Previous news story    Next news story

Roger Cicala compares Zeiss and Canon 135mm f/2 lenses

By dpreview staff on Apr 29, 2013 at 19:24 GMT

LensRentals' Roger Cicala has published an interesting comparison of the Zeiss ZE 135mm F2 APO-Sonnar and the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM lens, with both optics mounted on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II. While you'd expect nothing less than excellent results from the Zeiss optic, just what advantages can the heavier and much more expensive lens offer compared to Canon's well-regarded prime lens?

Comments

Total comments: 87
peterdix
By peterdix (11 months ago)

what is lens peaking?? I've canon 500d with 55-250 zoom I very often take pics manualy focused and the red "in focus" diode lights up when it is in focus

0 upvotes
JamesPTao
By JamesPTao (10 months ago)

Am not familiar with the term but would assume it would mean checking focus while stopping down the lens to the aperture you are shooting with. I have to do this with my Zeiss 50mm f1.4 between f2 and f4 due to focus shift. This guarantees your focus is dead on for lens with focus shift.

0 upvotes
tom sugnet
By tom sugnet (11 months ago)

Bokeh seems nicer on the Canon:
http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/APO-Sonnar-135mm-f2-Review

0 upvotes
tom sugnet
By tom sugnet (11 months ago)

expensive

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JamesPTao
By JamesPTao (10 months ago)

Quality usually is. Plus this lens has a lot of glass and the casing is metal not plastic. When you hold one the build quality is impressive. When you use one you're sold on Zeiss.

0 upvotes
bronxbombers4
By bronxbombers4 (8 months ago)

Zeiss seems to be fully APO and those often do cost a lot.

0 upvotes
white shadow
By white shadow (5 months ago)

Agree with JamesPTao.

You do not know what you are missing until you have tried it. I wish Zeiss make their EF mount lenses earlier than 2008.

The neutral colour, superb micro-contrast or "3-D" effect, clarity, brilliance, high built quality and better centre to edge sharpness are some of the hallmark of a Zeiss lens. In short, it is in a class of its own only to be match sometimes by Leica.

You really get what you pay for. Just too bad some may find it slightly more expensive.

There are not many true APO lenses around. Enjoying this is a rare moment. By the way, those APO often claimed by Sigma in many cases are not real.

Its like fine dining verses fast food.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 13 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Gary Dean Mercer Clark
By Gary Dean Mercer Clark (Apr 30, 2013)

In order for me to use a manual focus lens, I'd have to use the lens peaking on my Sony A77. Otherwise, it is a futile effort as there are not manual focusing screens on the DSLRs today, so unless your camera has lens peaking, shooting with a manual lens could be a problem.

2 upvotes
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Apr 30, 2013)

The Zeiss is better, I'm sure - at more than twice the price of Canon but I prefer the one that I can focus easily ;)

1 upvote
yabokkie
By yabokkie (Apr 30, 2013)

AF, and fast AF is an integral part of lens performance. it's easier to design an MF lens and it's very difficult to get that resolution for most realtime shots so a very expensive lens for a narrow range of applications.

looking forward to "135/2 Canon vs Nikon"

though I'm not interested in alpha mount, I think they should market top class lenses as Sony and entry-level ones as Zeiss.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
JamesPTao
By JamesPTao (10 months ago)

To state that it is easier to design a manual focus lense vs an auto-focus lens when talking about an apochromatic lens clearly shows you have no idea what you are talking about. I wonder if you know what an apochromatic lens is. Although I am a fan of Sony I would never put Sony above Zeiss...Even Sony doesn't. Even with their poi t and shoots Sony lens dictate the lower end while presence of a Zeiss lens dictates it is a higher end lens. Please have some clue of the subject at hand before commenting. I would understand not having the patience, skill, or need for a manual lens..bit they do have their purpose. Since f5.6 is usually around the highest quality (resolution) a lens offers focusing and taking advantage of the resolution would be easy. Try reading on focusing on the gate, or ask a Hasselblad film master using manual MF lens how to do it.

