According provided by lens Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * (C / Y) huge thanks to Bogdan.
Review Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * (C / Y)
Nowadays Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * is one of the best representatives of 135 / 2.8 class lenses. I visited the review AEJ version the lens. Modifications of Carl Zeiss 135 / 2.8-3.5 lenses can be found here.
For snapshots, I used Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * on Canon EOS cameras using adapter C / Y-EOS.
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * with extended built-in telescopic hood when focusing on MDF
Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * made in Japan, weighs almost 600 grams, almost all of metal, very pleasant to the touch. Has a built-in metal telescopic hood. In the installed position, the hood holds normally and does not sink back.
I noticed that several lenses have an unblacked chamfer (see), which should affect the deterioration of contrast. For a lens of this class, this is a bit strange.
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T *
Sonnar 2.8 / 135 uses a special coating of its lenses - T*which allows the lens to be comfortable enough to handle strong light sources in the frame. The diameter of the thread for light filters is 55 mm.
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T *
The focus ring is very wide, rubberized, rotates 180 degrees. Focusing is easy and enjoyable. It’s just a pity that the minimum focusing distance is already 1.6 m, and the maximum magnification is about 1:12. For example, at Carl Zeiss Jena DDR Sonnar 3,5 / 135 with Exakta mount and MC Sonnar 3,5 / 135 Carl Zeiss Jena DDR it is only 1 meter.
View Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T *
The diaphragm consists of only 6 petals (this is not for you Pentacon 2.8 / 135 with 15 petals), at F / 4 and F / 5.6, the petals form notches (resulting in a circular saw shape). At f / 16 and f / 22, the blades produce an uneven hexagon :(. On cameras with a Contax / Yashica mount, automatic aperture control works (device 'blinking' or 'jumping' aperture). The aperture control ring is rubberized - a trifle, and nicely. There is also a depth of field scale and an infrared shift mark.
The notches in the bokeh that appear on the F 4 and 5.6 apertures
The lens creates good image quality, with nice bokeh (only at F / 2.8), contrast and color reproduction. Distortion chromatic aberration and vignetting go by the wayside. I can’t say that there is something unique in the image, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * (C / Y) just does a good job.
Here link to the archive with the originals - 555 MB, 46 RAW photos from a Canon 5D full-format camera.
The Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * has 5 elements in 4 groups in its optical design, usually referred to as 'Ernostar', it differs from the 'Sonnar' design used in Soviet long-focal Jupiter lenses (4 elements in 4 groups).
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * on the CZK
Comparison of Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * (C / Y) with MS Jupiter-37A 3,5 / 135 you can see here... Additionally, you can look at the reviews of the older brothers - Carl Zeiss Jena DDR Sonnar 3,5 / 135 with native Exakta mount and Carl Zeiss Jena DDR MC Sonnar 3,5 / 135 in a black case and landing thread M42. Pity now do not produce affordable autofocus 135-current with aperture of the order of 2,8-3,5.
Catalog of modern Carl Zeiss lenses can look at this link.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Results
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 / 135 T * (C / Y) is a good 'working' lens :)
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
You can "work" on it only, probably, shooting commercial photoshoots. Thoughtful, unhurried. For streaming work, "Zeiss" is not rolled. It didn’t get into focus, then the sun had already set, while you could do twenty shots, something else happened. So these glasses cannot be called “workhorses”.
It goes without saying that his manual essence is taken into account.
>> So such glasses cannot be called "workhorses".
You will be very surprised, but in the photo world, in addition to bombs, there are also photographers, including pros making money from it.
Canon EF 135mm f / 2.8 with Softfocus if you look in stores you can find
the price is about $ 350 I think it is very affordable
So I’m talking about. For the kind of money that they ask for Zeiss - it's just show off and nothing more. If not every photographer can distinguish a Canon thirty-five from this Zeiss, then the customer is even more so. Status in your environment - yes. And customers do not care what brand of glass.
what kind of money? even the MMJ version costs only 11 thousand. And AEJ is even cheaper.
Yes, just sheer trifles! Mowers greens, just something! I say again: this glass is more for creativity than for work. To forget a couple of works for the exhibition - please. But do not work hard. A lot of marriage will be due to rush. But manualists do not like rush. Yes, and get circulars for an item of "green". Now this is a real disgust.
