Zeiss 135mm F2 APO on Nikon D810

[Shangri La]

Deleted. Sorry.

 

[anotherMike]

Tough question. Both the Sigma 35 and 50 arts are extremely good, but in my view they are definitely different. The differences come into play in two areas: First and foremost, the two lenses excel in different distance ranges - opposite one another actually. Secondly, there are subtle rendering differences to them that may (or may not) sway you to one or the other.

Let's talk distance optimization first:

The Sigma 35/1.4 Art is somewhat optimized for the close/moderate distance ranges - IMO there is no better 35 or 50mm AF option if you shoot in the closer ranges. It's also very very good, but perhaps not "quite" to what I would call "excellent" in my very strict grading, at distance. I don't know of any other 35mm lens that is better than the Sigma 35 art at distance, but there are some that are quite close to it. However, at the closer range, there is nothing as good at it and it has no competition.

The Sigma 50/1.4 Art is somewhat optimized for distance. At distance, there really is no competition from anyone except the Zeiss Otus 55/1.4 at 4 times the price, and honestly, it's not much of a difference. The 50 kind of stands alone for me as a lens that can cut through distance and if there is proper, resolvable detail at distance (meaning atmospherics aren't diminishing it), it offers the most realistic and proper rendering of distance in landscapes. I can not praise this lens enough for landscapes. Of course 50mm is not the most exciting focal length for landscape On the other hand, it's still very very good for closer in distances. It's difference at the closer ranges is best talked about in the next category of subtle rendering differences.

So, subtle rendering differences. To me, the Sigma 35/1.4 Art is about micro contrast and bite, particularly in the closer ranges, At the longer distances, it sacrifices a bit of global contrast to things like the Sigma 50/1.4 Art and even perhaps the Nikon 35/1.8G FX, but offers excellent tonal characteristics in the highlights - better than *any* Nikon 35 or 50 or 58mm option. So it's not going to cut through distance, so to speak, quite as well as the Sigma 50/1.4 Art does, but it's still quite good. It's more a lens that would shine if you had some elements in foreground at the moderate distances where it will have a fair bit of "bite" left in the tank. In the closer ranges, again, it's just about perfect: I use it for studio work, and no other lens in or even close to it's range gets the proper, realistic rendering of textural detail like fabrics and hair correct - the tonality is excellent, the bite is there, it's sharp - the differentiation of tones is there - at these studio distances this lens is about as good as it gets. At distance, like most other 24 and 35mm offerings, you'll have to stop down to F/7.1 to get the edges and corners going, and you will get a fair bit of sharpness, but the overall contrast isn't quite what the Sigma 50 provides. The Sigma 50/1.4 Art at distance of course is stupid good, world class. It's as good at distance as the 35/1.4 Art is in the studio distance range. When you bring the 50 art into the closer ranges, the emphasis on global contrast takes precedence over fine textural detail rendering - but just slightly. It doesn't "quite" get the fabric and textural representation to the same level (again, in the close range) as the Sigma 35/1.4 Art does, but it's close - the acuity is strong, the contrast is excellent, but its more of a subjectively heavier/stronger rendering in the closer distances as opposed to the more crisp, proper, balanced rendering of the 35 art. Again, in a subtle sense. The 50/1.4 Art also can be shot closer to the middle apertures and hold the edges at distance than the 35.

So I think for you it comes down to more which distance range you shoot, and then of course focal length. For me, 35 and 50mm are completely different focal lengths and views upon the world. I shoot 35mm far more than I shoot 50, so the choice between the two would be easy for me based strictly on focal length, but the 50 art is SO unbelievably good at distance I would hate not to own it

Both require the dock as a mandatory purchase IMO, in case you're out shopping.

-m

PS: The 24/1.4 Art, which you didn't ask about, kind of splits the difference between the 35 and 50 arts. A somewhat overlooked lens, the 24 is quite well balanced between distance and closer range performance, and while a 24mm design is much, much harder to do than a 35 or 50 (and thus expectations have to be kept in check), I'm very impressed with it, and have chosen it over my Nikon 24/1.4G as my landscape reference at 24mm from here on in.