1 upvote
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (Apr 30, 2013)

Canon will most assuredly close the price gap with a ver. II model in the next few years. That's the comparison I'll want to see. I purchase all of my Zeiss lenses in the Nikon mount so that I can use them on my Canon rig with adapter if I so desire. This one goes on the list but it's pretty far down. Too many other lenses are needed before this one i.e. the 25/2 & 100 Makro (which I hope to find used in the older ZF mount) plus assorted C&N AF models.

1 upvote
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Apr 30, 2013)

Some images would be nice to accompany this review.
But the outcome was not unexpected, newer, more expensive lens is sharper etc.

But they are for very different markets so the comparison only really serves to offer bragging rights.

"mines sharper ar f2"

"Mines got AF"

blah blah...

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
SRT3lkt
By SRT3lkt (Apr 30, 2013)

Both are outdated lenses.

0 upvotes
Jahled
By Jahled (Apr 30, 2013)

And my month's patience with stupidity on DPreview is exhausted. I'll try again next month

11 upvotes
Rocker44
By Rocker44 (Apr 30, 2013)

Haha

You run into B3tans in the strangest places!

Comment edited 25 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
AlephNull
By AlephNull (Apr 30, 2013)

The Canon 135mm f/2L has been around a long time. The only calls for its replacement appear to be from those who want IS on it.

This was the first L prime I bought. I still use it. The other two L primes that rival it are the 85mm f/1.2L (double the price), and the 200mm f/2L (over five times the price).

I'd like to see a Sigma Art 135mm (f/1.8 would be nice), but I want it in Nikon mount for a D800E. I'll keep using the Canon 135L.

1 upvote
Petka
By Petka (Apr 30, 2013)

I had the first Canon 135 f/2 in late seventies or early eighties, my favorite ice hockey lens with pushed Tri-X... Good for portraits, too. Nikkor 135 f/2 DC is not a bad lens either even it is also an old design, actually it is the only one which shows no change when turning lens correction on and off in Lightroom.

1 upvote
JamesPTao
By JamesPTao (10 months ago)

I would agree if this was the contax 135, even though that lens has a gorgeous bokeh, nut this is not a direct conversion of that lens. Apochromatic is not dated nor is a manual lens. Zeiss has always had a very 3d feel to their images (to use extremely non-technical words). This lens is more than one would expect. As far as the Canon, great lens as well, but you are right a version II update would be nice.

1 upvote
starwolfy
By starwolfy (Apr 30, 2013)

What a review ! I've seen nice charts. :/

1 upvote
Tower
By Tower (Apr 30, 2013)

The people use lens for the job. As its does job better NO matter Z or C. If allowed post process in software, they all can get close result. To me Canon is for job, Zeiss is for fuzzy! I have over 10 Zeiss for job, but for candid shots I use only Japanese lens from Canon. Before pressed shutter. You should know what you are doing.

0 upvotes
Peter KT Lim
By Peter KT Lim (Apr 30, 2013)

Today if Zeiss are Sogoood, than they no need to be a third party lens maker, where is their proud Contax Camera? Clearly show their product is not competitive in today environment.

It is a laugh that today still got some great lenses discovery master post their so call expert experience on site telling Z is good and C is not so good.

0 upvotes
Donald Chin
By Donald Chin (Apr 30, 2013)

In general Z is definitely better than C! :-)

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (Apr 30, 2013)

Making a camera today is very different than it was back in the film days of Contax cameras. Back in the film days, all you really had to do was make the body to hold the film. These days, with digital cameras, it's a lot more complicated and the investment in developing cameras is many, many, many times higher because it's not just a matter of sticking a roll of film inside the camera. Now, cameras have very sophisticated electronics (sensors, processors, etc.) that are responsible for capturing the image...much more complicated than just loading film. That's why a company like Zeiss is sticking with making lenses in the digital age.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
ZhanMInG12
By ZhanMInG12 (Apr 30, 2013)

Because despite their achievements in optics, they don't have a single clue about electronics. Zeiss can't even do AF for Sony...They design the optics and Sony figures out the rest for ZA lenses.

0 upvotes
bossa
By bossa (Apr 30, 2013)

Would you expect Albert Einstein to make you a Pizza?

