Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-08-2017, 07:09 PM   #16
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,274
Original Poster
Conclusions

.
I paid about $400 less for my Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar lens then Les paid for his 135mm f/2 APO lens. Is the Zeiss 135mm lens worth the extra money?

I like the 100mm lens because it's smaller and does macro. However, at f/2 the 100mm lens produces very high color fringing at high contrast edges. But if you shoot it at f/5.6, 8, or 11 the Zeiss 100mm lens gets better and there's virtually no color fringing at these apertures.

I LOVE the 135mm lens. It's a true APO lens with zero color fringing, even wide open! It's a hair better than the 100mm lens when it comes to: sharpness, micro-contrast, and 3D Pop. Their colors are both great, but slightly different - I can't decide which one's color rendition I prefer. Words that I'd use to describe the Zeiss 135mm APO's look are "clean, crisp, pure, and uncompromising".

So, if you want one of the best telephotos for your Pentax K1 camera (and you can afford it) I'd suggest that you'd probably be happier with the Zeiss 135mm APO lens than with the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar.
.

I'D LIKE TO GIVE SPECIAL THANKS AND RECOGNITION TO LES (FORUM MEMBER les3547) FOR CHOOSING ME TO ADAPT HIS NEW ZEISS 135MM APO LENS, AND ALLOWING ME TO TAKE A FEW TEST SHOTS WITH THIS AMAZING LENS. THANKS SO MUCH MY FRIEND, I HOPE THAT YOU CHERISH THIS LENS AS MUCH AS I DO!


Last edited by Fenwoodian; 04-08-2017 at 08:00 PM.
04-08-2017, 08:09 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
So, if you want one of the best telephotos for your Pentax K1 camera (and you can afford it) I'd suggest that you'd probably be happier with the Zeiss 135mm APO lens than with the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar.
Well, the Makro-Planar focuses twice as close (1:2), and is virtually free of geometric distortion.
So as usual, it all depends on what you do with your photography.
04-08-2017, 09:23 PM   #18
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,274
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Well, the Makro-Planar focuses twice as close (1:2), and is virtually free of geometric distortion.
So as usual, it all depends on what you do with your photography.
Well then lytryyr, I guess that I just totally wasted everyone's time in publishing this little informal comparison between these two lenses. I am so sorry; but don't worry, I won't be making that mistake again.

Worry not, you've now convinced me that the next comparison I was about to do that would have pit the Pentax A 85mm f/1.4 vs the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 (I have the only one in the world in K mount) is also not necessary. Thanks - you've saved me from wasting hours of my time on yet another ill advised lens comparison.

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 04-10-2017 at 10:32 AM.
04-09-2017, 12:23 AM - 2 Likes   #19
Tas
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,250
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
Well then lytryyr, I guess that I just totally wasted everyone's time in publishing this little informal comparison between these two lenses. I am so sorry; but don't worry, I won't be making that mistake again.

Worry not, you've now convinced me that the next comparison I was about to do that would have pit the Pentax A 85mm f/1.8 vs the Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 (I have the only one in the world in K mount) is also not necessary. Thanks - you've saved me from wasting hours of my time on yet another ill advised lens comparison.
Well I for one appreciate you taking the time and effort to do the comparison including stopping the lenses down for an idea of how they perform for telephoto landscapes.

Les made a generous offer to let you borrow the lens for a bit before sending it on, so without the two of you there would be one less resource for us all to review and assess for our own photographic needs. Accordingly; I thank you both for making this comparison happen.

I've wanted the 2/135 for a while now and the F to K Leitax adaptor was the first time it really became available for users of K mount. Alas I am unable to pick one up at the moment but if that ever changes I'll be hoping you're still up for doing conversions as I'm all thumbs.

I don't think there was any malice in that post and I would hope that the author clarifies that. I want you to know Dave that I consider your decision to repeatedly share your observations and experiences with the rest of us is a part of what makes these forums a decent online community and one that's worthwhile being a part of.

I'm also keen to see some Milvus shots in the Zeiss thread sometime too, you know, just to keep my LBA alive.

Tas

04-09-2017, 05:47 AM   #20
Forum Member




Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 53
Agree 100% with Tas -- greatly enjoyed the post and learned a lot. Posts like this one help greatly in learning a new system .... Thanks!
04-10-2017, 06:36 AM   #21
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Fenwoodian Quote
Well then lytryyr, I guess that I just totally wasted everyone's time in publishing this little informal comparison between these two lenses.
What a strange reaction!

Your comparison was certainly interesting for the aspects of lens performance that it did examine.
It reminded me of this comparison between the Makro-Planar 100/2 and the Voigtlaender 125/2.5:

Clash of the Titan Macros

There, you also have the same trade-off between bokeh fringing and distortion.
04-10-2017, 09:43 AM - 1 Like   #22
Site Supporter
Fenwoodian's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,274
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by travelswsage Quote
Agree 100% with Tas -- greatly enjoyed the post and learned a lot. Posts like this one help greatly in learning a new system .... Thanks!
Nice to hear that a couple of folks here valued all the work I put into the comparison of the Z100 to the Z135.

Your kind words got me rethinking my plan to not post any other reviews.

Here's a photo of my Zeiss Milvus 85mm f/1.4 (in K mount), and my Pentax A 85mm f/1.4. I'm going to take a break for awhile here, but probably will eventually post something on these two incredible lenses in the future.

David at Leitax asked me to photograph my conversion of the Milvus 85 lens. I've done that. Based on interactions with him (and a search of Flickr images) I got the impression that no one else has Leitax converted this Milvus lens to Pentax K mount.

