Originally posted by xjjohnno Les, something you might want to consider between the Tak and the Sonnar are the close focussing distances, plant pics come to mind, and a quick peek at both lenses has the Sonnar@ 1 metre with the Tak @ 1.5 metres.
Thanks for the info. I am pretty sure I will give the Zeiss a try (I'm hoping to find one near mint). I don't if sharing my thinking will help the OP, but . . .
One thing about Zeiss is that when they get it right their lenses offer more than sharpness. For me sharpness is just a basic qualifier, it doesn't by itself make a lens special. As the Sirens reviewer put it, ". . . one of the most often quoted by alternative users reasons for going after Contax [i.e., Contax-Zeiss] lenses is their superb color reproduction. That is where a good lens can really show its colors, pardon the pun. A combination of high contrast in focused areas, high resolution and accurate color reproduction is what can give your photos what is often described as that true 'Zeiss' or 'Leica' look and feel. And while many lenses out there showcase solid resolution capabilities, not that many handle color reproduction well . . ."
I know the Contax-Zeiss 28 f2.8 is like that because I own it; and a great many users have said that about other Zeiss lenses (like the 21mm). The Sirens reviewer doesn't quite say the 135mm is pixie dustish, but does make titillating remarks which, when taken together, give me hope:
"Images taken with the lens were crisp and
contrasty across different aperture settings . . . Color representation was pretty accurate (although I would say that the colors were a bit
saturated) and the lens stood up well against flare. . . . Chromatic aberration was quite low even for a medium telephoto prime . . . " Like the Zeiss 21mm, the Jena Sonnar "showed outstanding performance . . . sharp from corner to corner throughout the tested aperture range . . . the lens produced one of the most consistent results among medium telephoto lenses tested to date."
When a lens gets so much right, it gives one hope it might be as the reviewer suggested, a "diamond in the rough." (I checked out the Sirens review of a suggested "alternative" -- the Leica Elmarit 135mm f/2.8 -- and noticed the reviewer wasn't very impressed, as he wasn't with the Zeiss 135 f2.8. And Pentax user reviews here about any of the SMC Super Takumar 135 lenses don't seem all that enthusiastic, at least not like they are about the 85mm or 100mm macro.)