Has anyone compared the Voigtlander 125 and the ZF 100?
I've used the V125 extensively and find it to be excellent. Extremely beautiful bokeh at big aperture. Sharp wide open. Almost no trace of CA. The lens also goes to 1:1.
Then I sold the V125 lens and later acquired the ZF100. While the ZF100 is another stellar lens, its magnification is only half life size. Horrible purple fringe under high contrast situation. Some say that the purple fringe is caused by sensor bloom but I've not seen that before on the the V125. If it is really sensor bloom, then I can only say that the ZF lens causes it to happen frequently while it almost never happen on the V125.
With the ZF100 still in hand, I purchased another copy of the V125 some weeks ago. Have not been using it until a couple of days ago and fall in love with it all over again.
While I'm in the position to compare these 2 lenses directly now, I have to admit that I'm lazy and don't enjoy shooting 2 lenses side by side. Taking pairs of photos with 2 lenses of different focal length, and equipped with only 1 camera body, is no fun. Hence I'm asking if anyone has done a direct comparison before and save me the hassle to go through the test myself.
You seem to be in a better position than most to test and tell! Testing them for sharpness would be a fool's errand (apart from at max aperture, anyway) but it would be relatively quick and easy to shoot something to evaluate bokeh, colour and CA . . .
I have the C/Y 100/2 and Hasselblad 110/2, and when comparing the two lenses it's surprising how much difference the 10mm delta can make. Whether the 100mm v 125mm delta makes a difference is subjective and relates to how we compose and frame pictures. For me it would be a big consideration in deciding between the two lenses. And if I understand the Voigtlander correctly, it's a native EF mount with automatic aperture, and that would certainly influence my decision too.
hubsand wrote:
You seem to be in a better position than most to test and tell! Testing them for sharpness would be a fool's errand (apart from at max aperture, anyway) but it would be relatively quick and easy to shoot something to evaluate bokeh, colour and CA . . .
John Black wrote:
I have the C/Y 100/2 and Hasselblad 110/2, and when comparing the two lenses it's surprising how much difference the 10mm delta can make. Whether the 100mm v 125mm delta makes a difference is subjective and relates to how we compose and frame pictures. For me it would be a big consideration in deciding between the two lenses. And if I understand the Voigtlander correctly, it's a native EF mount with automatic aperture, and that would certainly influence my decision too.
U're right. Different focal length will yield difference in bokeh and difficulty in comparing sharpness. I think colour and contrast are easier to test in this case.
Yes, all my experience with V125 comes in EF mount and it is a pleasure to use with auto aperture compared to the ZF100mm.
My experience with the V125 shows that while it perform extremely well at the wide aperture, it looses it magic once the lens is stopped down to f8 or smaller. I suspect diffraction is the culprit. So I'm interested see how both lenses fair with the aperture stopped down.
I know you have reservations regarding the 100 ZF, so perhaps pairing the Voigt with a 135L would work well. The 135L is certainly good stopped down. With the aid of extension tubes the 135L could overlap somewhat with the 125mm if you wanted to carry one lens.
While I drool over the bokeh and sharpness of the voigtlander wide open (as well as the beautiful mechanics), I have a hard to believing it significantly outperforms the Sigma 150....which also is incredibly sharp, has wonderful bokeh, and very nice color, with no CA at any aperture.
- Sharpness - slight edge to CV (close up)
- Bokeh - preferred the CV.
- ZF better at distance than CV (superb macro). The CV is SHARP at distance but is optimized as a macro lens so, performance comes across better a closer distances.
- Color - better on CV
- Both have long focus throws, CV slightly 'slower' to focus than ZF.
- ZF does suffer some CA at borders and on OOF edges
- ZF, like 35/2, will P/GF (purple/green fringe) in high contrast sits. Is NOT caused by sensor, maybe specific lens/sensor interaction, but lens is a KEY factor. I used on 5D and 1Ds2.