 

[Shangri La]

Thank you so much Mike for the detailed comments. I really appreciate it. I however withdrew my post shortly after as I thought I shouldn't derail OP's thread. I created another thread dedicated for the discussion and will quote your post there if you don't mind. Thank you again and sorry to OP.

 

[HRonen]

Thanks for posting the images.

Never used the lens myself but looking at images taken with it I can conclude that it will never work for me since my style of shooting (mostly urban photography) produces images mostly with a shallow depth of field and the 135 APO has an ugly rendition of bokeh.

Here is an extreme example:

https://flic.kr/p/tuyLiG

 

[buybuybuy]

Thanks for posting the images.

Never used the lens myself but looking at images taken with it I can conclude that it will never work for me since my style of shooting (mostly urban photography) produces images mostly with a shallow depth of field and the 135 APO has an ugly rendition of bokeh.

Here is an extreme example:

https://flic.kr/p/tuyLiG

You're right--the bokeh is most unprepossessing!

 

[anotherMike]

Your sample image has been post processed and there is no way you could judge bokeh from it.

The Zeiss bokeh is nowhere like that at all....

-m

 

[mikeodial]

The example you linked to is certainly ugly, but not representative of this Zeiss lens. I have just purchased one after renting one for 4 days. The DOF is razor thin at close focus distances, but the bokeh is very smooth and gradual (look at the cairns picture at the beginning of this thread) and certainly the OUT OF FOCUS areas on the close ups I posted cannot be considered ugly. This is the work of the designers of the lens.

I know this lens is going to be a lot of work because of the changing character of the lens based on aperture settings, it has some character of focus points changing with differing apertures, but the colors are sublime.

The pictures come out better than they looked through the viewfinder ... if that makes any sense at all. Hard to describe. Of course they have to be in focus first.

I don't have an unlimited amount to spend on equipment, so this lens represents a big investment (2/3 of the cost of my D810), but I would sooner have this lens and learn it well.

 

[WindwardHaole]

After using a Zeiss 135 APO Sonnar for several days, my decision not to buy was not because of "an ugly rendition of bokeh". Your "extreme example" appears to be heavily post processed and does not give the lens a fair shake.

 

[HRonen]

I am not trying to bad mouth a lens which I never owned or used. On the contrary, I hope that it meets or exceeds the expectations of every owner. It is the many positive reviews of the 135 I read that made me examine closely images taken with it. The example I posted is an extreme one (I stated so in my original post) but even when I went to the Zeiss site to look at their images (assuming that they would not pick bad ones) I found their bokeh rendition lacking..

Loading…

www.zeiss.com

In my style of photography quite often the out of focus parts of the image play a very dominant role and that is why the quality of bokeh is so important to me. Here is an example taken with my Nikkor 105 f/2.8 G:




Layers

https://flic.kr/p/w9GLyY

I just doubt that I could achieve the same smoothness and cohesion of transition from in to out of focus with the Zeiss.

Regards,

Haim

 

[mikeodial]

I am not trying to bad mouth a lens which I never owned or used. On the contrary, I hope that it meets or exceeds the expectations of every owner. It is the many positive reviews of the 135 I read that made me examine closely images taken with it. The example I posted is an extreme one (I stated so in my original post) but even when I went to the Zeiss site to look at their images (assuming that they would not pick bad ones) I found their bokeh rendition lacking..

http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/aposonnart2135.html

In my style of photography quite often the out of focus parts of the image play a very dominant role and that is why the quality of bokeh is so important to me. Here is an example taken with my Nikkor 105 f/2.8 G:


Layers

https://flic.kr/p/w9GLyY

I just doubt that I could achieve the same smoothness and cohesion of transition from in to out of focus with the Zeiss.

Regards,

Haim

Each to his own. If we all liked the same thing and bought the same lenses life would be pretty boring.

Mike

 

[buybuybuy]

Out of curiosity, I had a look myself. Quite a few eyebrow-raising bokeh examples on that page. Maybe it's one of those lenses whose defects owners work hard to conceal (or overlook)?

Now, to be fair, all of these examples are post-processed. Perhaps the lens should come with a "black-box" warning--"post process at your own risk." :-D


Forget bokeh. What's with the outlining?


Man's nose double-lining


flower left and top double lining


A posterized (?) purple splotch at left?