Of course, glass is mostly creative for many, but tales about the fact that it is impossible to shoot a reportage on it are told only by those who do not know how or have forgotten how to twist the trick. For a short time I would have this lens, only of German assembly, very good glass in almost all respects, the only small minus of the "cutter" on the covered, but having good sharpness on the open virtually eliminates the need to aperture. I didn't leave this glass for myself because of the price, they asked for 650 bucks, and having in my setup five German 135 / 2.8 and bought from 100 to 250 bucks per copy, I considered the purchase optional. 350 - 400 bucks is the normal price for this glass.
And you can shoot reports on manual optics. It's not about the lens, but the hands of the photographer and practice. Autofocus is more convenient, but it also has its own percentage of misses. I personally successfully shoot with manual 50mm and 100mm at 2.8, there is no difficulty, slips are rare and the speed of work is satisfactory. Of course, if you focus on this, it can be done faster. But even autofocus in dark rooms or other “bad” conditions works worse and misses more often.
But here again, everyone chooses for himself and for his shooting. For some, reactive autofocus is essential, and for someone, Zeiss, with his manual focus, is to his taste.
Such a lens now costs 200-250 dollars in a new state. Where did you find a bunch of dollars?
Essno for hasty work such as weddings, it is not suitable - but for other undertakings - just a rough diamond)
And you can find it cheaper. A kind man with a chip adapter sold me for a hundred, so the main thing is to look for it and not give up :) But in general, it is quite interesting for 200 bucks - nothing like this for this price can be found in terms of sharpness, aperture and constructiveness. Although the pentacon has a bunch of aperture blades, it drains out in sharpness when open, and it costs not much less. And autofocus cousins are usually much more expensive.
Color reproduction and sharpness are excellent!
Oh, here’s no need for a sore point :) Color rendition habitually belongs to the saturation increasing algorithm, and to the sun, and not to the lens. :)
Do not talk nonsense :)
Glasses have their own color.
Bayer filter has its own "color"
And the algorithms for increasing saturation are the last thing (and generally harmful - saturation is achieved by contrast, not saturation)
The lens is good, but for portrait photography I like Jupiter-37A more - it costs a penny, the result is on the “face” or on the “face”! Thanks for your review!
It seemed to me, or is the picture similar to the cinema? The feeling is that everything will now move.
Well, ernostars were used in b / w cinema, and zonnars have a similar optical design. So everything can be.
Exactly. I have the same feeling
The feeling is rather not from the lens, but from what was shot on the FF. completely different DOF
and perspective
pleased that they switched to a cloud of mail!)))
Hello everybody! Just the other day, on the occasion, I bought a PENTACON 135mm f / 2.8 М42 for very little money, produced in GDR already in 1984 and, oddly enough, is in a new state together with a wonderful case. Metal and glass, metal hood, not even rubber on the rings. Great product! Long travel of the focusing ring (which has a great effect on focus accuracy). Very nice drawing. Absolutely unmatched bokeh thanks to 15 petals. I disagree about the "show-off" Carl Zeiss, Zeiss knows what he is asking for money for. The question is, is it worth buying a modern lens, or will you stop at a used lens with a history. After thinking it over, I took the second path and, it seems, did not regret it. However, at first I wanted to stop at the “planar” from Zeiss, with the confirmation of the focus, but PENTACON turned up right in time. ))) I had Jupiter-37A three times (I sold it, but nevertheless I liked it), so comparing, PENTACON wins “outright”, not even taking into account the construct, but simply the result of the shooting. Recommend!
Well, "Into the clean" is that you went over. The lens you like is not sold three times. The 37 A loses to the Pentacon only in aperture. But on the open cut and not chromatite. The bokeh is great. The construction is metal, glass, the circular aperture is covered, there is a preset, aiming on the sharpness-fairy tale. The price is too small because of the mass production - that's its "trouble". We believe that the more expensive the better.