- APO correction is worth its weight in gold (especially at current prices for either lens). CA and PG aside, makes a difference in color accuracy and tonality which also comes across in delivery of grays in B&W conversions.
- Diffraction, like many uber-sharp WO lenses, hits the CV earlier than average. The price of admission to the sharp-as-a-tack-WO club.
- Build is somewhat better on the ZF (feels like a better built CV 125 which it closely resembles).
That said, at it's original price, the CV was well under 1/2 the price of the 100 ZF, so it's mechanics have to be viewed in that context. It was never designed to be sold at $1000+. It was a hell of a bargain a the original price. I own the CV 90 and 180 APOs and despite rising prices, are incredible bargains in the IQ department.
At current prices (the CV being slightly cheaper than the ZF) if I were going to use it as a dedicated macro or near-macro lens, I'd take the CV.
As an all-round 100-125mm lens, if LIMITED TO THE CV or ZF ONLY, the 100 ZF (better distance performance) - but with some SERIOUS reservations due to the lack of APO at the price.
If I wanted a fast 100mm with good distance and 1:2 (or close to it) performance, sharp, nice bokeh, etc and no APO, I'd follow JB's suggestion and get a CV 100/2 and a set of tubes and save $500-700.
If I had a choice between the CV, ZF and Leica 100 (used) which are all in the same snack bracket - the Leica hands down (have owned as well). That said, the CV will likely increase in price - IF no new (and comparable) SLII versions of the original SL APO lenses come from CV in Fall (a rumor going around from some dealers).
Maybe you should also check some of the available EOS mount lenses like Contax N, Tokina or Sigma. Puts said Canons 100 Macro is as good as the Leica Makro. I have been using the 135L with the cheap Kenko rings and found it amazingly nice for a non Macro lens
Aug 08, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
It seems likely that the ZF 100 f/2 macro might well have trouble with longitudinal CAs (even if it handles CAs at harsh contrasts conditions well). It seems to really take an APO lens to quash longitudinal or bokeh CAs. See this review of the ZF 85 f/1.4 at photozone at this link:
That review suggests that the ZF 85 handle CA at harsh transitions pretty well, but does a lousy job of handling longitudinal (or bokeh) CAs. Since the ZF 100 is a non-APO lens, it likely has the same problem. Virtually all non-APO large aperture lenses suffer from this problem.
In my experience with the Zeiss / Contax lenses, the "longitudinal (or bokeh) CAs" are present in the C/Y 100/2, Hasselblad 110/2 (5th gen), Contax 85mm F1.4 N, and Contax 100mm F2.8 Sonnar-Makro N. Some conditions magnify the CA. Other times is doesn't appear at all. I've chalked it to Zeiss designs & priorities. I'll admit, sometimes it really bugs me because the coloring stands from the background colors and the relative difference makes it quite noticeable. I haven't lost a shot because of it, but there have been a couple times where I went with a black & white post processing approach instead.
In my normal shooting the Canon 135L didn't show this type of CA in bokeh. The Canons also do better (IMO) under strobes than the Zeiss lenses. For whatever reason I've never like the C/Y 100/2 under strobes. I don't know why... A Canon 135L or 85L work well with the Elinchrom strobes, especially the 135L. Anyway, if the CA in the bokeh is show stopper for someone, I'd suggest going with the 135L.
The 135L min focus distance is great, and as Andi said, with tubes I'm hard pressed to tell much difference between it and a dedicated macro lenses (aside the minimum focus distance on the macro being shorter). The 135L has great contrast and definition in the center range, but towards the corners and sides the contrast fades somewhat. If a composition has a strong central subject matter, I really like the 135L. If the subject is off center, then the 135L hasn't lived up to my expectations. The image is still very sharp, but it doesn't have the same pop as the central region. And even though the Zeiss may sneak some bokeh CA into the picture, their micro contrast does wonders for landscapes. If I'm shooting a landscape, I'd pick the Zeiss (CY 100/2) any day over the 135L.
