CZ Sonnar 2.8/135 vs CZJ Sonnar 2.8/180

[philippe_vandenbroeck]

I wonder whether the Carl Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/135 for manual

24x36 format is the same optical formula as the (multicoated)

Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 2.8/180 for MF cameras (P6)? Either

way, what difference in optical performance is there to be

expected between these two lenses? Thanks for input.

 

-- P

[bernhard]

From what a quick google says, both seem to have a very similar optical formula with 5 elements in 4 groups: CZ135 (http://www.zeiss.de/de/photo/home.nsf/3187a822cd4605b7c125670900704e24/96891538ce82b140c12567a8004469f2/$FILE/Sonnar%202,8_135_d.pdf) and CZJ (http://www.praktica-users.com/lens/p6lenses/czjson2.8_180.html).

 

The Zeiss/Contax 180/2.8 for 35mm has 6 elements in 5 groups and judging from the MTFs the Zeiss/Contax 135 is slightly 'better' than the Zeiss/Contax 180, so I would not expect that the cheaper CZJ180 from a less reputable manufacturer with less elements that has to cover a bigger image circle would be better than the Zeiss/Contax 180/2.8. So I would assume that it won't come close the the Zeiss/Contax 135. This may or may not be relevant after you factor in different enlargement factors and film grain issues between 35mm and 6x6.

[philippe_vandenbroeck]

Thank you, Bernhard, for this very pertinent answer.

 

-- P

[nick roberts]

I have the 135mm in Rollei QBM mount, and the P6 180 - and for that matter a CZJ 135 f3.5 Sonnar. What can I say? The CZ 135 is the sharpest, the 180 produces the best pictures by virtue of the bigger neg. But I actually like all three!