Posts: 3,120
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
Judging by the results shown by the 135 in Lenstip tests, they could've just as well called it an Otus and nobody would have any reason to question this.
The 18/2.8 surely looks brand new (and no, I won't imply that it's the same lens as the Batis with the same parameters, and wouldn't advise anyone to imply this either).
Posts: 2,711
Threads: 592
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
15
Well in Canon land this lens has a very serious and ferocious competition from Canon 135mm f2.0L, I can hardly imagine how someone could prefer this MF lens over the already excellent Canon lens
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
The Zeiss does some things better than the Canon. Luckily the Canon renders pretty nicely, most of the time.
Posts: 3,120
Threads: 34
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation:
21
Well, for one thing the 135L doesn't seem to be weather-sealed... or is it? So there is some space for improvement here.
Oh, and the CA look pretty strong in the PZ test report. So here's another area where other lenses may have an edge. Sometime Canon may choose to roll out a second version of the 135 - probably with the same BR sauce that the 35L II got - to combat this aberration - that'd certainly sound like a good idea to me, since the 135L predates the 35L in the lineup but the latter has been already replaced while the former has not.
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
Maybe the BR sauce is especially suited for wider angles?
