R10 Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
I know that the last post is a tad old but, I think, the topic as such isn’t outdated at all. Moreover, I guess there are few people around who are familiar (i.e., have used) both lenses. Hence:
I used the Leica AME100 some 15 years (on R8, 5D, 5DII, and Leitaxed on D800). Sometimes with the dedicated Elpro. I sold it recently and use now the Apo Sonnar 135 f/2 (on D810 and Fuji X-T1) and the Zeiss Touit 50 f/2.8 Macro (on the Fuji) instead.
The AME100 is one of the most 'well-behaved' lenses I have encountered so far. It features a near perfect balance of all optical qualities at very high levels, as opposed to pumping one or the other for visual effect. It shows an amazing amount of detail throughout the frame, already at full aperture, and has the ability to represent every slight variation of color and tone. And it does so with virtually no aberrations whatsoever. Color rendering-wise, I prefer the fingerprint of this lens over anything else.
The Zeiss Apo Sonnar is more of a, what I call, ‘popping’ lens. Resolution- and contrast-wise it outperforms the AME100 (I think; albeit not by an awful lot). Its Bokeh is breathtaking (f2 along with 35mm more focal length play their part here too, but I think so even when comparing these two lenses at the same aperture and magnification ratio). The Zeiss’ focus transition is more steep (yet absolutely smooth), like with a much longer tele lens, which may be a reason, along with its insane contrast, for its 3D-fingerprint (the ‘popping’).
So, why the Apo Sonnar now ?
I got tired of two things with the AME100: Stop-down metering and focusing and a whopping almost 720 degrees of focusing ring rotation. No typo. It’s not 270 like with the Zeiss Apo Sonnar (or 349 with the Zeiss Macro Planar 100 f2), but almost 720 (in words: almost two full turns). Ok, far most of which belongs to the closer distances and for macro this kind of precision is very useful. But still, even at longer distances, where relatively little movements of the focus ring are needed, but esp. for moderate close-up work, it got in my way too often. Also because the focusing ring is heavily damped, much more than the Zeiss – too much, I think (Even the 2nd version. Yes, there are two versions of the AME100 with respect to the inner focus mechanism (they don't differ optically): a very early “stiffer” version, and for most of the production period a smoother version. I had both. Not talking about CAM or ROM versions here.)
In recent years, I didn’t do an awful lot of macro with the AME100 anymore. Instead, I used more and more exclusively the much more versatile Fuji-X system for macro (first with the Fujinon Macro, which has a more Leica-ish rendition, now with the Zeiss Touit Macro). For moderate close-up (which I do a lot) and for longer distances, the Zeiss Apo Sonnar turned out to be ideal for me. At these distances the 3D really makes a difference. Well, over the years, I took a shine to the Zeiss fingerprint...
Yet, if money wouldn’t be limited the way it is, I would still have the AME100 too.
@kururu: Your example shots here in this threat show exactly what I’m after with the APO Sonnar. Great pictures!
@Micheal Erlewin: Thank you very much for your books and videos !
Cheers to all
Edited on Jun 23, 2015 at 08:46 AM · View previous versions
|