Stay tuned...

.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-1  Photo 

Last edited by Fenwoodian; 04-15-2017 at 10:51 AM.
04-10-2017, 05:08 PM   #23
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Tas Quote
I've wanted the 2/135 for a while now and the F to K Leitax adaptor was the first time it really became available for users of K mount.
An alternative to the Leitax adaptor is the industrial M42 screwmount version, via an M42 to K adaptor:

ZEISS Large Image Format Lenses | Industrial Lenses

According to Zeiss' information, both the Makro-Planar and the Apo-Sonnar are rated down to a 2.8 micron pixel size.
I've had good results with the Makro-Planar on Pentax' most demanding sensor, the original "crop" Q.

04-10-2017, 06:11 PM   #24
Tas
Site Supporter




Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,250
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
An alternative to the Leitax adaptor is the industrial M42 screwmount version, via an M42 to K adaptor:

ZEISS Large Image Format Lenses | Industrial Lenses

According to Zeiss' information, both the Makro-Planar and the Apo-Sonnar are rated down to a 2.8 micron pixel size.
I've had good results with the Makro-Planar on Pentax' most demanding sensor, the original "crop" Q.
G'day mate, thanks for the suggestion. I have the Makro Planar 2/100 in ZK mount and have been very happy with it and the five other Zeiss ZK lenses I have. Are you using the 2/100 with an M42 adaptor or ZK?

The 2/135 has interested me since it came out and several years ago I explored the option to pick up the Industrial version in M42 via the local Australian distributor. I was looking at the 21/2.8 and the 15/2.8 as well and saw this as the only way to pick up the T* lenses not made in ZK mount or were no longer readily available. The person I spoke with at the local supplier all but sounded indiginant at the thought of a lowly Pentax M42 adaptor being fitted to a Zeiss and he waffled on about errors in milling accurately would likely cause errors blah blah blah. Well I stopped listending about this time and parked the idea until last year when the K-1 was released and the Leitax adaptor was announced. The Leitax adaptor seemed a simpler solution than M42 as I would be just changing a lens with a K mount each time instead of dealing with an M42 adaptor in the camera. Unfortunately my circumstances have changed since last year so now I'm having to be much more selective in my choices and the nice to haves are likely to remain on a wish list unless there's something that could be an improvement and justifiable in my mind to pursue.

Currently the only lens I have on the radar is the Venus Laowo 12mm. After this I would look at an adapted Zeiss, so for now it's still intriguing as a lens as like Fenwoodian, a part of the attraction is to use them at f2. For me there's an appeal to me in how the Zeiss render at this aperture and therefore having a lens that better controls CA is of course something that caught my eye. And whilst the 2/100 doesn't always have such bad CA, the challenging subject conditions used in this comparison provoked the response. Notably I think it was worse than the green/magenta CA either of my 2/100's ever produced so there could be a bit of lens differentiation in the results too. Indeed, I've had more problems with purple fringing CA at wider apertures with my 2/100's than anything captured here.

Anyhoo, based on my experiences with CA from 2 copies of the 2/100 the comparo provided a good idea on what I might expect from the 2/135 if I decide to pursue one.

Tas
04-11-2017, 12:45 PM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Tas Quote
Are you using the 2/100 with an M42 adaptor or ZK?
Straight ZK. I gradually assembled a collection of them,
after falling for a 25/2.8 as the gateway drug when I wanted a good 24-ish landscape lens for APS-C.
QuoteOriginally posted by Tas Quote
The person I spoke with at the local supplier all but sounded indiginant at the thought of a lowly Pentax M42 adaptor being fitted to a Zeiss and he waffled on about errors in milling accurately would likely cause errors blah blah blah.
That might be true for the cheap adaptors,
but if you pay for the Pentax one, you get a precision product.
QuoteOriginally posted by Tas Quote
And whilst the 2/100 doesn't always have such bad CA, the challenging subject conditions used in this comparison provoked the response. Notably I think it was worse than the green/magenta CA either of my 2/100's ever produced so there could be a bit of lens differentiation in the results too. Indeed, I've had more problems with purple fringing CA at wider apertures with my 2/100's than anything captured here.
Purple fringing seems to vary with the sensor.
It's not a problem with my DA 40 XS on APS-C, but shows up on the Q sensors.

I'm usually using my Makro-Planar for macro and repro,
where the flat field and absence of geometric distortion are important.

For bokeh shots, where the Makro-Planar shows the longitudinal CAs,
I usually use a 90mm or 180mm Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar.

I've wondered about trying to get a 125mm Apo-Lanthar,
which would probably behave like the Apo-Sonnar,
but have never seen one readily available,
and I'm not sure if it would earn its keep.
They're both big lenses to be humping around.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
apo, apo sonnar, image, images, k-mount, lens, lenses, makro-planar vs zeiss, pentax, pentax lens, post, slr lens, sonnar which lens, zeiss, zeiss 135/2 apo
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Carl Zeiss T* ZK mounts (Distagon, Planar, Makro-Planar) Tom S. Lens Clubs 902 4 Days Ago 02:17 AM
For Sale - Sold: 3 ZK Lenses: Zeiss 35 mm F2, Zeiss 50 mm F2 Makro, and Zeiss 85 mm F1.4 Planar Vantage-Point Sold Items 10 08-31-2016 08:11 PM
K-5 IIs w/ Zeiss 50mm f2 Makro-Planar Photos (& One 100% Crop) neil Pentax K-5 7 11-04-2012 10:04 PM
Zeiss Makro-Planar 2/100 ZK test shots! tcom Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 22 08-17-2008 12:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top