Discuss theZeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE Lens Review - tell us what you think of theZeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE Lens.
Printable View
Discuss theZeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE Lens Review - tell us what you think of theZeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE Lens.
I think there is a typo in the "reproduction ratios" picture of the iris. Shouldn
Thanks John - I
I
Don
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Jon
2 1/2 month old babies don't run away. Or crawl away for that matter. [:P]
I have thought about this lens. And own the 180mm L Macro and the 100mm L IS Macro.
But the real question I had reading the review, is trying to figure out if this lens is going to give me something the other two do not.
- It appears that the Ziess is better built.
- You can go down to F2, but for Macro I am not sure this is really needed.
- The bokeh does not appear to be significantly better
- Manual focus is not a big deal to me with this lens because macro is usually manual focus any way for what I would do with it.
Fromother reviews I have read about this lens, I was expecting to hear more positives about IQ compared to the Canon's. But after reading this I was left asking would I really see any improvement. The side by side comparison that Bryan usually puts at the end of a review was geared more toward the way the lens functions and not the differences in quality of picture. Which at this level of lens, maybe those differences aren't significant?
I agree. With f/2 and great IQ, I thought maybe this lens could possibly simultaneously fill the rolls of the 100 macro and the 135 f/2. But the fact that it only goes to 0.5x really makes it less desirable to me as a macro lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I've never used the lens, but looking at Bryan's images it looks like the Zeiss has a real IQ edge at f/2 in the corners over anything canon makes (except the 200 f/2 of course), but stopped down as you would use a macro the canon seems to have the sharpness edge. Based on the flimsy evidence of the single picture in Bryan's review, I actually prefer the canon bokek. Of course there is mystical "Zeiss look", but I haven't been able to isolate that (though I make no claim that it does not exist)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
Really I had the same impression about the bokeh, the canon 100mm was better. But they were similar, and if they are similar the Zeiss will loose against the 180mm L as I find it better than canons 100mm.
I had been waiting for Bryan to review this lens for some time. I was hoping for something along the line of the "Mystical Zeiss look" but it wasn't there. I guess that look is like a unicorn, they are rare and you don't see them very often.
I've had a similar impression reading the review and.playing with the ISO 12233 charts comparing the Zeiss to the Canon 100 mm L.Both look like excellent lenses but with IS, AF, 1:1 and the red ring negating the "Zeiss look" my impression is that the 100L is a better lens.
It is slight, but a quick example:
www.the-digital-picture.com/.../ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
Looking at a couple of these, I would favor canon from f/2.8 through f/5.6 and the Zeiss, due to the edges at f/8. But, as a crop sensor user, I don't use the edges...
To me this lens is quite attractive, I shoot macro mostly on a tripod and the wider aperture is helpfull for more loosely frame subjects. All my lenses are MF anyway so problem there. But an near MM f/2 is probably not going to be used as much. My biggest problem is I already have the very decent Minolta MD 100mm f/4 Macro so it's hard to justify the expense.
John.