4 upvotes
tongki
By tongki (Apr 30, 2013)

and that makes Sony still stupid,
been trying Sony body, yaiks, disgusting performance,
slow AF, wrong auto WB, slow recycle and often overheat flash,
stupid hotshoe design lots of miss firing flash
and that's in top of the line A900 with Zeiss lenses

0 upvotes
Rick Knepper
By Rick Knepper (Apr 30, 2013)

There were many reasons I chose not to bite on the A900 at release or in the used market after it was discontinued even though I really wanted something to mount the CZ 24-70 AF zoom on. You confirmed several more reasons. The A900 was Sony's first attempt at a pro body and goofs can be expected. I'm just wondering if Sony will ever give it another try.

0 upvotes
beckmarc
By beckmarc (Apr 30, 2013)

Zeiss decided in the early 1970s to concentrate on their core business - optics. In the post war period zeiss ikon (their camera division) only made a profit in one year. The contax name was licensed by Kyocera and they made the cameras until they ceased production of cameras in 2005. it is a common business strategy to focus on what you are good at and Zeiss have done this very well - they are profitable. I would love a digital Zeiss Ikon contax rangefinder with the old contax lens mount to compete with the Leica m but i think it is not going to happen for the reasons T3 points out

2 upvotes
Peter KT Lim
By Peter KT Lim (Apr 30, 2013)

Yes I expect Einstein to make Pizza ! If Cannon can make lenses and camera sell to millions, and Zeiss are very good better than Canon, why they only can be a third party lenses maker ?
This clearly show that their technology is out and behind, every day thousands of pro photographer they depend on Canon and Nikon, they all use original lenses, why they DON'T switch to Zeiss?
I also discover a bunch of so call photographer, every time when we meet they will tell me how good is Zeiss lenses, Leica lenses and M9....but none yes none of them they own or use Zeiss or Leica.

1 upvote
Peter KT Lim
By Peter KT Lim (Apr 30, 2013)

Yes, " it is a common business strategy to focus on what you are good at and Zeiss have done this very well - they are profitable."
Today Zeiss is a third party lenses manufacture for DSLR and OEM Nokia smartphone camera lenses maker....

0 upvotes
JamesPTao
By JamesPTao (10 months ago)

Canon L lens are high quality and very nice. To state that Zeiss is outdated or non-competitive is hilarious. Why would hasselblad shooters still use Zeiss lens on 45,000 medium format cameras if they are dated. Obviously you have never used a Zeiss lens for any length of time.

0 upvotes
jhinkey
By jhinkey (Apr 29, 2013)

Sigma is rumored to have the 135/1.8 sometime this year AND Nikon has a patent on a 135/1.8 IF AFS VR and likely will come out with this lens in order to compete. So it's good that we'll all have some choices in the fast 135/2 department somewhat soon.

The Zeiss 135/2 certainly looks outstanding and the lack of AF does not bother me for what I do - outstanding wide open performance across the entire frame is what I like to see (just like the 100/2 MP).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
Light Pilgrim
By Light Pilgrim (Apr 30, 2013)

I think Sigma is not for FF, correct?

0 upvotes
Petka
By Petka (Apr 30, 2013)

Why not, they have the "Art series" for FF, the first one is the 35mm f/1.4, which is the sharpest lens tested so far and I can attest it is amazing even full open.

Too bad Lensrentals did not include the venerable Nikkor 135 f/2 DC in the comparison, it is not bad either, but possibly in the need of update considering how good the best primes are getting.

2 upvotes
mgrum
By mgrum (Apr 30, 2013)

Light Pilgrim - you're thinking of the 18-35 f/1.8, which admitedly is only one number away from the 135 f/1.8!

1 upvote
kewlguy
By kewlguy (Apr 30, 2013)

@Petka - 135 DC is not bad, but it's a dated design too. It's more expensive than the Canon but has much more
CA and so-so sharpness wideopen

0 upvotes
Boris
By Boris (Apr 30, 2013)

I own both the Canon 135f2 and Nikon 135f2DC for many years. the Canon is sharper wide open with good contrast while the Nikkor is sort of dreamy wide open with lower contrast which is appealing for boutique type head shots....Canon is quicker to AF by far.

