• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Next lens review: Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 135mm f/2.0 ZF.2 (FX)


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 01 November 2017 - 10:04 PM

A marvel. A pity it doesn't have AF ;)

http://www.opticalli...-zeisszf13520ff

-- Markus
Editor
photozone.de

#2 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 02 November 2017 - 12:46 PM

And a marvel with AF would look like this:

 

i-cNDZDZR-XL.jpg

 

Original size

 

I know, different situations and mine was taken at ISO 64 and a bit more MP - but I don't see much of a difference. However, I haven't looked deep into it and if it comes to bokeh fringing, the Zeiss might be better. But altogether: Keep your Zeiss, I'll stick with Sigma.  :P  :D



#3 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 02 November 2017 - 09:29 PM

I was just looking at the price of the Apo Sonnar. Some dealers offer instead the Milvus 135/2 and put in brackets (App-Sonnar). Are the lenses, except the stylish, but ugly finish of the Milvus, identical?



#4 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,851 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 02 November 2017 - 09:31 PM

Yes, they are the same optics.



#5 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 02 November 2017 - 09:34 PM

Thanks. Now I know what the new design costs...  :D



#6 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,015 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:17 AM

Why is the vignetting score based off of the camera's jpg instead of the raw file ?



#7 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,015 posts

Posted 03 November 2017 - 12:24 AM

Maybe Marcus will repeat the test with the sigma for comparison. It was a 5* lens on the canon test.

 

And a marvel with AF would look like this:

 

i-cNDZDZR-XL.jpg

 

Original size

 

I know, different situations and mine was take at ISO 64 and a bit more MP - but I don't see much of a difference. However, I haven't looked deep into it and if it comes to bokeh fringing, the Zeiss might be better. But altogether: Keep your Zeiss, I'll stick with Sigma.  :P  :D



#8 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,851 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 03 November 2017 - 07:15 AM

I think that the software takes JPEGs, and how do you create JPEGs from different cameras with exactly the same tonal curve? Even using the same RAW converter does not give the same tonal curves.



#9 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 04 November 2017 - 11:07 PM

I was just looking at the price of the Apo Sonnar. Some dealers offer instead the Milvus 135/2 and put in brackets (App-Sonnar). Are the lenses, except the stylish, but ugly finish of the Milvus, identical?


Yes, they are identical... it's actually mentioned in the intro of the review ;)

The upgrade price you pay is not only for the new design (which I personally don't like, if it was only about the design, I'd prefer a ZF over a Milvus any time), but also weather sealing.


Maybe Marcus will repeat the test with the sigma for comparison. It was a 5* lens on the canon test.


Depends on whether I can get my hand on one soon ;)
Editor
photozone.de

#10 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 04 November 2017 - 11:09 PM

Why is the vignetting score based off of the camera's jpg instead of the raw file ?


It's simply less work. You need to set a baseline at some point and use it as a reference point for the system. In terms of vignetting, we decided on using the standard JPGs a camera produces, since they can just bet fed into Imatest without any further work.

RAWs would need to be converted to JPGs first, with a defined set of parameters to have comparable results. That's actually the same thing a camera does already, so why invest more work than necessary.
Editor
photozone.de

#11 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 05 November 2017 - 03:07 AM

Depends on whether I can get my hand on one soon ;)


Depends on when your next train travel leads you South ;)

#12 mst

mst

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 2,095 posts
  • LocationWesterwald, Germany

Posted 07 November 2017 - 02:03 PM

Depends on when your next train travel leads you South ;)


Hmm... traveling south quite regularly, still. Actually, in Geneva right now. However, usually on a tight schedule unfortunately.

Let's see if we can figure something out by mail instead of here. Really appreciate though that you consider provising yours... I can offer an APO-Sonnar in return, it hasn't found a new home, yet ;)
Editor
photozone.de

#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,880 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 07 November 2017 - 03:07 PM

Thanks, I'm far too happy and satisfied with my Sigma to even lust for a Zeiss. And you haven't seen it operating with the D850....  :blink:  :)  That weekend I had it with me in the usual dark dancing joint. It wasn't everything gold, a couple of missed shots because 3D AF-C couldn't cope (or mabye and more likely the user has still to learn how to handle these situations best  :rolleyes: ), but when it's sharp, you can see the little thin hairs on female skin.

 

Here the combination of CaptureOne RAW converter and D850 is just superb!  ^_^  There were files around ISO 50.000 - I wouldn't put them on A1, but better than then D810.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de