timballic
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2 | |
Well it's all over bar the shouting!
This was really started for my own interest, to obtain and compare several highly rated, 100mm FL lenses to decide which suited me best. (I sold the Nikkor 105/2.5 and the C/Y Sonnar 100/3.5 after Pt.I. Both good lenses but they didn't suit me.)
Thanks for bearing with me and not criticising my often weak technique, I think it still reveals the trends between the lenses enough to form a reasonable opinion.
Now for my impressions of the lenses:
The Tokina D 100/2.8 is a great lens. Lovely smooth bokeh, great sharpness at close and far distances, colourful and very contrasty. Hard to make it flare. 585g (+caps) in Canon EF, 55mm filter thread. 9 diaphragm blades.
On the downside, it's designed for auto and in manual mode a bit "twitchy" to focus accurately, especially near infinity where a tiny movement changes focus a lot. It has a focus turn of about 250º
It has a definite colour cast to yellow, easily corrected.
The only real thing against it in these comparisons is that it's F2.8 not F2.
( I tried the Tokina over the Canon 100mm macros because of their even smaller angle of manual focus movement, 150º, making accurate manual focus, especially near to ∞ a real pain)
Between the OM Zuiko and the Zeiss ZE MP 100/2, it's a very unexpected tie. A case of 6 of one and 6 of the other.
After all the incredible reviews on the web about this Zeiss being the bees knees of all 100mm lenses (for both close AND distance work), Diglloyd's "Reference Lens" above all others, the most "pop" and 3D of any Zeiss lens, etc, etc, and the relative dearth of information about the Zuiko, I really, really wasn't expecting this.
These are my overall impressions between these two lenses.
For close work the Zeiss is obviously the King, it leaves the Zuiko at 0.7m (1:5), and carries on down to 1:2 at 0.25m.
Even at 0.7m, the difference in sharpness and separation is clearly apparent.
At mid and far distance they are neck and neck, different characteristics certainly, but no obvious outright "better lens".
The Zuiko is only slightly lower contrast (yet doesn't really look "flat"). The Zeiss is slightly higher contrast and warmer colours and sometimes, but not always, displays the Zeiss "pop".
(Please feel free to disagree or comment on anything I think I'm seeing. Having read so much about Zeiss high contrast and "pop" and Zuiko Low contrast, it's hard not to be conditioned to see what I expect to see!)
Somewhere between F5.6 and 8, the Zuiko undergoes a pronounced colour change from neutral to cool and usually, but not always, has what I can only describe as a "cleaner" look than the Zeiss, (perhaps because of the cooler colours?)
At F2 both have lovely soft bokeh, but the Zuiko just has more of it!
Concerning flare, the Zuiko needs careful flagging whenever the sun is near the front element, the Zeiss is clearly better here, (yet still not in the same league as the Tokina for flare control, discussed in Pt I)
Size and weight:
The Zuiko is a sweet 580g (with EF adapter and caps) and 78mm l x 70mm w, 55mm Filter.
The Zeiss is 140g heavier at 720g with caps (the ZF.2 version is lighter, rated at 680g) and a bulkier 107mm x 77mm, but still feels well balanced and matched with the 5DII. 67mm filter thread.
Both have a 9 blade diaphragm, (though the Zeiss is described as "9 rounded blades"), capable of giving multi point stars.
The Zeiss has a lovely 360º of focus action, the Zuiko nearly as good at ~ 340º.
Both lenses have about the same resistance of focus turn, just as I like it, not too light not too tight, but the Zuiko is the smoothest of the two.
Both lenses exhibit CA/purple fringing, though the Zeiss is more prone to it, (by quite a bit), though it's gone in both at F4.
The Zeiss has a slightly wider field of view rated as 25º diagonal angle, to the Zuiko's narrower 24º.
The Zeiss is auto diaphragm, exif data etc , whilst the Zuiko is fully manual stop down everything, and requires an adapter. (I've used a Japanese Elefoto one costing £40, and giving perfect ∞ focus at the ∞ stop.)
[The Zeiss cost me £1,000 ($1,600) new; the Zuiko £500 ($800) used, mint-; the Tokina, £250 ($400) used, as new.]
VERDICT: I'll be keeping and using both the Zeiss and the Zuiko 100/2 for a while longer before making any final decision, and selling the Tokina. Well I need to raise money for my next planned Alt Lens purchase, a C/Y 35/1.4 (Not the Voigtlander 125mm, not that I wouldn't really like one!)
Edited on Sep 15, 2012 at 04:43 AM · View previous versions
|
