Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135mm f/2.8 lens

Hi,

I do not agree on your comment on the minimum focussing distance of the Carl Zeiss 2.8/135. I find it an excellent lens for portraiture as it is, unless you want a tight head crop of a child. Moreover, at 1.6 m it offers exactly the same cross section in the object plane as the 2.8/85 and the 1.4/85 at 1.0 m. Hence a choice should be based on working distance or perspective, but not on maximum magnification.

Walrus

This was one of the first Zeiss lenses I owned and found it to be a very versatile little lens for general nature and landscape photography if one also included extension tubes and the MutarII 2x in the camera bag. Its performance wide open with the MutarII is as good, if not better, than the 300f4 stopped down to f5.6. Using all 3 Contax extension tubes give magnification of a not-too-shabby 1/2 life size. Throw in the fact that it is small and light and takes the same 55mm filters as short Zeiss lenses and you have a great value for the dollar from Zeiss. I don't own it anymore only because it was replaced by other lenses, but it was certainly valued for its utility during the several years when I only owned this lens, a 28mm and a 50mm. I'm still satisfied looking at photos taken using it with extension tubes and the MutarII.

Two things: First, 1.6m minimum focus is not that bad at 135, and if it's a problem, this lens performs *extremely* well on extension tubes -- I've used it heavily for macro in the past. Second, I want to add that I find this lens to be top notch optically, despite its low price.

For what it's worth, the focal length calculator here calculates a minimal focussing distance of 5.5 feet at 137mm focal length lens at 35mm to fill the frame with an object 1.4feet tall.

That's about a head-and-shoulders crop.Doesn't do a tight half-head-and-eyes crop.

Does anyone have images from this lens? I'm curious about its bokeh performance. Thanks.

-Jon

Well, I've had this lens for about 6 months now, and up until now I haven't found a use for it.

The minimum focus is really not SO significant. It'll handle a head-shoulders-waist crop easily, which is a nice substitute to a 180/2.8, because it gets some of the nice background blur. The bokeh is really quite nice, too.

More importantly, it seems to do beautifully on extension tubes. A 7.5mm tube will get you in just closer to get to fill a head-shoulders crop, and a 25mm tube (actually a Vivitar 2x TC with the glass taken out) will get a close enough crop to just get hairline-to-above-chin. And it performs _admirably_ -- very sharp corner to corner.

This is in direct contrast to the 85/1.4 Planar, which is utterly beautiful by itself, but gets really really quite soft on any extension. It's not a bad thing, especially for portraits and flowers, but it might not be what you're looking for.

HTH.

-jon

I think the 135mm focal length is better suited for landscape or general nature photography.

The 135/2.8 doesn't make the right color some time.It has the tendency with Yellow Color.

As for the application potential of the 135mm/2.8 Sonnar, it is obviously a matter of taste but to follow with this thread, I'll state for the record that this is my portrait lens of choice and there is something to be said for keeping a few feet back from your model. I find that it is far less threatening than being a mere meter from their face. The 1.6 meter minimum focus distance is absolutely not a problem in my course of work. This lens is SHARP! Even when blown up to 20x24!

I have this lens and appreciate the excellent quality I get from it but, it is hard to objectively judge one's own pictures. I thought they looked pretty sharp and contrasty but that could just be my own ego. However, I did get an objective assessment. I had gone to our local Zoo here in Toronto armed only with my Contax 167MT and the 135mm lens. I had the film developed at a new camera shop close to my work. When I came in to pick up the shots the technician came out from the back to ask me what camera and lens I had used. He then opened up the package and showed ME his favorites of MY shots. He must see thousands of shots every day for dozens of cameras but the shots from this lens made him take notice!!

Ive been using this lens for almost 4 years now w/ subjects ranging from portraiture,architecture,and landscapes. Its a great lens! Minimum focusing is in the same ratio as 85mm 1.4.

The Zeiss Sonnar 135 had been tested in Germany by Color Foto some years ago. It was better than all competitors, Nikon, Leica, Canon,... I use a small auto extention tube for portraits to reduce the minimum distance and for me that works just fine.

Another viable alternative is the Yashica (YUS) 135/2.8. I have had nothing but excellent results from mine.

I own this beautiful lens now for 10 years and I am still very happy with it. One of the best camera related buys I ever made (together with the RTS2). For portraits, using it at f/2.8 to 5.6 sets the subject nicely loose from the background with a wonderful bokeh. Closing it further makes this lens excellent for landscapes as well. I recommend this lens to any contax reflex user. Frank

I own this lens since '99. Before I used the Yashica ML 138/2.8, but the Zeiss 135/2.8 is by far better, expecially fully open. This is the first amazing thing: even at fully open diagphram the images are very sharp. In this condition it's remarkable the progressive passage from in-focus to out-of-focus, it give a kind of very nice 3D feeling. I made some enlargement up to 14x and I have been always surprised how small details jump out. The colors are natural, the distorsion almost not visible. The lens is pretty heavy and this help in keep the vibration down (I made some pics at 1/30!). The builtin sun-shade is very handy too.

I'm considering this lens for use on a 'now new' Sony A77 and whatever replaces the A700 or possibly the upcoming A950?. It has received the highest ratings of any other CZ/ZA lens. Sure wish it had the old 1998~1999 pricing! It was a true steal back then. Today, it's one of the most expensive of the CZ lot. Oh well. ~Dan