I (yet) only own a Pentacon 135 f2.8 which is also great, pretty famous and widely available at an appropriate price (at least in Europe). The CZJ 135 is on my wishlist. Since I got my first CZJ (50 f1.8) I fell in love with CZJ and Pentacon is my 2nd choice, depending on the focal length needed and the conditions at all. Japanese (and other) lenses didn't last long in my collection.
As I remember from the 1980´s, the Contax Zeiss Sonnar 135mm 2.8 T* was one of the very best 135mm Lenses at that time. Today the best 135mm Lens are the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM Lens which I have, but it is big and heavy, so I may get the much more light weight Zeiss Batis Apo Sonnar 135mm 2.8 T*
All Carl Zeiss lenses are excellent but the C/Y series is the best value for money of ANY lens in my view. I adore these lenses, and have the 21,28,35,50,135 and 180 mm. I wouldn’t change them for anything.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Thanks for the video. I’m grateful for the excellent information you provided. My plan now is to convert my C/Y Zeiss lenses to the full frame BM Cinema Camera which has a Leica L-mount. Can’t wait to use them on the BM and shoot Braw.
Great video! I love shooting 135mm, I use it for portraits, street, landscapes… I’ve got a couple of 135mm lenses. One is single coated Sun optics F2.8 and the other one is CZJ sonnar 3.5. Both are sharp wide open. the Sun flares and looses contrast anytime when shot against light, in right conditions it produces very good images and interesting “vintage” colors. Another cons of this lens is very long minimal focusing distance. CZJ from the other hand is good all around lens, flares are well controlled, good contrast and beautiful color rendition. And it has a decent minimal focusing distance of 1m, because of that it beats the Sun in quality of out of focus blur at minimal focusing distance. The Sun was £16 and the CZJ - a whooping £49 including a soft case and a UV-filter.
Great video. I have an Asahi Super-Takumar 135mm f3.5 in M42 mount which I use on my a7II. Four elements in four groups; not a complex lens design. It seems pretty sharp to me, but I'm just an amateur. Based on the serial # I determined that it was made from 1965 to 1971 and its focus ring is still buttery smooth, and the aperture blades are perfect after more than 50 years. I like to take it down off the shelf now and then just to feel it in my hands and appreciate the craftsmanship that went into it. It's just a beautiful piece of equipment even if its IQ may not equal modern lenses.
Thank you for the comment. I totally understand and agree with you. There is just very special about the craftsmanship of some of these vintage lenses. The IQ might not be as equal, but does not mean the lenses don't take beautiful images. I totally appreciate that character that they bring.
Manual focusing on a moving subject is tough and takes practice. It's not impossible but requires great familiarity with the lens you're using and a lot of time in order to practice your technique. For paid work I can understand why you'd want a modern AF lens but for amateur use on a tight budget, the old manual focus lenses can do a great job. Just for context, I've been shooting with manual focus lenses for over a decade and still honing my technique. When I use an autofocus lens, I often find it's got close to the desired point of focus but hasn't quite nailed it. My camera is a similar age to your own and I guess a more modern camera, one with various types of eye AF etc, would likely do a better job.
Thank you for the comment! Completely agree with everything you mention. Manual focus does take a lot of practice and amateurs on a tight budget, it can be a great option. It's also a great way to experiment with focal lengths to see what works for you and what you gravitate to as a photog without spending too much. Thank you and enjoy your journey.
Thanks Marshall for your honest review. I agree trying to use a manual focus sometimes can be frustrating. My favorite 135mm is the Steinheil 135 mm 2.8. There is something special about the way in renders a scene. The color and sharpness is first class.
Thank you for the comment. I have never used the Steinheil 135mm 2.8 before. Sounds like a great lens. I so enjoy that "special" quality of the vintage lenses for sure. Manual focusing can definitely be tough for some types of photography, but not all.
