Pixel peeping my 135mm 3.5 lenses

[connloyalist]

This morning it is a beautiful, clear and sunny day. A perfect opportunity to do some testing on my 135mm 3.5 / 4.0 lenses (mostly I wanted to recheck my Minolta MD 135mm 3.5, an MDIIb version)..

So for this comparison I picked the Minolta MD 135mm 3.5, Olympus OM 135mm 3.5 (EDIT: this is a version 2 of the lens, a "blacknose"; single coated), Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm 4.0 (aluminum version, pre-zebra) and a narrow zebra Albert Schacht 135mm 3.5. I would have included my Schneider 135mm 3.5, but being an Edixa lens it doesn't quite focus to infinity for me.

I tested all lenses by taking a picture of a building about 700 meters from my balcony (the building used to be an office building. They stripped it down to bare concrete to turn it into apartments, but ran out of money so it is still grafiti'ed bare concrete). Pics were taken at f/3.5, 4 if available, 5.6 and 8. Camera is an Olympus E-M1 Mk.III. This is a M4/3 camera, so corner sharpness and vignetting isn't really an issue with these full frame lenses.

Sharpness.
In terms of sharpness I anticipated the winner would be the CZJ, in spite of it being 20 or so years older than the MD and OM. As I look at it, wide open it beats everything else. Yes, the CZJ is f/4 while everything else is f/3.5. Stopped down to 5.6 it is a close run thing, but I still give the edge to the CZJ. In second place, the MD. Loser is clearly the Schacht which is much worse.

CA's.
To my eyes, wide open the winner is the CZJ. Slightly to my surprise, in second place the Schacht. MD and OM about the same. Stopped down to 5.6, things change. I would rate the CZJ and MD about the same. The OM and the Schacht both still show some purple fringing here.

Color and contrast.
Here for me the MD is the winner, followed by the Schacht. Both of these show a light blue sky with puffy white clouds, while in the OM and CZJ there is barely a distinction between the sky and clouds and it looks more or less light gray. EDIT: The CZJ and OM are both single coated. The MD is multi coated. Don't know what the Schacht is but considering it is a 1960's lens I assume single coated.

The take away from this for me is that I will be using my Minolta MD more whenever I feel I need a 135mm lens. On the other hand, if sharpness and CA faster than f/5.6 is critical then nothing beats the CZJ.

If anyone wants me to post crops from these pictures, let me know and I will see what I can do

Regards, Christine

[visualopsins]

I'd love to see the photos and crops if you have the time!

[connloyalist]

This is the overall scene. The building is a bit of an eye sore, but makes for a good lens testing subject

This first picture is actually the Minolta MD 135mm @f/5.6. Keep in mind that this is a M4/3 camera, so in full frame terms this is an equivalent focal length of 270mm. The "Super Fine" *.jpg I get out of my camera is too large for the forum, so I had to open the raw file in my camera app and resave it as "Fine" to make it smaller



Next, crops from center of all four camera's, wide open.



Same, at f/5.6



Regards, Christine

[Doc Sharptail]

Contrast is pretty flat on the Schacht. Is it hazed/fungused?

The early single coatings can vary widely in terms of performance.
The two single coated lenses I have here are fairly prone to flare as well, and one is a 135mm.

-D.S.

[connloyalist]

[caspert79]

Thanks for sharing your findings. Yes, the Sonnar 135/4 is very sharp. Hard to beat wide open (also in the corners on FF, provided that you have a lens that’s not decentered). The 135/3.5 is about equally good, and you can get a MC version as well. I did quite some testing with different 135’s, and the Sonnars (f/3.5 & f/4) consistently gave excellent results.

Two other lenses to consider:

- The Nikkor ai 135/3.5, which really surprised me and is my current favourite 135. Very sharp and contrasty from corner to corner, and great bokeh.
- The Hexanon 135/3.2. Focuses closer than usual, and once stopped down a little, it gets razor sharp.

[visualopsins]

Is that a seabird?

[connloyalist]

[DaveNJ]

How would a Konica do in this comparison?

[visualopsins]

[DaveNJ]