EOS Cameras and Manual Lenses / Discuss

SteveFE    says:

Well somebody had to do it.

Name: Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135mm f/3.5
Mount: M42
Tested On: Canon EOS 30D and Praktica SuperTL
Zoom/Prime: Prime
Focal Length: 135mm
Maximum Aperture: f/3.5
Minimum Aperture: f/22
Diaphragm Blades: 6
Price Paid: GB £40
Serial Number (or Approx.): 68448

Product Ratings (1=miserable, 5=excellent):
Construction Quality: 4
Image Quality: 4.5

Overall Value For Price (for what I paid anyway—beware of eBay sharks talking these up and demanding ripoff prices; they are still findable relatively cheap if you're patient): 5
Recommended: Yes

Lens Photos:

Schematic: just look at those superthick elements! (and am I developing a thing for old 4 element/3 group designs? This and the Macro-Tak are my two new favourite lenses, and despite their simplicity they give very little away to far more modern and sophisticated designs)
(schematic from www.praktica-users.com)

Here it is on my SuperTL, surrounded by a bevy of M42 beauties.



Review:
--------------------------------------------------------

Wow. I'm onto my second one of these. The first had a jammed aperture (but I paid next to nothing for it), and it died a horrible death while I had it in bits for "fixing". The second is in mint condition, with flawless glass and nice smooth mechanicals. The tendency for CZJ lenses to have bashes and mechanical problems is why I marked construction quality as 4. They just don't feel quite as indestructible as the best Japanese lenses. A good one will have pretty smooth focus and a snappy aperture though. It's quite a bit smaller and lighter than the Meyer Orestegor 135/2.8.

Anyway, what matters is how it takes pictures. and the answer is, pretty damn well. I think the lens has all the characteristic qualities of the East German Zeisses in spades, and more so even than the legendary Flektogon. Contrast and colours are unmatched, with maybe just the slightest tendency to warmth, making it an excellent lens for use with film cameras where you either don't have the opportunity or inclination to jazz up the results like you would a digital shot. It doesn't flare much (look at that diagram again: hardly any air-glass boundaries).

It focusses very close for a 135. A couple of feet gets you sharp shots, making it similarly near-macro-capable as the Flek (I haven't tried it on tubes yet but I'm sure it'd work well on them). It's also pretty sharp wide open, and maintains good contrast wide open as well, partly thanks to its sensible built-in hood, that extends quite deep to give good shading. The multicoating on later models seems very deep and effective, with a deep reddish-purple tint.

Bokeh is very good indeed, almost textbook neutral wide open with a Leitz-like creaminess on distant highlight objects. It gets hexagonal on point lights as you stop down, like the Flek, but is still pleasant enough and a lot better than many more expensive lenses.

I don't do brick walls or test charts, but I haven't noticed any barrel or pincushion distortions. They're not usually any sort of an issue with tele primes anyway.

I've only marked the image quality down half a point because it can display quite strong red-fringe chromatic aberration at high-contrast boundaries towards the edges. C'est la vie. Nobody's perfect. I think the positive qualities outweigh one small flaw by so far that you'd stupid not to pick one of these up if you like the medium tele perspective and get a good price for a good condition one (I'd define a good price as below £50 / €75 / $80 or so).

Some samples:

Wide open and close, digital (the first copy, RIP)


f/4 or 5.6 and very close (film)


Bokeh fun, counter-light, maybe f/6.3 or thereabouts (film)


Did I mention colours and contrast? (digital, very little retouching)


I like the 135 perspective for landscape (digital)

Originally posted at 3:02PM, 8 December 2008 PDT (permalink)
SteveFE edited this topic 41 months ago.