0 upvotes
Gionni Dorelli
By Gionni Dorelli (Apr 29, 2013)

I have used both lenses for years, taking beauty and fashion photos.
The Sony Zeiss has an edge on the Canon on about any aspect of photography.
The Zeiss is also faster at focusing in low light.
In studio, under modeling lights, sometime the Canon never stop hunting where the Zeiss just works fine.

3 upvotes
Chez Wimpy
By Chez Wimpy (Apr 29, 2013)

The Zeiss is faster at focusing...?

12 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 29, 2013)

He thinks is the Sony 135mm f1.8 for A-Mount. Its a different design.

3 upvotes
Gionni Dorelli
By Gionni Dorelli (Apr 30, 2013)

Yes I'm sorry, I was reading this on my iphone and I though it was the Sony ZA 135mm 1.8.

0 upvotes
tongki
By tongki (Apr 30, 2013)

faster AF in lowlight ?
compare to what ?
compare to Canon EF 135mm f/2 ?
I don't think so, Sony stupid in making camera body

0 upvotes
Edward Sargent
By Edward Sargent (Apr 30, 2013)

Tongki has no bias here

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Markas
By Markas (11 months ago)

Believe it or not, I found the Sony ZA 135mm F1.8 outperform the EF 135 F2, yep a screw drive AF beats USM, not to mention the bokeh/CA is way better the canon version too..

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 29, 2013)

While I admire Roger's expertise, this seems to be one of those reviews that tell you what you already know. Both lenses are extremely good, one costs less and has AF.

2 upvotes
Light Pilgrim
By Light Pilgrim (Apr 29, 2013)

I actually always prefer a review from people that are using gear to produce great images. This is something that always inspires. All the resolution and other chart will never tell you much really. The comfort of using the lens, ability to rely on nailing the focus time and time again...this is what makes a difference.

3 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 29, 2013)

I get that this is a comparison test, but I prefer the review tests done by Lenstip and Photozone. CA, distortion, resolution, coma and astigmatism, vignetting, bokeh, flare control, are all important if you want to know how a lens performs.

Posting resolution numbers and calling it a day is great for stimulating lively discussions about the sharpness of a lens or two, but there much more to know about a modern optic than line pairs / image height.

5 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (Apr 29, 2013)

The link posted by Mssimo is much more telling than those numbers, especially the bokeh comparison. Too bad that the text is in an an image file,cannot use Google translate.

3 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 29, 2013)

I have my own samples posted on the forums. You need to view at full image 1:1 size to see what it can do. Make sure to look at the end of the post for more current images. Warning...full 36MP images. A bit compressed by dpreview but still good.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51355668

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

In the bokeh comparison you posted the Canon looks much better.

Comment edited 45 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 30, 2013)

The canon is has very low contrast at f2. Some like that look for portraits.

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

Not true, just tried it. You would not be able to say which is f/2, and which is f/4, at least in the center.

1 upvote
Boris
By Boris (Apr 30, 2013)

Not true that the Canon has low contrast at f2!

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (Apr 29, 2013)

Sharpness is not an issue for either lens, the 135L included. Pretty useless test. Bokeh, color, flare, etc., is what matters.

5 upvotes
love_them_all
By love_them_all (Apr 30, 2013)

I concur. A bokeh comparison is in order.

0 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

Check out this: http://cfile7.uf.tistory.com/original/185A4D4E5166FB750181D1, posted by Mssimo.

0 upvotes
mick232
By mick232 (Apr 29, 2013)

Scroll down a little in his blog and read how the Zeiss 70-200/T2.9 video lens is doing against the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II.

1 upvote
xmeda
By xmeda (Apr 29, 2013)

Try 135/2.8 M42 Pentacon with 15 aperture leaves...

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 29, 2013)

Roger took a look at the Zeiss 2/135 Cinema lens. Also has 15 leaves.

0 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 29, 2013)

Yes, but the price of the Pentacon is somewhat more reasonable.