All the lenses mentioned in this thread are great lenses and among the best in class. Rather than picking the one that scores best optically, I think it makes more sense to pick the one that performs best for the type of subjects and conditions we normally shoot.
John nice info on the 'under strobes' behavior. Just goes to show that not all lenses, despite their resolution 'scores' perform the same under certain circumstances.
I've owned the 135L and while very nice starting at F2.5 or so, it never wowed me like a comparable CV, Zeiss or Leica would. I've also never been a fan of the way Canon lenses/lenses+firmware? deliver reds and greens, so that will color (no pun intended) my opinion.
There is something to the way Zeiss lenses (new or old) deliver micro contrast. The prices of the older Zeiss lenses are also very attractive.
Another lens to consider that is a bit of an oddball here is the CV 90/3.5 APO with a set of tubes. Sharp as hell starting WO, close focusing and APO - although it will show some modest PF under the right circumstances (have yet to see it on mine as yet, but it is reputed to show it - unlike the 180/4 close focus APO).
All other things being equal (not a simple doing) , I personally will always opt for an APO lens if the choice is available.
My experience shooting tabletop photography with strobes, and strong white backgrounds is that the only lens that DOESN'T give me CA/fringing is the 135L, and this is at f/5.6 and f/8. And if you nail the focus (I use manual focus 100 percent of the time) it's a fan-freakin'-tastic.
The lenses that DO give me problems in the studio are:
Ok, I still use these lenses, and I've shot many successful images with them, but man it's annoying with the fringing with strong backgrounds.
Question for you guys:
I've been hesitant to buy a 100 macro because the Canon 100 macro or even the ZF 100 makro don't seem to be great with the CA. Does this mean that the Leica 100 APO would be the best choice for my situation?
I have the CV 125 in OM mount and the Viv S1 90 with the matched converter to go 1:1.
I have seen photos of type demonstrating the Viv s1 actually has less CA at 1:1 than the CV. The CV looses less light at 1:1 (adapter is -2 stops right there). I am not sure why the CV would loose its magic at f8---doubt diffraction at that stop---MTF is fine, see:
Anyways, I'm keeping both and stop down metering with an adpater on a 5D isn't too bad. Hey, I bought my very nice Viv S1 90mm from pdmphoto, I think. It is a pleasure to use and a great butterfly lens.
The Leica 100 is out of this world. No CA, as eye-watering detail capture as WO as stopped down, natural color reproduction, the same performance at all distances. You just change F stop to change DoF.
Smaller, lighter and easier focusing than either the CV or ZF - and eats both their lunch money. As for the EF 100 coming close to the 100 APO - w.r.t Erwin Puts, forget it. Not even close (and the EF 100 is very good, not CV or ZF good, but very good). The Elpro adapter that takes the lens to 1:1 is also of exceptional quality.
I also swear the MTF UNDERestimates just how good it is - and I've owned the 90 AA, 100 APO, 180/2.8 APO and 180/2 APO (along with the CV 125 and 100 ZF). A lot of lenses carry an APO label that is questionable, but to paraphrase Lloyd Chambers - when it comes to APO, Leica underestimates and over-delivers (at a price of course).
It is also one of maybe 3 lenses I've owned that is so sharp that you can EASILY manually focus it (1DS2 with CV-IV focus screen) at 5.6. You won't get the 3-D effect of a Zeiss macro or the cooler color of same, so bear that in mind.
I had my doubts as well regarding it's claimed fame, but once you try one, nothing else comes close any more. Put it this way, I like it so much that even though I'm virtually certain to moving to Nikon this fall I'm seriously considering of having SKGrimes modify a 100 APO to Nikon mount.
Everyone's taste is different, but if you're shopping for a 100-125 macro, you owe to yourself to try one.
A review you can check is at Sean Reid's paid (and excellent) review site http://www.reidreviews.com/reidreviews/ under (IIRC) his test of the DMR, 1Ds2. He compares the 100 APO (on both bodies IIRC) to the 100EF. To quote his remarks re: the level of detail captured by the 100 APO ' "..astonishing...".
