p.1 #1 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
Currently, I am using both the Canon 85/1.2 L II and the Canon 135/2 L for portrait work on a 1DsII. With the announcement of Zeiss about the new ZE 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar I might think about replacing these two lenses with the new ZE Makro. Of course, I would loose one and a half steps in aperture, but I very rarely use my 85L at 1.2. But I would get a great macro lens ... And manual focus is not a problem.
So my question is if others here do use the 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar (C/Y or ZF) for portrait work and what their experience is.
p.1 #3 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
martin.egger wrote:
So my question is if others here do use the 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar (C/Y or ZF) for portrait work and what their experience is.
Just for clarification, there is no C/Y 100mm f2.0 Makro-Planar. The C/Y lens is just a Planar, no Makro.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Also how does it compare to the C/Y 100 f/2 planar?
Well, the ZF focuses closer. ;-)
The ZF is also sharper, particularly so wide open. The ZF is pretty amazing wide open. I haven't compared them side by side on the same image to see how their drawing styles differ. From what I'm seen they look similar. There will no doubt be subtle subjective differences but to gauge these one will need a few side by side comparisons in a few different situations to see which you might prefer.
p.1 #4 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
The Zeiss ZF 100mm Macro-Planar is VERY sharp wide-open.
So, it is very good at high-lighting imperfections on human skin.
So, although I like my ZF 100 very much, I don't use it for portrait work.
I prefer to use my EF 135 f2 for portrait, although it is very sharp wide-open too.
I think that for portrait your EF 85mm f1.2 is much more suitable.
Zeiss ZF100 and EF 85 f1.2 are two lenses with very different character, which supplement each other nicely.
p.1 #5 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
Nice lens. I use to own it. But the 135 f1.8 on the Sony is by far my favorite. Even if you shoot Nikon or Canon, Now days, you can buy the 135 f1.8 and a Sony 850 as a stand alone portrait set up for a very reasonable price.
p.1 #6 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
Gertjan wrote:
So, it is very good at high-lighting imperfections on human skin.
OK, but this would be a problem with any sharp lens ...
Gertjan wrote:
So, although I like my ZF 100 very much, I don't use it for portrait work. I prefer to use my EF 135 f2 for portrait, although it is very sharp wide-open too.
Do you have any specific reason for not using the ZF 100 for portrait work (except sharpness)?
Gertjan wrote:
I think that for portrait your EF 85mm f1.2 is much more suitable.
Could you please explain why you think so? Thanks.
p.1 #8 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
You are going to get many people here tell you to keep your 135 and 85. Many others might say that also having a 100 wouldn't hurt and the ZE 100/2 is a great candidate. But you say you can handle MF. Other ongoing threads on this topic. Leica 80/1.4 Lux, Leica 90/2 Cron, Oly 100/2, Nikon 105/2 DC, Rokinon 85/1.4 - a few of the great portrait lenses I have.
p.1 #9 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
I find myself not using the 85mm very much when i have the 58mm in the bag, that makes me want to go to 100-105-135mm something for my third FL after 24mm and 58mm.
p.1 #10 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
Martin,
The Zeiss ZF100 is really highlighting pores, hairs etc. (very high microcontrast?
It makes you look at the details of the face, instead of the whole, or character.
I like, for example the Leica Elmarit-R 135mm and the Meyer Orestor 135mm f2.8 much more for portrait. These lenses are also sharp, but somehow make the imperfections less obvious.
Please, do buy a Zeiss ZF100 macro, it’s a gorgeous lens. Very Sharp wide-open, and a Bokeh to die for. I just don’t think you will prefer it for portraits,
So just don’t sell your EF85and EF135 before you made your own comparisons, or you might be sorry you sold them!
I think you will find it an addition, not a replacement for your Canon 85and 135 lenses. (I did)
p.1 #11 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
I agree that I would only get a ZF 100 MP or C/Y 100 Planar as an addition to your fine EF 85L and 135L. I got the C/Y 100 Planar instead of the 100MP as I already had another 100 macro lens and I wanted the lens more for people shooting so I wanted the shorter focus ring throw of the C/Y 100. It makes a great addition because you can use your soft bokeh portrait lenses for shooting women but then use the zeiss when you shooting men and want to highlight every pore/gritty look, or when shooting outside portraits and don't wnat the background to get blurred too much.
Also, the zeiss lens is better than the canons for very colorful scenes and the 85L seems to always want to blowout the bright higlights when shooting outside like the sky whereas the zeiss seem to handle it better. John Black describes this on his Pebbleplace website.