0 upvotes
forpetessake
By forpetessake (Apr 29, 2013)

Both lenses are great at their peak at 5.6-8.0, but at f/2 Canon is pretty lousy, while Zeiss is still pretty good. For most practical purposes Canon is a f/2.8 lens.

7 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (Apr 29, 2013)

Have you ever held one in your hands?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
10 upvotes
plevyadophy
By plevyadophy (Apr 29, 2013)

@Just another Canon shooter

And what difference to the point being made would holding the lens in one's hand make? If the data shows that shooting it at f2.8 is better, I don't see how holding it in your hand makes it any different (unless of course, the warmth from one's hands improves the optics).

6 upvotes
Chez Wimpy
By Chez Wimpy (Apr 29, 2013)

"at f/2 Canon is pretty lousy"

There is a first time for everything

3 upvotes
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

Shooting at f/2.8 with the Zeiss is better, too. Does this make the Zeiss an essentially f/2.8 lens?

1 upvote
billybones1918
By billybones1918 (Apr 30, 2013)

Holding it in your hands is at least part way towards having any experience whatsoever with a lens, of which the OP has none. For Pete's sake, what a Richard Cranium remark!

2 upvotes
bronxbombers4
By bronxbombers4 (8 months ago)

Actually the Canon is one of the best performers for f/2 around. It destroys most other ultra-fast lenses wide open. But the Zeiss is just out of this world, tossing around f/2 as if it were f/2.8 or even f/4.

But 135 /2 IS pretty tough to shoot with today's awful VF screens so the practical end result in many cases could favor the Canon, other for very static slow sorts of work I'd think or used a body that has truly top focusing screens made for it.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
mike kobal
By mike kobal (Apr 29, 2013)

call me old fashioned but since I shoot moving subjects I will take the one with AF ;)

16 upvotes
Richard
By Richard (Apr 29, 2013)

For sure, I plan to keep my Canon 135 2.0 I shoot wide open with it all the time.

2 upvotes
Light Pilgrim
By Light Pilgrim (Apr 29, 2013)

agree.....

0 upvotes
samhain
By samhain (Apr 29, 2013)

I'd take the Zeiss Sonnar 135/1.8

0 upvotes
Peter KT Lim
By Peter KT Lim (Apr 30, 2013)

Today buy a 135mm without AF? Manual more precise? Better quality? Selective focus? Go ahead and try it out - Don't cry

1 upvote
JamesPTao
By JamesPTao (10 months ago)

Before autofocus, photographers still got the shot. It is about knowing your focus range for the five. Aperture and either waiting for the subject to enter it such as a groom walking down the aisle or making sure the subject is already within those parameters. Given that takes skill and practice. Just like before computers in cameras the photographer had to learn light rather than being able to stick it in program (perhaps) mode and clicking the shutter. Learning and developing skill is hard but the rewards cannot be denied. And there were still sport shooters in that era taking great photographs.

0 upvotes
bronxbombers4
By bronxbombers4 (8 months ago)

@James - and back then every camera that people did that with had a huge, bright viewfinder with top notch manual focusing aids in it. It was remarkably easier to manually focus through the VF on those than on say a 5D3 where it's next to impossible (the fixed screens makes half the scene look in focus even with f/1.4 lenses and they don't offer any swappers and even the swappers for the 5D2 were way worse to use than the old ones).

0 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 29, 2013)

Review and comparison: http://lcap.tistory.com/entry/APO-Sonnar-135mm-f2-Review

2 upvotes
ZhanMInG12
By ZhanMInG12 (Apr 30, 2013)

From what I see the zeiss is sharper until 5.6, slightly better color rendering but the bokeh is not as nice. I'll take AF on a DSLR anyday, but the 135APO is a solid piece of work.

1 upvote
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 30, 2013)

Bokeh is subjective. What you see is that the Zeiss is a very well corrected lens with little spherical aberration compared to the Canon. Spherical aberration is a flaw that "looks good" to some people. Nikon did not correct for spherical aberration on the 85mm F1.4G in order to be more forgiving for any subject over the age of 20. What you noticed is real and the Zeiss will render every single skin flaw. Warning..do not zoom in to your wife's face when she is looking over your shoulder.

