Also, his comments on sunshades are most relevant, all optics should use hoods. The contax metal ones may seem daunting with their variety of adapter rings for the different zoom front thread diamtres. And the planar 50/1,4 ring number 4 is almost as deep as the number 5 for the 100-300. wich goes to show that a deep hood (matching the angle of view) is relevant even for shorter lenses.

p-

[stevemark]