Hello! How they sell! ))) And quite often, especially for such things, in order to get an even more preserved copy, as in my case. The same applies to other lenses from the Soviet era. If you are interested in what exactly it loses, then this is the aperture ratio (3,5 versus 2,8, and the latter is sharp already with open, this is the main thing and it's silly to argue here), and the minimum aperture (22 versus 32), the number of blades (13 versus 15), it's not even worth talking about the culture of optical glass production, lubrication and external performance. The Ju-37A, in turn, has a smaller MDF (120 versus 150) and is lighter by 90 grams (410 versus 500), but nothing else was seen outstanding, in some cases, a full guard with lubrication, a plastic box instead of a wardrobe trunk does not add sympathy. To be fair, it should be said that the MC variant is very good. "Small" price, it does not matter, this is an advantage, because availability, but if you come across a copy of Pentacon (as well as Carl Zeiss, Meyer-Optik Görlitz, Voigtländer, Rollei ...) even 30 percent more expensive than the Yu-37A, then I guess about the choice of the photographer. ;) All the best and good shots!
And if you compare the PENTACON 135mm f / 2.8 and Tair 11A, who is easier to give preference?
Hello! Despite the “reinforced concrete” construction and 20 (!!!) aperture blades, with equal FR and aperture ratio, I didn’t like the pictures taken by TAIR at all, I especially didn’t like its low detail and conspicuous “fading” of images. Although Henri Cartier-Bresson argued that "Sharpness is a bourgeois prejudice," I would choose the Pentacon.
Thank you :)
Incidentally, this "circular saw" effect is inherent in Zeiss. I will not say that to “everyone”, I did not hold everyone in my hands, but they have those that I have. You can follow the reviews here. Up to a certain value, mostly three to four stops after the open one. I don't like such a creepy effect, but the Zeiss didn't bother with it)
Beautiful shots! And the effect of the old lens is so memorable, like a diopter, volume. I even wanted to take a chance and dismantle my Yu-37A, wipe the oil and blacken it. Maybe it will serve yet?
To change the lens you like according to the picture 3 times, "to get an even more preserved copy" is already a clinic. Here I recently bought a bomb lens Zh-25 (100/2). The lenses are ideally, the body is shabby, but you can comb your hair. The picture is super , bokeh oil. Do you think I will look for newer? Yes, not in life! Understand that the main thing is not a wardrobe trunk, Not a difference of 2 petals and 90 grams of weight, and even more so the focusing ring is worn or not. The main thing is drawing, sharpness, contrast. And this is enough for the Yu 37A MC. The lens is recognized among photographers. And it's stupid to deny it. By the way, it is extremely sharp with an open one, and for the price it goes head to head with your Pentacon. I am sure that blindly neither you, nor I, nor the majority do not distinguish pictures from these 2 lenses.
Well, if you like to shoot with rusty pieces of iron, then the flag is in your hands, to each his own. Personally, I prefer to put on the Mark III worthy "glass" and will never miss a copy of the best condition than I already have. And drink already, something from nerves, no one really scolds Jupiter, especially since this is a very budget option, because it is simply unrealistic to buy a Pentacon for 1.500-1.700 (I got it myself for 4.000 and I think it is very successful), except in the state you prefer. By the way, having G-25 and G-40-40, there was no desire to “saw through” a filming lens, six-lens planar Zh-2, no matter how “oily” it was. All the best and please, beh holivara.
"The main thing is the picture, sharpness, contrast. And this is enough for the Yu 37A MC. The lens is recognized among photographers. And it's stupid to deny it. By the way, it is extremely sharp with an open,"
The U-37 is a very low-quality, soapy optics with mediocre sharpness, fig enlightenment, even if the MC version (the color rendition is not very good, the sea of rabbits), it does not stand up to any comparison with Zeiss 135.
And the drawing is not very good. Optically “almost the same”, but not in practice.
Although the fans of Soviet junk is quite suitable, yes.
Look at the vote on it in Radozhiv, and see the reviews. You are probably smarter than all the voters. Then buy it and take it off. I think that your opinion will change.
Yes, I shot once with the Yu-37. Scoop junk.
Well I say - if anyone needs high-quality photographic lenses, then there are 135x Zeiss, Minolt, Canon, Pentax on the market.
Inexpensive and very decent.
You can see what you filmed with this "junk".
Go to Flickr and see. Junk junk. But the price, that’s its whole point. Of course, among the manuals in the same category he is good, but nothing more
Why didn't you immediately say that you are the happiest owner of Mark, my Lord.))) .... Your Pentacon on the Hammer is already 2700 rubles. G-40 is “worthy” of the third Mark? Well, well! And why do you need 2 of them? For divorce? The first time they took or resold 3 times, choosing which one was more beautiful? To "saw through" the F-25, you need to have brains. That is why "desire" apparently does not arise. And finally, “You are angry, Jupiter, so you are wrong.”)))