0 upvotes
slncezgsi
By slncezgsi (Apr 29, 2013)

So even if the Zeiss lens is a bit better optically and mechanically, both lenses are superb and it is matter of personal preferences and purpose to choose one over the other.

Seems like there is no bad choice to be made here :)

11 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 29, 2013)

A bit better is the Nikon 85 f1.4G compared to the nikon 85 f1.8G. The Zeiss 2/135 performs at a different level compared to the Canon. The numbers will look even better on higher resolution cameras like the D800e. As a few have pointed out, canons resolution numbers get better but contrast compared to the Zeiss does not even come close. We are talking about two high end lenses, both are good but only one of them is a world class lens.

2 upvotes
marike6
By marike6 (Apr 29, 2013)

@Mssimo wrote: "Both are good, but only one of them is a world class lens".

Spoken like a true Zeiss fanboy.

The only problem is performance wise, the two lenses are more similar than they are different. f2 is better on the Zeiss. From f4 on the two lenses pretty close. For over $2000 you lose Canon's fast USM motor.

10 upvotes
tirmite
By tirmite (Apr 29, 2013)

Wonder how many people shoot flat objects with a 135mm where the performance wide open in the corners matters? Copy work require a shorter lens. I use this focal length primarily for pictures of people. Couldn't care less if something in the corners was sharp or not. As a matter of fact I wouldn't want it to be sharp. Most of this is academic. I've owned Zeiss ZE's and they are pretty little jewels. But I've ended up selling them and returning to Canon for the fast autofocus while pocketing hundreds of dollars to apply toward other gear. In the case of the 85mm 1.4, it didn't focus as closely to fill the frame with a model's face and even though the 85mm 1.2 is slow, it still almost always focuses faster than manually, letting me concentrate on composition, metering, communicating with the model. i.e.: doing the other things required to get the shot. Spend your money however you wish, but these arguments don't mean THAT much in the REAL world.

12 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 29, 2013)

I have had great Olympus lenses including the 14-54, 12-60 and 50-200mm. Canon 35mm f1.4L, 50mm f1.2L and 85mm f1.2L. Nikon 35mm F1.4G, 50mm F1.4G, 70-200mm VR II. A few of those are still in my current collection. As far as Zeiss, I have three 2,8/15 2/25 and 2/135 (the lens on this article, I had it for a week) I guess you can call my a Olympus/Canon/Zeiss/Nikon Fanboy.The Zeiss is a "World Class lens" it performs wide open to meet the demands of high pixel density cameras like the D7100. It is amazing on my D800e. Yes, it takes quite a bit of skill and/or time to get the focus right but its quite rewarding. A few people are happy with a kit lens, some are happy with a standard f1.8 prime, some pay extra cash for a L lens and if you want something a bit different..that is the market Zeiss serves.
After using the Zeiss 2/135 T* APO Sonnar for a week, I can tell you by my experience, this could the best optics ever made for 35mm. Yes..I did say that and your free to refute my argument

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
rrccad
By rrccad (Apr 29, 2013)

Impressive showing by the 135L 2.0 against the newly developed for digital Zeiss.

I do believe it's canon's oldest L lens came out in 1996, 17 years ago - when high resolution digital cameras were just in bond movies.

Unremarked is that it's still one of canon's fastest AF lenses.

6 upvotes
Mssimo
By Mssimo (Apr 29, 2013)

re: tirmite This year we should get the 56MP D4x and also a high MP Canon. Diffraction becomes an issue as pixels get smaller. Diffraction acts like a AA filter. It starts above f5.6 for cameras like the D7000 and D800e and above f4 for D7100 and others high MP APC sensors. Zeiss is making a lens line to address this issue. They will be big and expensive (around 4k) Objective: High Sharpness and Contrast from f1.4-2. Canon and nikon will have to redesign lenses in order to achieve higher resolution.

1 upvote
Just another Canon shooter
By Just another Canon shooter (Apr 30, 2013)

And screw up the bokeh...

1 upvote
JamesPTao
By JamesPTao (10 months ago)

Non macro lens do not have a flat focusing field that is the point of a macro lens.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 87