Review: CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5

The Carl Zeiss AG is a German manufacturer founded in Jena, the eastern parts of Germany in 1846 by Carl Zeiss, Ernst Abbe, and Otto Schott.

At the end of the WW II, Jena was occupied by the US Army. When Jena was incorporated into the Soviet occupation zone, Zeiss was assisted by the US army to relocate to Stuttgart, West Germany, while the remainder of Zeiss was taken over by the (Eastern) German Democratic Republic as Kombinat VEB Zeiss Jena. The lenses manufactured in Jena after the war are branded Carl Zeiss Jena, while the West German lenses are labelled Carl Zeiss. The occupying Russians took most of the existing Zeiss factories and tooling back to the Soviet Union as the Kiev camera works, which produced copies of the Contax and other Zeiss Ikon products. [Wikipedia]

The lens has a built-in lens retractable hood to prevent flare.

The Sonnar design was originally designed by Dr. Ludwig Bertele in 1924 and patented by Zeiss. It has been extensively copied by other lens manufacturers, due to its excellent sharpness, low production cost and fast speed.

This lens, the Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar was produced in the factory remaining in the original city of Jena on the East German side of the border. After the war, the Russians copied also this lens as Jupiter 37A – which I also have. Comparing these two lenses reveals, that the CZJ is a better implementation of the same design: it seems more contrasty and less prone to flare. In my opinion, these differences indicate that the coating on the Jupiter is not as good as on the Zeiss Jena lens.
In theory, the Jupiter has one advantage – it is a preset lens with 12 (!) blades while the Zeiss Jena only has 6 blades. Wide open there is naturally no difference but this should Jupiter render a smoother bokeh when closing down. But – as seen below, it’s not that easy to see any difference for regular backgrounds. For out of focus light spots it is more visible a difference.

Top row: Jupiter, below, Zeiss. Left @ f/3.5, right @ f/8.
Not much difference here. Zeiss is a bit more contrasty and has a bit more vivid colors out of camera. Contrast has been adjusted here to match. Flare can be a problem with the Jupiter when shooting against light.

Aperture test

Check the article “Exteremly Shallow DOF” I wrote earlier.

Bokeh

October in Forest. Test shot @ f/3.5.

Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar 135/3.5 @ f/3.5 + Extension tube

The bokeh is quite OK. The long focal length helps render bokeh even for objects further away. When shooting closer, the bokeh becomes very dreamy and soft, while the focused areas remains very sharp.

The prices are still quite low, around 40-70 €. Do not pay the speculative prices of way more than 100 € on eBay.

Pros:

Sharp already at f/3.5.
High quality coating: very contrasty + nice colors.
Bokeh: smooth at f/3.5.
Good value for money.
Built-in lens hood.

Cons:

Not that fast.
Manual tele lens is not the easiest for moving targets.

Conclusion: If you need a short/mid manual tele lens for your DSLR, get an M42 adapter and this lens.

You can see more pictures with this lens at Flickr.