It is difficult to argue with you, because you do not see the difference between the G-40 and G-40-2 and why they should be used on a full frame (by the way, it is not necessary, Mark III), you undertake to compare lenses without holding them in your hands, and without making a single shot on them, you have no idea about the cost of the lens and what this cost consists of, and the phrase "collector's item" is probably not familiar to you, so keep it for 2.700. So, saw Shura, saw! ))) They are gold! By the way, you need to have more brains in order to earn enough money and buy something that you no longer need to “saw through”. Let's finish on this, here you are not a forum "srach". If you want to "troll", find a more suitable place for this. All the best! PS I beg your pardon, everyone present, for the forced "flood".
“You are angry, Jupiter, so you are wrong” .... I forgive you.
Dear readers, a little more respect and patience.
You are right, he is fulfilling his value!
Arkady, maybe someday in the review of Jupiter 37 And add photos from a full-frame camera?
They are there a long time ago.
Here such a discussion broke out. And I think so: there is extra money - take the Zeiss, you will not regret it. No, take Jupiter. You won't regret it either, he's good too. Equip both with focus confirmation chip and be happy. So there is nothing to argue. I had a Ju-37A, a wonderful lens. I liked it in every way. But I dreamed of a white L-ke 70-200 Canon, saved up, then bought and fell in love. THINGS !!! And then I accidentally dropped in on joyfulness, read the reviews and bought several old tseisics. The result - Jupiter is sold, Elka is gathering dust. Zeiss rule. But in general, Arkady on the pages of his blog is wary of giving negative assessments to optics, and I understand him. Don't like it - don't use it. Why argue and insult those who like this or that technique?
Good day. Tell me, did they shoot on 5D with the same adapter? The mirror did not catch? I bought an adapter with a chip, it catches a mirror :( 5D + sonnar 135 2.8 contax
Also interested in the question. I want to buy both, and I have a camera 5D MK2
Above they asked whether the mirror clings to 5d. If you do not finish the lens, it catches. It is necessary to cut off the protruding parts, they are still needed only to work on the contact.
Well, in general, the lens really pleased. Great colors, good sharpness at 2.8 and very high quality build. By comparing these parameters with Jupiter 37a, Zeiss leads. And the sharpness is higher and the assembly is better. Even working with him is a pleasure. With a chip-like adapter, sharpening is extremely easy even on the initial cameras (I shot on 650d). On 7d and ff it is quite possible to visit even without a chip. In general, for its modest price, the lens is very good, beautifully washes the background, sharp and easy to use. No wonder they take 135 thousand for modern 1.8 150 :)
nikkor auto q 135mm 2.8 and Carl zeiss sonnar 135mm the same lenses
If most of the time manual focus is needed, why not go for the zeiss 135 apo f2? The apo will work better on manual mode, and will save market value better. Didn't you use all autofocus?
If only one would say that shovel lenses are usually on open soapy edges, maybe they are not so striking on the crop, but it is noticeable on ff, the Yu-37 is no exception, which cannot be said about the Pentacon ...
About Jupiter 37 are nonsense.
Jupiter 37 and is it glass? Ha, ha ... Soon I will test MC Jupiter-37 on the same Canon 5D carcass and see what happens. But I will take the liberty to say that Jupiter in this test will be just with a small letter :)))) If I am mistaken, I will be glad to praise JUPITER! All the same, OURS :))))
Jupiter is different in its picture. In terms of sharpness, of course, it is not worth comparing, but its blur is quite pleasant, albeit different from Zeiss. In addition, Jupiter is significantly cheaper, which gives it additional points when compared. Well, for portraits, high sharpness and micro contrast are not always good. Sometimes the light soap of Jupiter will be preferable to the sharpness of the Zeiss. Personally, I use both in different situations, which leads me to the conclusion that Jupiter is not so bad compared to Zeiss.
And a little to the point: How I started to look at the pictures from this lens that Arkady made - while watching them one thought was running in my head “Here, one of the rare lenses that shows sharpness”.
The link to the lens modifications is broken ((
The GDR "Zeiss" are not brothers to him. On the strength of such cousins.
Thanks for the helpful review!
I really liked the lens. Cutting. Beautiful bokeh. I did not like the weight, but it is lighter than the R Elmarit 135 2.8. And of course for creative shooting.