Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Archive 2012 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
  
 
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


I have changed the title I first posted this under ,"Some 100mm comparisons. Part II", to help those searching for information about the OM Zuiko 100/2, as there is so little on the web about it.

In Pt I, 4-5 months ago, I compared 4 x 100mm-ish lenses: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1096558

Tokina 100/2.8 D Macro
OM Zuiko 100/2
Carl Zeiss Sonnar 100/3.5
Nikkor 105/2.5 Ai

Following these tests I sold on the Sonnar and Nikkor and kept the Tokina and Zuiko.

This week I secured a Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100/2.





I've added the rubber bands to dampen the Tokina's twitchy manual focus, (it's made a big difference to it.) The red band prevents it from slipping back into auto mode.

The ZE Makro Planar I've protected with black insulating tape as I tend to be a bit rough with my lenses and
I feel the finish is rather less durable than that of my Zeiss Contax lenses. I also added the orange mount locator spot as there is nothing on the Zeiss lens barrel only the red dot on the mount.

Straight out of the box, my first impression of the ZE was "What a rubbish lens cap for such an expensive lens"! The Tokina and Olympus ones are far better as are Canon, Nikon and Contax ones, in fact I haven't come across such a pathetic one from any other manufacturer!

The next impression (after the weight, 700g, which I was expecting) was how much snap the focus has at F2, then how cool the image is at F2, (that's cool as in "blue"!)

The next thing I noticed was the noisy diaphragm adjusting in live view, much noisier than the whisper quiet Tokina, in fact I thought it was a fault until I checked that the the Tokina also did it....but silently!.

Anyway, yesterday in hazy sun, I revisited the churchyard to start the comparisons, which I should start to upload in a day or two..

*Watch this space*



Edited on Mar 09, 2013 at 09:35 PM · View previous versions



Sep 09, 2012 at 08:54 PM
MarkJones
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


+1 on the lens caps. All three ZEs I have come with Realy cheap and nasty caps. They seem like an afterthought.


Sep 09, 2012 at 09:38 PM
carstenw
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


I have replaced all my Zeiss caps with Nikon caps.


Sep 10, 2012 at 07:15 AM
ZoneV
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Like your lens modifications!


Sep 10, 2012 at 08:01 AM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


First, I think this shows colour temperatures as well as any, first at F2.8 (to keep things even) then at F11. Focus as close as possible the same on the Blue Shield, but I notice I've still managed to get it slightly different between the Zeiss and Zuiko.
I'm surprised that the OM seems to have even less depth at F2.8 than the Zeiss. Again the wider view of the Tokina evident. (More like 95mm)

ZE @2.8 Coolest

OM @2.8 Neutral

Tok @2.8 Yellow

ZE @11 Close to neutral

OM @11 Neutral

Tok @11 Yellow



Sep 10, 2012 at 01:09 PM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Next, CA / purple fringing.

These are approx. 50% magnifications from each lens at maximum aperture, shooting into the sun into two different trees. It may not show well in jpeg reduction, but in the original the Zeiss gives a particularly disappointing result here, especially visible in the second set with a tree further away. ie highest fringing. The fringing is still present at F2.8 but largely gone by F4.

Obviously the sun is moving through the branches, so the comparisons can't be exact. (These are not scientific tests just "my best" which should at least give "indications".) Of course the Tokina's widest is F2.8, not F2.

ZE F2

OM F2

Tok F2.8

ZE F2 (Is the Zeiss C/Y 100/2 similar? I can't afford to get one as well, just to check!)

OM F2 The highlights lower left on all these three are fthe edge of an out of focus cross, not flare.

Tok F2.8


The poor result of the Zeiss makes me wonder how much worse it would have been in the situation with the OM Zuiko I posted here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1087415
with the result below:

OM F2

I can only assume that the Zeiss would have been worse. Ouch!

Does anyone know if the Zeiss C/Y 100/2 is this bad? (slrlensreviews.com shows the C/Y 100/2 having nearly 2x the CA of this newer Z* MP 100/2!)

Edited on Sep 14, 2012 at 07:52 AM · View previous versions



Sep 10, 2012 at 02:00 PM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Wide open the results from both the OM Zuiko and the Zeiss ZE are looking particularly good. I had hope that the ZE would be streets ahead showing the others a clean pair of heels, but I'm not seeing it, yet.

