My second lens: Zeiss 28mm or Zeiss 135mm?

G

Guest

Hello. I just joined this web page forum yesterday. This past weekend, I came across 167mt & 50mm 1.7 mm lens (all like new in there boxes with papers). This is my first Contax. I have forever dreamed of being able to use Zeiss lenses (I am a Nikon F100 user also). I know I will enjoy this new toy. My question is this. I have the funds to pick up either a Zeiss 28mm 2.8 mm or a Zeiss 135mm 2.8 mm. Both are in very nice shape and about the same price. Based strictly on lens performance ( focal lenght is not a concern as I can always use my Nikon for any shot the other focal lenght would be need for) which one would you choose? Thanks in advance for your responses on your time!
 
G

Guest

I'm quite new (just 2 years) in Zeiss-lenses too but the Distagon 2.8/28 was as well as the Planar that one which really produces breathtaking pictures and which made me a Zeiss-fan. I have compared them with Canon and Pentax and you cannot disagree. The 2.8/135 is a very good lens too but in the tele-lenses there are other lenses you can choose such as the 85/100mm.
The 28 is a MUST.
There are of course others that prefer the 28mm Nikon but there are always folks who think their old own equipment is the best.
Just a question which/how many lenses you want.
Perhaps you want a reallly wide angle as the 18/21mm ?
Perhaps more the longer ones (200/200) ?
- or just in between (35 and 85 mm)?
I'd prefer the Distagon !
Regards
Paul
 
G

Guest

[Reinhold Schulte] I'd go for the Sonnar (2.8, 135mm). It was my first Zeiss lens and made me become a Zeiss-addict (ok, that Tokina wide angle thing in the back of this room is a kind of black spot - IT WAS CHEAP!). There is only one thing I dislike about hte Sonnar. Closest focus distance is about 2m. It could be a little bit less.

Even friends who always argued that there are a lot of comparable lenses that could take it up with a Zeiss lens, were convinced, that this lens provides outstanding performance. Have a look at the tests at Photodo (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
).
 
C

chill

It's been awhile, but I will chime in. I won both the 28/2.8 and the 135/2.8. I got them so that I could see some variety beyond my 50/1.4. That being said, I use my 135 on a ratio of about 10 to 1 over my 28. In recent years, I have gravitated towards portraiture, and although it can be said that the close focus is too far at 2m, this really only h&ers me if I am shooting still life etc. After awhile you learn to "work" the lens to get a good head and shoulders portrait. Also with Studio lights, you shouldn't be that close to your subject anyway. Of course I am lusting over the 100/2.0 which puts many issues to bed...but the cost difference between the 135/2.8 and the 100/2.0 is quite large. As far as the 28/2.8, I have had some interesting architectual shots, but it is mostly useful for travel, since Indiana is not known for it's architecture ! If I were very serious about architecture, I would use a camera with tilt/shift movements. For general photography, i think the 28/2.8 is a bit too severe...and you have to really take into account to fill up the foreground. Sharp ? dog-gone right, but I think overall you just need to clearly define your photgraphic needs.

Best - Alan
 

pkipnis

Well-Known Member
I would go the other direction, my "normal" lens is the 35/1.4, my medium wide angle is the 25/2.8 and my wide angle is the 18/4. I do carry my 85/1.4, 70-210/3.5 500/8 on tavel assignments, but usually they stay in the bag. I can usually get closer to my subjects, but never far away enough. I just finished a week in NY shooting to my hearts content. I never took the long lenses out of the bag.
 
N

nomed

My own opinion is to go for the 135mm. My only reason is that this is a 35mm negative we are talking about. The wider the angle, generally the more "information" you will be capturing in the image because of increased perspective. At this point, even a mediocre medium format camera beats out the best 35mm optics, simply because of image degradation when you blow up the negative.
 

jvirtue

Member
I would ask myself what I want to shoot first, then buy the lens to suit. There's no point in deciding," I want to shoot portraits ", then buying the 28. You rule the equipment, not the other way round. If you want to try both, buy both, or go for a zoom.
 
Top