Source for all images: http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_us/camera_lenses/slr-lenses/aposonnart2135.html

 

[RBFresno]

Thanks for posting the images.

Never used the lens myself

You' might be pleasantly surprised...especially compared to your 105 Macro VR.

but looking at images taken with it I can conclude that it will never work for me since my style of shooting (mostly urban photography) produces images mostly with a shallow depth of field and the 135 APO has an ugly rendition of bokeh.

Here is an extreme example:

https://flic.kr/p/tuyLiG

Nikon D4 ,Carl Zeiss ZF2 / ZE / Zx Apo Sonnar T* f2 135mm
1/800s f/2.2 at 135.0mm iso1600

Of course, if you stop down, the bokeh goes all to hell:

And sometimes the 135/2 images just aren't sharp! ;-) :

Nikon D4 ,Carl Zeiss ZF2 / ZE / Zx Apo Sonnar T* f2 135mm
1/15s f/3.5 at 135.0mm iso6400

And for other uses, bokeh is largely irrelevant:

RB

 

[anotherMike]

Bokeh is a subjective, personal thing, but the thing I find strange with your reply is that you mention the 105/2.8G VR Nikkor - a lens most definitely NOT known for bokeh - one whose OOF transitions are generally considered average. Use what you want, but you'll be in the vast minority if you think that lens (which I used to own) is remotely in the same category of the Zeiss, from bokeh through contrast through sharpness. There is a time and place for it, yes - if I shot more theater/dance than I do currently I'd still have one because while it's not a bokeh lens, nor is it even that sharp a lens, it has really good contrast wide open, is lighter than the VR2 zoom, and has VR and those matter for theater work more than sharpness or bokeh.

I'd chose other lenses for portraiture, landscape, street, macro and a whole bunch of other things.

If you are a bokeh fan, I'm incredibly surprised you chose that lens instead of the 105/2 DC, which was freaking DESIGNED specifically for OOF rendering and bokeh. The 105 VR was designed to be the first macro lens with VR. Bokeh wasn't a high priority by a long shot. If you had entered the discussion with the 105/2 DC bokeh being what you preferred, I wouldn't be even writing this reply and I wouldn't even bother to argue your view much - while the Zeiss is substantially sharper and much cleaner in color rendition (amongst other things), the 105/2 DC has frankly amazing OOF and bokeh that few lenses outside of the exotics like the 200/2 possess.

Pick the proper tool for the task and your preferences. Go rent a Zeiss 135/2 and a Nikon 105/2 DC and I bet your 105G VR gets sold quite quickly afterwards. (Disclaimer: I have shot - extensively so - all three lenses in this discussion as I've owned both the 105 Nikkors the past and currently own the Zeiss)

The other thing I would note, and it's a bit harsh, is that I have to question why you posted such an obviously post-processed sample that has absolutely no correlation to what the Zeiss bokeh is. Almost seems like you had an agenda. I'm pretty sure if there was a thread about the, say, Tamron 15-30 that's all the rage and I took some sample and ran it through a 2 pixel gaussian blur filter on it and then posted "but it's not sharp - here, take a look" I'd be crucified in the forums (and rightfully so) for having an agenda of some sort due to my presentation of an image that had no correlation with reality.

In general I respect people who comment on lenses they have personally shot, and often I'll respect some folks who will voice an opinion that is a redirection of what someone else who is well known in the forums has said. Someone trying to be an expert on Zeiss bokeh who has never shot the lens - well, not much there to think about. IMO.

-m

 

[Dan_168]

Never used the lens myself but looking at images taken with it I can conclude that it will never work for me since my style of shooting (mostly urban photography) produces images mostly with a shallow depth of field and the 135 APO has an ugly rendition of bokeh.

Here is an extreme example:

https://flic.kr/p/tuyLiG

Zeiss 135 APO has "ugly rendition of Bokeh"? man you sure have super high standard, anything else in this focal range you can recommend to us that have better Bokeh? are you serious the Nikon 105 G VR have better bokeh than the Zeiss 135 APO??? just in case you were serious but just mis-informed, may be check out the 105DC and/or the 135DC, both were designed and very famous for their Bokeh quality. but since the Zeiss is too ugly and won't work for you, I am afraid those DC lens will also give you the same "ugly bokeh" and I am afraid no one here can offer you any help, well, let me try the last one, how about a 200 F2? I hope that one is acceptable as far as Bokeh quality is concerned.