I own and use the following: 135mm f/2.8 Takumar 135mm f/2.8 Fujinon 135mm f/3.5 Nikkor 135mm f/2 Nikkor (my favorite for portraits) 135mm f/2 Zeiss (my favorite for photojournalism)
I was hoping for more technical information but now I'm not sure if the lens shown is worth the time. I'm A novice photographer going on since 2005 and most of my vintage lens are Olympus. Soon to get Olympus 135mm'f2.8. Entered with 135' JC Penny f2.8. ,which by my guess takes extra ordinary shots .
Thank you for the feedback. The vintage Olympus lenses are very nice, and I've used a couple really good JC Penny lenses, and a couple that weren't so good. Guessing it was because they sourced out to different manufacturers to make the lenses.
Use case should determine a buy decision. The image quality of my three manual focus voightlander lenses are easily on par with my two canon auto focus lenses. My auto focus lenses do not allways perform as they should and miss focus from time to time. The manual focus lenses are much smaller, made from more durable materials, simpler and more reliable. When I miss focus I can only blame myself and this enforces more thought witch results in better images.
Thank you for the comment. I really like the lens, and would totally recommend it. You just have to know going into it that fast moving objects can be be tough to nail focus consistently at this focal length. Enjoy those Voigtlander lenses.
Recently and finally bought a 5D mk ii Then installed Magic Lantern... Switched on focus peaking and all these tiny sparkles appear in live view hopefully to 'nail' focus! Time will tell.. 😊
Most considerations in this test were about depth of field and the disadvantage of shooting moving targets with a thin focus plane and a manual focus lens. This is generic. It should be mainly about the excellent colors, the special Sonnar bokeh (not for everyone, but definitely for me) and the contasts, that are laborous to create in post (no it's not just adjusting the contrast slider). All this and more create the character of this lens, with this legendary, beautifully old fashioned lens design. Sonnars still rule.
If that's hard, imagine how it is to use manually focusing 300mm f4 lens. I do it regularly, on my Fuji X cameras, what actually gives a picture compared with 450mm on the full frame camera. But than agin, I've been raised focussing old SLR and video cameras...
Thank you for the comment. I use the 300mm f4 CZ Jena on my Fuji GFX camera and I find it easier to catch focus than with this CZ 135mm. I was so surprised that I missed as many shots as I did with this particular lens. Overall though I do really like the lens.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Focus peaking is on of course. But than you gotta hit a button (with your thumb preferably, easy on Fujis but IDK about Sony) that will enlarge a portion of your image for easier focussing, than close the aperture and than shoot. Of course, focus should be set while lens is fully open otherwise everything will be in red or whatever colour you had chosen. Option is to shoot everything wide open if possible. Maybe an old news for you but good for newbies. BTW, there's nearly impossible to find an adapter that will keep aperture open if you are using old mechanical vintage lenses, sadly...
What do you mean it has good shallow depth of field, but doesn't hold up to other lens? Do you mean "Bokeh" or "quality of the out of focus areas" ? Depth of field is a stict mathematical property and ANY 135 f2.8 lens ( or zoom lens used at 135mm f2.8 ) will have THE EXACT SAME depth of field ( DOF ) - but of course different out of focus "look" or bokeh. The DOF is dependent on 4 main factors and WILL NOT change with different lens if all these are equal: focal length, aperture, distance to subject and size of sensor ( or film size ).
Thank you for your comment and the questions. I completely agree with you that DOF is a mathematical property. I am really referencing a few things in talking about the CZ and f2.8 DOF. I was really surprised how sharp it is at f2.8 since many vintage lenses are not necessarily as sharp wide open as they are when they are stopped down a couple stops. Additionally, I really like the the "quality" of the out of focus areas which surprised me given that it is an f2.8 lens and not an f2 or even lower. Overall I really like the lens but if someone is looking for a lens with shallower DOF the CZ 135 f2 would probably be a better choice. Hope this answers your questions.