The zeiss lens gives you more 3-d pop than the canons.
I also think the C/Y 100 is cheaper than the ZF 100. Not sure about the weight difference but you can look that up at the zeiss website.
Either 100 is a great lens so enjoy.
p.1 #13 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
Valorin wrote:
The Zeiss Z* 100/2 is pretty big. The C/Y not so much. Still the Zuiko is the smallest.
I don't think the ZF 100/2 is big at all. Probably bigger than the Zuiko, but it's certainly not big by any standard. It only marginally bigger than the c/y 1002 -- only 10 grams, a few millimeters in length and a few millimeters in diameter more.
p.1 #14 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
You're right, I guess there isn't a really huge difference in weight between the ZF Makro-Planar and the C/Y Planar. Here are the specs (weight, length, diameter):
Zuiko: 500g, 72mm, 70mm
C/Y: 671g, 84mm, 71mm
ZF: 680g, 113mm, 76mm
The hood for the Z* does add quite a bit of length though, but it is reversible. The Z* is also about 33% longer than the C/Y, and it's very long at close focus. Of course the C/Y doesn't extend that much since it can't focus that close.
p.1 #15 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
The length you have for the ZF is wrong. It is only 89mm long (as per Zeiss' data sheet) and therefore only 6% longer than the 84mm C/Y Planar. The comparative specifications should read:
Valorin wrote:
You're right, I guess there isn't a really huge difference in weight between the ZF Makro-Planar and the C/Y Planar. Here are the specs (weight, length, diameter):
Zuiko: 500g, 72mm, 70mm
C/Y: 671g, 84mm, 71mm
ZF: 680g, 113mm, 76mm
The hood for the Z* does add quite a bit of length though, but it is reversible. The Z* is also about 33% longer than the C/Y, and it's very long at close focus. Of course the C/Y doesn't extend that much since it can't focus that close.
p.1 #16 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
I’m glad I read this. I’m going to see a 100:2.0 macro planter tomorrow to add to my portrait lenses rather than the Nikon 105:2.0 DE lens that I tried today ……….. maybe need to think again
p.1 #18 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
martin.egger wrote:
So my question is if others here do use the 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar (C/Y or ZF) for portrait work and what their experience is.
It's an excellent lens that guarantees smooth transitions between focus plane and planes ahead and behind it, and quite pleasing out-of-focus rendering as well.
I see no drawback to using it for portraiture, the only exception being LoCA at the wider apertures. Corner light-fall-off is present too, but it can either add interest to the image or be easily correctable.
I do not understand why people complain about sharpness, pores, etc.
This is a no issue at all in portraiture; if you use the lens at its wider apertures, depth of field is so shallow that most of skin imperfections are out of focus (as the pictures by @ndwgolf1@ demonstrate). Moreover, today's lenses (including the "old" EF 135/2 L) are all so sharp that skin imperfections are visible without any make-up on the model. However, not all lenses have the character of the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar.
There are people who also use the sharper Apo Sonnar 135/2 for portraits
p.1 #19 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
Ripolini wrote:
It's an excellent lens that guarantees smooth transitions between focus plane and planes ahead and behind it, and quite pleasing out-of-focus rendering as well.
I see no drawback to using it for portraiture, the only exception being LoCA at the wider apertures. Corner light-fall-off is present too, but it can either add interest to the image or be easily correctable.
I do not understand why people complain about sharpness, pores, etc.
This is a no issue at all in portraiture; if you use the lens at its wider apertures, depth of field is so shallow that most of skin imperfections are out of focus (as the pictures by @ndwgolf1@@ demonstrate). Moreover, today's lenses (including the "old" EF 135/2 L) are all so sharp that skin imperfections are visible without any make-up on the model. However, not all lenses have the character of the Zeiss 100/2 Makro-Planar.
There are people who also use the sharper Apo Sonnar 135/2 for portraits
...Show more →
Thanks for the feedback..........I will get to try the lens tomorrow on my GF and she has many small imperfections on her skin..........not that I'm going to tell her that
p.1 #20 · Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar for portrait work?
I use mine for Portraits, although sometimes I use 85 or 135, but 100 is good. Here is one, and it is in a Flickr group for that Zeiss lens, which you can look there as well. Ronny Olsson was the master of the 100 MP... he got shots of his dog running at him which were fantastic. I've read the design of the new Milvus lens is the same as the "classic" version, and I still have the classic version (on only bought Milvus for the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 which were redesigned).
This one is at 2.8, which I probably did just to make sure she was all in focus.
