Vintage Carl Zeiss Sonnar 135mm f2.8 Review On Sony A7II

The vintage Carl Zeiss 135mm f2.8 lens has the image qualities I would expect from Carl Zeiss glass, but how does it perform on the modern mirrorless Sony A7 II camera?
Check out the video to see sample images of how this modern camera and vintage lens performed, and my thoughts after using them.If you have any experience with this lens or any other favorite vintage lenses let me know about it in the comments.
FOLLOW ME:
Full Disclosure - I do not work for Sony or have any sponsorship from the company. This is my honest feedback and thoughts about the Vintage CZ 135mm f2.8 lens on the Sony A7 II camera.
#vintagelenses #photographygear #mirrorlesscamera

[marshalljvanderhoofphoto]

What's your favorite 135mm Vintage or modern lens? Let me know.

[Mr.Monta]

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.

[jimjimskimmer]

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.

[andriimartynov]

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.

[spectralcav]

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.

[patrickmckeag]

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.

[Narsuitus]

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)

[perrydickerson]

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.

[HankTaylor-rbpm]

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.

[sergeantcrow]

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.. 😊

[lxhk]

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.

[JohnW-hmeg]

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 .

[miguelmonforte]

Definetely not for sports photography, but should be nice for portraits sessions

[Macjohn]

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.

[tomislavmiletic_]

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...

[ejacks]

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 ☮️ ✌🏾

[mariusgodeanu]

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 ).

[Narsuitus]

I use a Zeiss 135mm f/2 Nikon F mount lens on Nikon SLRs and Fuji X mirrorless cameras.

[dgaijin]

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.

[wendysburgers]

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.