Very hard to tell which lens has the best/worst glare flare from the above with moving light source. In the first series the Zuiko looks best, in the second it looks worst!

Several more bokeh example series to follow.



Sep 10, 2012 at 02:14 PM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Now the close up depth of field, (before the Bokeh Series.)

As the Zuiko is not a true macro, but does focus down to 0.68m, 27", I used it to set the distance.
The subject, a name on a gravestone, is about 8"-9" across.

I tried to focus on the leading edge of the "l" but again there's a slight difference. Also, even though I tried to get exposure equal on the histogram, it does vary.

First fully open:

ZE F2 The fine in-focus line is clearly delineated here by the sharp fall off to out of focus that this lens is famous for.

OM F2 The delineating line may not be as abrupt as the ZE, but overall the depth of field is less here. Also some line doubling on the far "n".

Tok F2.8


Next at F8 as that's a sweet spot for most:

ZE F8 At this close distance the Zeiss is slightly sharper than the Zuiko, however the zone in focus is still small.

OM F8 Looks very slightly softer than the Zeiss, but the zone in focus is greater, even though the amount of bokeh is greater at the edges!

Tok F8


Finally the smallest stop of each (F22 for the ZE and OM, F32 for the Tokina) As I noted in pt. I, diffraction effect, whilst present, is still acceptable.

ZE F22

OM F22 Cooler here.

Tok F32







Edited on Sep 14, 2012 at 07:59 AM · View previous versions



Sep 10, 2012 at 03:04 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Thanks for doing these tests, really liking that Oly


Sep 10, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


As a former owner of the Zuiko 100/2 (and also the 90/2 Macro) and the Tokina lens I can say your results are well in line with my experience.
In post #6 labeled "Next, CA / purple fringing" the Zuiko image is a bit darker than the Zeiss making me wonder if they are direct comparable. Maybe they are, one would need to see several samples to decide.
Now that I'm in the micro 4/3 camp I've settled for less (weight, money and in some cases IQ) and your images make me wonder if my move was that clever... Thank you for all the work!



Sep 10, 2012 at 06:25 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 

        


timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Jonas B, "the Zuiko image is a bit darker than the Zeiss making me wonder if they are direct comparable."
Actually on those the Histograms are very nearly identical, but there will always be some difference because of the different characteristics of the lenses. I did take some variations, but when I match by eye the histograms look different, so these can only be a general indication.



Sep 10, 2012 at 07:02 PM
Jonas B
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


timballic wrote:
Jonas B, "the Zuiko image is a bit darker than the Zeiss making me wonder if they are direct comparable."
Actually on those the Histograms are very nearly identical, but there will always be some difference because of the different characteristics of the lenses. I did take some variations, but when I match by eye the histograms look different, so these can only be a general indication.


I understand and that's why I guessed one would need to see several samples to really understand if there is any difference between the lenses with regards to CA, flare and fringe. Maybe one can settle with the general impression and then I think the difference between the lenses isn't that big really.
What do you think after having taken all the comparison shots?



Sep 10, 2012 at 07:13 PM
bluetsunami
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Interestingly the Nikkor 105/2.5 is nearly comparable to the ZE at mid distance and possibly Infinity. Great to see the Oly 100/2 in that group although it seems like its a rare bird.

The ZE 100/2. photos do look like they're exposed a smidge more brightly versus the Oly. But even then I was surprised at the detail the Oly picked up up close compared to the ZE. I personally prefer the cooler colors of the Zeiss.

Edited on Sep 10, 2012 at 07:35 PM · View previous versions



Sep 10, 2012 at 07:33 PM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Jonas B wrote:
I understand and that's why I guessed one would need to see several samples to really understand if there is any difference between the lenses with regards to CA, flare and fringe. Maybe one can settle with the general impression and then I think the difference between the lenses isn't that big really.
What do you think after having taken all the comparison shots?


Concerning the CA/Fringing all the samples show the ZE 100/2 to be the worst offender. (Which really disappoints me. I'd read it had some problems here but expected/hoped them to be less than the Zuiko.)

I think I'll leave answering the rest till I've uploaded a few more sequences



Sep 10, 2012 at 07:35 PM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


bluetsunami wrote:
Interestingly the Nikkor 105/2.5 is nearly comparable to the ZE at mid distance and possibly Infinity. Great to see the Oly 100/2 in that group although it seems like its a rare bird.

The ZE 100/2. photos do look like they're exposed a smidge more brightly versus the Oly. But even then I was surprised at the detail the Oly picked up up close compared to the ZE. I personally prefer the cooler colors of the Zeiss.


Blue, I sold the Nikkor 105/2.5 (only yesterday as it happens). Are you referring to other tests or meaning the Tokina 100/2.8 here?
I do agree about being surprised about the smallness of the difference between the OM and ZE. As I said earlier, I'd hoped the ZE would really stand out...that's why I saved these months and paid 1000 for it!
(Many more examples with the OM, but not the ZE, in PT 1)

I'm wondering if the brighter appearance of the ZE is something to do with its cooler colouring, it seems to make it look "cleaner" but I've re-checked the histograms and they hardly budge between the OM and the ZE.
The Tokina in that last series are a bit brighter annoyingly and I didn't shoot another set. I feel if I try to darken them in pp to equal the OM and ZE, I'll probably change other aspects of the appearance, so didn't try it. (?)

EDIT: By the end of the testing I feel that the Zuiko's generally cooler images look "cleaner" than the ZE!

Not sure what is going on with the colour temp here as the Zuiko is definitely the cooler in most of the series, at least from F8-22.


Edited on Sep 14, 2012 at 08:04 AM · View previous versions



Sep 10, 2012 at 07:38 PM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


The first of bokeh series.

Widest Aperture, F8, and smallest aperture again.
This time I have tweaked exposures here and there to get "best fit". Part of the problem is that the Zuiko has a lower contrast than the ZE and Tokina, so if I get the fgnd stone as close as possible, the backgrounds look different. As I say this is the closest I can get it overall, by eye.

Focussed on the base of the front grey petal where it starts to turn purple....again slight difference as I focussed the OM a few mm further in.

A change in colour temp at this closer focus. Now the Zuiko looks coolest.
I suppose I really should have set colour temp instead of using AWB (?)

My impression again is how similar they are, rather than any outstanding differences. Lovely smooth bcknds, though the F2.8 difference with the Tokina really shows here, even though it is still smooth.
I need to shoot a sequence with multiple highlights oof to see the difference in specular bokeh (if I've got the terminology right?) I didn't find anything suitable when I shot these.

ZE F2 Greater depth of field @f2 than the Zuiko, I AM surprised!

OM F2 I'm surprised at how clear the Iris is...clearer than the ZE?

Tok F2.8


ZE F8 Here the ZE looks clearer and sharper.

OM F8 Here the low contrast of the OM is most apparent.

Tok F8


ZE F22 I think the diffraction effect is slightly greater here with the ZE (more veiled, especially in the background) than with the Zuiko or even the Tokina at F32.

OM F22

Tok F32

Edited on Sep 10, 2012 at 09:27 PM · View previous versions



Sep 10, 2012 at 09:00 PM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Please comment on anything you're seeing that I'm missing, or agree or disagree with my comments. I get quite dizzy going backwards and forwards comparing them.


Sep 10, 2012 at 09:23 PM
FlyPenFly
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Well if you shot in raw just set the WB to the same for all of these.


Sep 10, 2012 at 10:02 PM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


FlyPenFly wrote:
Well if you shot in raw just set the WB to the same for all of these.


Of course! I'll do that with the next series I post.



Sep 11, 2012 at 07:09 AM
timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2


Another of several Bokeh examples.

I'm only posting the wide open examples of this one as the basket was moving slightly in a breeze and I don't want that to skew results. These taken at 1,000th sec and 320th sec.

The Tokina looks a bit flatter, I think this must be a cloud problem rather than lens and the colour temp and exposure confirms this, as it would have been 500th if the same. The light and exposure on the ZE and OM are comparable.

The FLs of the ZE and OM are slightly different, the OM being longer. This adds to the softer background effect we're seeing with the OM.

Focussed on the front green leaf in the basket.

ZE F2

OM F2

Tok F2.8




Sep 11, 2012 at 07:45 AM
1
       2       3       end






FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password