Oly 75mm and Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 on OM-D5...initial take

Here's a quick & dirty comparison of my Oly 75mm and Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 (1990s Yashica/Contax mount version) lenses on my OM-D5. Taken this morning--camera mounted on tripod, IBIS turned off, ISO 200, daylight color balance, timer delay--while I had some time to kill. Totally mundane subject matter...sorry. These are from JPEGs with just a touch of sharpening and a saturation nudge via Photogene on my iPad.

First the Oly, at f/4.0 (IMO the optimum aperture for maximizing DOF without degrading resolution):

Now here's a full-res crop (or as close to full-res as Photogene allows) showing the AF point. I used the manual focus rectangle at its smallest size (14x mag.), which also works in AF mode (thanks to the folks who figured this out!). You can almost read the word "WARNING!":

Now here's the Zeiss, at f/2.8 rather than my intended f/5.6...I'll explain this below. Manually focused:

Full-res crop. You can clearly make out the "WARNING!" but the text below it isn't legible. You can also read the numbers at top center on the metering device:

My take is that when doing out & about photography I'd happily leave the 135 in the bag and just crop the 75 to taste. But there's a bit more...

I shot with the Zeiss at f/5.6 too, to get roughly the same DOF as the Oly at f/4.0, but didn't use the photo due to what looks like shake-induced blurring. At first I thought it was focus shift, but my results with focusing at the taking aperture were no better. I know the tripod is stable...took some crisp 15-second shots indoors a few days ago with a Nikon 28mm shift lens. There was no wind to speak of and I was on solid ground. Now the Zeiss isn't that much heavier than the Oly 75, but it is quite front-weighted...I suspect the lens/camera combo is wiggling a tiny bit, either at the lens mount or (much more likely IMO) at the quick-release plate mount. I'm using the Novoflex adapter, which feels rock-solid at both the camera and lens mounts. The exposure time at f/5.6 must be just slow enough to reveal the wiggling. Of course it's possible the f/2.8 shot is slightly degraded too. I'll have to dig into this, including using IBIS with the camera on the tripod to see if it helps.

-Dave-

The Ziess seems to have quite a bit of purple fringing at f/2.8

It would be interesting to see the two at the same equivalent field of view, i.e. taken from different spots with the 75mm almost twice as close.

LincolnB wrote:

The Ziess seems to have quite a bit of purple fringing at f/2.8

Yep, it's there. Stopping down pretty much kills it, though.

It would be interesting to see the two at the same equivalent field of view, i.e. taken from different spots with the 75mm almost twice as close.

My strong suspicion is that the Oly would kick its butt.    I was motivated to do this particular comparison after reading another thread here, where the original poster used the Oly and then did a significant amount of cropping to get the final image. The thread seems to have got sidetracked, but I think the poster's approach has merit. The 75 is one of the best lenses I've ever owned. I've been nothing but seriously impressed with it from day one.

-Dave-

Skeeterbytes wrote:

Hi Dave,

Thanks for taking the time to conduct the experiment and post these. I have the Zeiss lens but sadly, no 75 Zuiko [sniff]. I've only fiddled with the 135 on my E-M5 (handheld, IS set for 135mm) and my early results were at least promising. The rig balances well when supported by the lens and the focus action is quite smooth. But I need to take it out and experiment some more before declaring it worth hauling routinely.

You're welcome. My handheld results have been fine & dandy too. No weirdness when stopping down, and IBIS allows for some ridiculously slow apertures with crisp results.

Will be interested to see the results of your futher experiments.

I'll try IBIS with the tripod first. Also, I was using my small Manfrotto ball-head with its small-ish QR plate. Might have to break out the bigger head with the Arca-Swiss QR instead.

p.s. Whatever happened to retracting lens hoods? Handiest thing ever.

Yeah, that's one of the things I like about the Zeiss 135. If I were to seriously use it on the OM-D5 I'd probably go with a long screw-in metal hood instead, though...might as well block as much side-light as possible.

-Dave-

David Kieltyka wrote:

Here's a quick & dirty comparison of my Oly 75mm and Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 (1990s Yashica/Contax mount version) lenses on my OM-D5. Taken this morning--camera mounted on tripod, IBIS turned off, ISO 200, daylight color balance, timer delay--while I had some time to kill. Totally mundane subject matter...sorry. These are from JPEGs with just a touch of sharpening and a saturation nudge via Photogene on my iPad.

First the Oly, at f/4.0 (IMO the optimum aperture for maximizing DOF without degrading resolution):

Now here's a full-res crop (or as close to full-res as Photogene allows) showing the AF point. I used the manual focus rectangle at its smallest size (14x mag.), which also works in AF mode (thanks to the folks who figured this out!). You can almost read the word "WARNING!":

Now here's the Zeiss, at f/2.8 rather than my intended f/5.6...I'll explain this below. Manually focused:

Full-res crop. You can clearly make out the "WARNING!" but the text below it isn't legible. You can also read the numbers at top center on the metering device:

My take is that when doing out & about photography I'd happily leave the 135 in the bag and just crop the 75 to taste. But there's a bit more...

I shot with the Zeiss at f/5.6 too, to get roughly the same DOF as the Oly at f/4.0, but didn't use the photo due to what looks like shake-induced blurring. At first I thought it was focus shift, but my results with focusing at the taking aperture were no better. I know the tripod is stable...took some crisp 15-second shots indoors a few days ago with a Nikon 28mm shift lens. There was no wind to speak of and I was on solid ground. Now the Zeiss isn't that much heavier than the Oly 75, but it is quite front-weighted...I suspect the lens/camera combo is wiggling a tiny bit, either at the lens mount or (much more likely IMO) at the quick-release plate mount. I'm using the Novoflex adapter, which feels rock-solid at both the camera and lens mounts. The exposure time at f/5.6 must be just slow enough to reveal the wiggling. Of course it's possible the f/2.8 shot is slightly degraded too. I'll have to dig into this, including using IBIS with the camera on the tripod to see if it helps.

-Dave-

Nice comparison Dave.

I also have the 75mm and a m42 version of the CZJ 135mm but the f3.5 version.  I did a brief comparison a few weeks back between the following:

Helios 44M 58mm f2
Helios 81H 50mm f2
Olympus 45mm f1.8
Industar 61 LZ 50mm f2.8
CZJ 135mm f3.5
SMC Takumar 135mm f3.5
Olympus 60mm f2.8 Macro
Olympus 75mm f1.8
Pentacon 50mm f1.8

The CJZ is surprisingly sharp.

CZJ 135mm f3.5 M42 @ f3.5

Hi, I have the screwmount Zeiss Jena 135mm too. It's a really good lens, and a lot lighter than the f/2.8 version. And like the f/2.8 it has a built-in hood! Very nice for travel. I thought about including it with the Oly 75mm and the Contax-mount Zeiss, but decided not to as I know its performance is pretty much identical to the f/2.8 at same apertures. Its color rendition is just a touch cooler.

-Dave-

David Kieltyka wrote:

Hi, I have the screwmount Zeiss Jena 135mm too. It's a really good lens, and a lot lighter than the f/2.8 version. And like the f/2.8 it has a built-in hood! Very nice for travel. I thought about including it with the Oly 75mm and the Contax-mount Zeiss, but decided not to as I know its performance is pretty much identical to the f/2.8 at same apertures. Its color rendition is just a touch cooler.

-Dave-

Interesting to know that the performance is pretty much the same as the f2.8.  It also just shows how good the Oly 75 is.  Its an amazing lens isnt it.