Good video!! Thanks! It’s a great lens. My digital camera is an Olympus OM-1 but it becomes a 270mm lens with the crop factor on a micro 4/3 camera. The focal length is just too long for portraits. It stays on my CONTAX C/Y mount film bodies. Depending on your style of shooting or subjects(landscapes, still life, portraits of adults, etc..) it’s still a great lens for a digital shooter. It really requires one to take their time and it doesn’t hurt if your digital camera has focus assist. However, I’m shooting it exclusively on a film body. P.S. Just curious if you ever used the Pentax 6x7 105mm 2.4f on your medium format Fujifilm? Peace ☮️ ✌🏾
Thank you for the comment. The 135 is a good lens, and it is great when shooting film. Focus assist is definitely helpful with this lens if you have it. I have not had the opportunity to use the Pentax 6X7 105 on the MF Fuji. I've heard it is a really good lens, but I don't have much experience with it. Enjoy the shooting with film. I still shoot with film periodically and every time it makes me miss that I don't use it more often.
On the correct camera, this lens is exceptional and easy to operate. It needs a manual focus camera with a split image/micro prism focusing screen. It’s not meant for autofocus screens. And you need to learn Hyperfocal Focus so that you don’t need to constantly refocus your lens. This lens was made for different age of photography. You’re basically comparing apples to oranges with these lenses.
Thank you for the comment. I completely agree that this lens was made for a different era photography, but even on modern digital cameras this lens can produce beautiful images. The point I was making with the focus is it can be tricky on a modern digital camera, and if I'm shooting creative art images that is not a problem, but if I'm shooting client work where missing focus on images is not good, it might not be the best choice. I really love the images this lens produces. Thank you so much for your input!
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto I would suggest that you may want to get a film camera to avail yourself of the benefits of this lens and have your films scanned professionally. Many a professional photographer used this lens on paid assignments back in those days. This lens is definitely not modern digital camera friendly.
I have the same lens and am curious, is your 135/2.8 lens made in Japan or Germany? I ask because I also have the same vintage Carl Zeiss (Yashica/Contax mount) 200mm f/3.5 Tele-Tessar. My 135/2.8 was made in Japan but the 200/3.5 Tele-Tessar was made in Germany. I don't know if where they were made makes any difference because I don't have their German/Japan counter parts to compare them against. Thanks for an excellent video.
Thank you for the comment. My 135/2.8 was made in Japan. I've heard the specs are supposed to be exactly the same between the Japan and Germany copies, but many people tend to think the German made CZ CYs are a little better. They are definitely much pricier on the used market. Enjoy your lenses. That 200 is a fantastic lens
I personally like the CZ 135 2.8 a little better than the Jena 3.5. The main reason is the 2.8 vs the 3.5. The extra light and depth of field are really helpful.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Thank you. Since you have this lens can we see some more sample pictures. very less information is available about this online.
What's your favorite 135mm Vintage or modern lens? Let me know.
I (yet) only own a Pentacon 135 f2.8 which is also great, pretty famous and widely available at an appropriate price (at least in Europe). The CZJ 135 is on my wishlist. Since I got my first CZJ (50 f1.8) I fell in love with CZJ and Pentacon is my 2nd choice, depending on the focal length needed and the conditions at all. Japanese (and other) lenses didn't last long in my collection.
@@GeNTooFReaK Thank you for the comment. The Pentacon 135 is supposed to be a fantastic lens.
Canon FD 135mm f2.
@@paulhenry7 Very nice Vintage lens.
As I remember from the 1980´s, the Contax Zeiss Sonnar 135mm 2.8 T* was one of the very best 135mm Lenses at that time. Today the best 135mm Lens are the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM Lens which I have, but it is big and heavy, so I may get the much more light weight Zeiss Batis Apo Sonnar 135mm 2.8 T*
I am proud to say, i own this lens. Never leaves my bag. What an exceptional lens, the image quality is AMAZING. Will never aell it.
Thank you for the comment. I do not believe I will ever sell mine either.
All Carl Zeiss lenses are excellent but the C/Y series is the best value for money of ANY lens in my view. I adore these lenses, and have the 21,28,35,50,135 and 180 mm. I wouldn’t change them for anything.
Thank you for the information and comment. The CZ C/Y's is definitely a great value and produce beautiful images.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Thanks for the video. I’m grateful for the excellent information you provided. My plan now is to convert my C/Y Zeiss lenses to the full frame BM Cinema Camera which has a Leica L-mount. Can’t wait to use them on the BM and shoot Braw.
@@Mr.Monta77 That sounds like a great project! The CZs should be great for that.
Great video! I love shooting 135mm, I use it for portraits, street, landscapes…
I’ve got a couple of 135mm lenses. One is single coated Sun optics F2.8 and the other one is CZJ sonnar 3.5. Both are sharp wide open. the Sun flares and looses contrast anytime when shot against light, in right conditions it produces very good images and interesting “vintage” colors. Another cons of this lens is very long minimal focusing distance.
CZJ from the other hand is good all around lens, flares are well controlled, good contrast and beautiful color rendition. And it has a decent minimal focusing distance of 1m, because of that it beats the Sun in quality of out of focus blur at minimal focusing distance.
The Sun was £16 and the CZJ - a whooping £49 including a soft case and a UV-filter.
Thank you for the comment. It's always good to hear about the characteristics of other lenses.
Great video. I have an Asahi Super-Takumar 135mm f3.5 in M42 mount which I use on my a7II. Four elements in four groups; not a complex lens design. It seems pretty sharp to me, but I'm just an amateur. Based on the serial # I determined that it was made from 1965 to 1971 and its focus ring is still buttery smooth, and the aperture blades are perfect after more than 50 years. I like to take it down off the shelf now and then just to feel it in my hands and appreciate the craftsmanship that went into it. It's just a beautiful piece of equipment even if its IQ may not equal modern lenses.
Thank you for the comment. I totally understand and agree with you. There is just very special about the craftsmanship of some of these vintage lenses. The IQ might not be as equal, but does not mean the lenses don't take beautiful images. I totally appreciate that character that they bring.
Manual focusing on a moving subject is tough and takes practice. It's not impossible but requires great familiarity with the lens you're using and a lot of time in order to practice your technique. For paid work I can understand why you'd want a modern AF lens but for amateur use on a tight budget, the old manual focus lenses can do a great job.
Just for context, I've been shooting with manual focus lenses for over a decade and still honing my technique. When I use an autofocus lens, I often find it's got close to the desired point of focus but hasn't quite nailed it. My camera is a similar age to your own and I guess a more modern camera, one with various types of eye AF etc, would likely do a better job.
Thank you for the comment! Completely agree with everything you mention. Manual focus does take a lot of practice and amateurs on a tight budget, it can be a great option. It's also a great way to experiment with focal lengths to see what works for you and what you gravitate to as a photog without spending too much.
Thank you and enjoy your journey.
Thanks Marshall for your honest review. I agree trying to use a manual focus sometimes can be frustrating. My favorite 135mm is the Steinheil 135 mm 2.8. There is something special about the way in renders a scene. The color and sharpness is first class.
Thank you for the comment. I have never used the Steinheil 135mm 2.8 before. Sounds like a great lens. I so enjoy that "special" quality of the vintage lenses for sure. Manual focusing can definitely be tough for some types of photography, but not all.
Excellent review ... Bravo !
Thank you for the feedback!
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Btw. I have CZJ 35, 50, 80 and 135 mm...all are excellent ! Regards
I own and use the following:
135mm f/2.8 Takumar
135mm f/2.8 Fujinon
135mm f/3.5 Nikkor
135mm f/2 Nikkor (my favorite for portraits)
135mm f/2 Zeiss (my favorite for photojournalism)
That is a nice list of 135's and thank you for you input on which are your favorite!
I was hoping for more technical information but now I'm not sure if the lens shown is worth the time. I'm A novice photographer going on since 2005 and most of my vintage lens are Olympus. Soon to get Olympus 135mm'f2.8. Entered with 135' JC Penny f2.8. ,which by my guess takes extra ordinary shots .
Thank you for the feedback. The vintage Olympus lenses are very nice, and I've used a couple really good JC Penny lenses, and a couple that weren't so good. Guessing it was because they sourced out to different manufacturers to make the lenses.
Use case should determine a buy decision. The image quality of my three manual focus voightlander lenses are easily on par with my two canon auto focus lenses. My auto focus lenses do not allways perform as they should and miss focus from time to time. The manual focus lenses are much smaller, made from more durable materials, simpler and more reliable. When I miss focus I can only blame myself and this enforces more thought witch results in better images.
Thank you for the comment. I really like the lens, and would totally recommend it. You just have to know going into it that fast moving objects can be be tough to nail focus consistently at this focal length. Enjoy those Voigtlander lenses.
Recently and finally bought a 5D mk ii Then installed Magic Lantern... Switched on focus peaking and all these tiny sparkles appear in live view hopefully to 'nail' focus! Time will tell.. 😊
Magic Lantern is awesome
Most considerations in this test were about depth of field and the disadvantage of shooting moving targets with a thin focus plane and a manual focus lens. This is generic. It should be mainly about the excellent colors, the special Sonnar bokeh (not for everyone, but definitely for me) and the contasts, that are laborous to create in post (no it's not just adjusting the contrast slider). All this and more create the character of this lens, with this legendary, beautifully old fashioned lens design. Sonnars still rule.
Thank you for the comment. I do completely agree your take on the character of this lens and the colors it renders are outstanding.
If that's hard, imagine how it is to use manually focusing 300mm f4 lens. I do it regularly, on my Fuji X cameras, what actually gives a picture compared with 450mm on the full frame camera. But than agin, I've been raised focussing old SLR and video cameras...
Thank you for the comment. I use the 300mm f4 CZ Jena on my Fuji GFX camera and I find it easier to catch focus than with this CZ 135mm. I was so surprised that I missed as many shots as I did with this particular lens. Overall though I do really like the lens.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Focus peaking is on of course. But than you gotta hit a button (with your thumb preferably, easy on Fujis but IDK about Sony) that will enlarge a portion of your image for easier focussing, than close the aperture and than shoot. Of course, focus should be set while lens is fully open otherwise everything will be in red or whatever colour you had chosen. Option is to shoot everything wide open if possible. Maybe an old news for you but good for newbies. BTW, there's nearly impossible to find an adapter that will keep aperture open if you are using old mechanical vintage lenses, sadly...
@@tomislavmiletic_ Thank you for the great info. Focus peaking is definitely a helpful tip.
What do you mean it has good shallow depth of field, but doesn't hold up to other lens?
Do you mean "Bokeh" or "quality of the out of focus areas" ?
Depth of field is a stict mathematical property and ANY 135 f2.8 lens ( or zoom lens used at 135mm f2.8 ) will have THE EXACT SAME depth of field ( DOF ) - but of course different out of focus "look" or bokeh.
The DOF is dependent on 4 main factors and WILL NOT change with different lens if all these are equal: focal length, aperture, distance to subject and size of sensor ( or film size ).
Thank you for your comment and the questions. I completely agree with you that DOF is a mathematical property. I am really referencing a few things in talking about the CZ and f2.8 DOF. I was really surprised how sharp it is at f2.8 since many vintage lenses are not necessarily as sharp wide open as they are when they are stopped down a couple stops. Additionally, I really like the the "quality" of the out of focus areas which surprised me given that it is an f2.8 lens and not an f2 or even lower. Overall I really like the lens but if someone is looking for a lens with shallower DOF the CZ 135 f2 would probably be a better choice. Hope this answers your questions.
Good video!! Thanks!
It’s a great lens. My digital camera is an Olympus OM-1 but it becomes a 270mm lens with the crop factor on a micro 4/3 camera. The focal length is just too long for portraits.
It stays on my CONTAX C/Y mount film bodies. Depending on your style of shooting or subjects(landscapes, still life, portraits of adults, etc..) it’s still a great lens for a digital shooter. It really requires one to take their time and it doesn’t hurt if your digital camera has focus assist. However, I’m shooting it exclusively on a film body.
P.S. Just curious if you ever used the Pentax 6x7 105mm 2.4f on your medium format Fujifilm?
Peace ☮️ ✌🏾
Thank you for the comment. The 135 is a good lens, and it is great when shooting film. Focus assist is definitely helpful with this lens if you have it.
I have not had the opportunity to use the Pentax 6X7 105 on the MF Fuji. I've heard it is a really good lens, but I don't have much experience with it.
Enjoy the shooting with film. I still shoot with film periodically and every time it makes me miss that I don't use it more often.
Definetely not for sports photography, but should be nice for portraits sessions
This is a really awesome lens for portraits for sure. Thank you for the comment!
Good Presentations
Thank you
On the correct camera, this lens is exceptional and easy to operate. It needs a manual focus camera with a split image/micro prism focusing screen. It’s not meant for autofocus screens. And you need to learn Hyperfocal Focus so that you don’t need to constantly refocus your lens. This lens was made for different age of photography. You’re basically comparing apples to oranges with these lenses.
Thank you for the comment. I completely agree that this lens was made for a different era photography, but even on modern digital cameras this lens can produce beautiful images. The point I was making with the focus is it can be tricky on a modern digital camera, and if I'm shooting creative art images that is not a problem, but if I'm shooting client work where missing focus on images is not good, it might not be the best choice.
I really love the images this lens produces. Thank you so much for your input!
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto I would suggest that you may want to get a film camera to avail yourself of the benefits of this lens and have your films scanned professionally. Many a professional photographer used this lens on paid assignments back in those days. This lens is definitely not modern digital camera friendly.
I use a Zeiss 135mm f/2 Nikon F mount lens on Nikon SLRs and Fuji X mirrorless cameras.
Thank you for the comment! The Fuji X cameras are a great lineup for using vintage lenses. Enjoy!
I have the same lens and am curious, is your 135/2.8 lens made in Japan or Germany? I ask because I also have the same vintage Carl Zeiss (Yashica/Contax mount) 200mm f/3.5 Tele-Tessar. My 135/2.8 was made in Japan but the 200/3.5 Tele-Tessar was made in Germany. I don't know if where they were made makes any difference because I don't have their German/Japan counter parts to compare them against. Thanks for an excellent video.
Thank you for the comment. My 135/2.8 was made in Japan. I've heard the specs are supposed to be exactly the same between the Japan and Germany copies, but many people tend to think the German made CZ CYs are a little better. They are definitely much pricier on the used market. Enjoy your lenses. That 200 is a fantastic lens
wow that what i was looking for. Any idea if ths is better thn 135 mm 3.5 Jena
I personally like the CZ 135 2.8 a little better than the Jena 3.5. The main reason is the 2.8 vs the 3.5. The extra light and depth of field are really helpful.
I will add they are both good lenses though either way you go.
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto Thank you. Since you have this lens can we see some more sample pictures. very less information is available about this online.
@@myblueandme I will see what I can do to make that happen.
💙💙💙💙💙💙Nice Camera💛💛💛💛💛💛
Please CHANGE THE VIDEO TITLE to
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f/2.8
to be easily found. Need to be specific. Title of the video is Lacking.
Thank you for the feedback!
Find yourself a pancolar!
Thank you for the comment, as I sit here and day dream for a pancolar
@@marshalljvanderhoofphoto you wont be disappointed!
@@creepyoldhouseexplorersclub I had a 50 pancolar at one time years ago when I shot film. They are nice.