After shooting with this Zeiss 135 APO for few months I decided to sell my Canon 135L + Nikon 105 AIS 2.5, and even lost my interested in the 135DC.

 

[HRonen]

My APOlogies to all the APO admirers whose feathers I ruffled here. Since bokeh is a personal thing and I am stating solely my own view I should probably have used the term 'not to my liking' instead of 'ugly'. I have no agenda here and no pretensions of being any kind of expert.

I posted my image to demonstrate a style, a perspective of mine, not to prove that the 105 was a superior lens. Bokeh plays an important role in my photography but it is only one element of what creates an image. I will not get a lens just for its bokeh rendition but on the other hand, I will never buy a lens whose bokeh I don't like. If people find my views less valid because I am not using one of the ultimate bokeh lenses be it.

Have a good Sunday.

Haim

 

[just Tony]

RB

This picture fascinated me. I think I've figured out where you were standing to take it, and that led me to believe that this could possibly be a crop from a single frame instead of a panoramic stitch. Am I correct?

 

[RBFresno]

RB

This picture fascinated me. I think I've figured out where you were standing to take it, and that led me to believe that this could possibly be a crop from a single frame instead of a panoramic stitch. Am I correct?

Your analysis is correct; one frame cropped into a pseudo pano ;-)



RB

http://www.dpreview.com/members/2305099006/challenges

pbase Artist rbfresno

 

[Andrew 3]

If people find my views less valid because I am not using one of the ultimate bokeh lenses be it.

I'm not sure how but it looks like you're missing the point. People find your view less valid because you used a post-processed image as an example.

 

[buybuybuy]

My APOlogies to all the APO admirers whose feathers I ruffled here. Since bokeh is a personal thing and I am stating solely my own view I should probably have used the term 'not to my liking' instead of 'ugly'. I have no agenda here and no pretensions of being any kind of expert.

I posted my image to demonstrate a style, a perspective of mine, not to prove that the 105 was a superior lens. Bokeh plays an important role in my photography but it is only one element of what creates an image. I will not get a lens just for its bokeh rendition but on the other hand, I will never buy a lens whose bokeh I don't like. If people find my views less valid because I am not using one of the ultimate bokeh lenses be it.

Have a good Sunday.

Haim

Ridiculous nonsense.

You haven't "demonstrated" anything--other than your incompetence in study design and facility with drawing potentially fallacious conclusions.

Your methodological limitations have allowed your critics an easy way out--to charge you (and rightly so) with uncontrolled, non-randomized sampling of images and deriving shoddy (perhaps self-serving) conclusions.

What's your experimental group? What's your control group? How have you controlled for confounds (you haven't)?

If your objective is to gain support for your working hypothesis, you NEED to do these things BEFORE jumping to conclusions--and jumping at your detractors.

Come back when you've post-processed images taken from the same location UNDER the same conditions with BOTH your 105 and a rented Zeiss 135 AND post-processed them identically with your self-professed "style."

Make round #2 more interesting than round #1--if you have the gumption for it (I have my doubts).

 

[light_bulb]

My APOlogies to all the APO admirers whose feathers I ruffled here. Since bokeh is a personal thing and I am stating solely my own view I should probably have used the term 'not to my liking' instead of 'ugly'. I have no agenda here and no pretensions of being any kind of expert.

I posted my image to demonstrate a style, a perspective of mine, not to prove that the 105 was a superior lens. Bokeh plays an important role in my photography but it is only one element of what creates an image. I will not get a lens just for its bokeh rendition but on the other hand, I will never buy a lens whose bokeh I don't like. If people find my views less valid because I am not using one of the ultimate bokeh lenses be it.

Have a good Sunday.

Haim

I do have the Zeiss 135/2 APO Sonnar. Bokeh is not only a subjective concept. It will also always be dependent on what and how you shoot. There is no miracle lens that can convert any bunch of contrasty mess into the smoothest bokeh you can imagine.
In any case it is nonsense to pick single pictures from the internet where you have not got a clue what happened as witnesses of 'ugly bokeh'. More pictures will tell you more and shooting it even more so.
--

http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski