Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,209   Posts: 1,531,973   Online: 1173
      
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 55 of 55
  1. #51
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    Yes the L is spectacular. Haven't tried the Zeiss.

    I recently picked up a Q Nikkor that was so cheap it was an insult.
    I haven't had a chance to check it but besides the 105 2.5 I prefer a 135 after the 85 focal length.

  2. #52
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,887
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFlyingCamera View Post
    The 135 f2.8 is a good but not spectacular lens. For the price you can't go too far wrong, but it does have perceptible pincushion distortion - something you'd not expect from a Zeiss/Contax lens, but it's there. Thus the price. I'll content myself with shooting the 135 f2 L on my Canon rig when I want/need something in that focal length.
    Yeah I know it's not a terrific performer and has some issues but for the price I'll satisfy my curiosity and see what I think. Plus I just got an AX body for a steal and had fun using it with the 85/1.4 Planar this last weekend. Thing was I found myself wanting something longer and the 180/2.8 was just too big to carry for this informal shoot I did so I figure I'll try the 135/2.8.

    By the way the 85/1.4 performed flawlessly on the AX with hardly a shot not in tack sharp focus even wide open though most shots were at f/2 and 2.8 as it was quite bright out.

    As for the 135 length I have some nice "Sonnar" types for my Leicas (the Nikkor-H, which has been a very nice performer) and for my Contax IIIa (I think the 135/4 Sonnar, I'm not home now to check). But using such on a rangefinder vs an SLR, especially the AX, is a very different experience.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  3. #53
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,887
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by brucemuir View Post
    Thumbs up Rich.
    I know you'll put it to good use.
    I've been eyeing the f/2 version but alas... that will have to wait for another day.

    Post some eye candy once you get a chance to run it through it's paces.
    I'd love the f/2 version but the size and $$$!

    Anyway, for $159? Gotta give it a try eh?
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  4. #54
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,265
    Images
    4
    I have the Contax rangefinders also and am confident the rf baseline will be plenty adequate for a 135 so I will eventually get one but have a Jupiter 9 that is super sweet so am in no hurry.

    We have some of the same tastes Rich. I used to frequent Tilden Park and Grizzly Peak quite often when I lined in Oakland (Piedmont Ave) in the early 90's.

  5. #55

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    New Jersey (again)
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,975
    I've used the 135mm in Contax RF mount -- all three versions (original black and nickel, heavy chrome and lightweight postwar alloy). It's really a sweet lens.

    I've also used the f/4.0 and f/2.8 Olympia versions in Contarex, and both are excellent lenses. The f/4.0 version likely is nearly identical to the final Contax RF version.

    I've also used the f/2.8 version in Rolleiflex QBM and have found it to be an excellent performer. I haven't used it for architectural shots, so it's likely that I haven't noticed any pincushion distortion.

    For $159, I think that you got an excellent deal.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin