Lotusm50
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
 p.2 #4 · Contax N 100mm f2.8 - Converted | |
Jon-
I read the MTF's slightly differently, but come to the same conclusion regarding MTF performance -- it's really a toss up. The c/y M-Planar is slightly better wide open at infinity, and the N M-Sonnar is slightly better wide open at 1:1. By 5.6 they are virtually indistinguishable. I don't think that in any use, at any aperture, that the difference will be evident in the images.
By producing a internal focusing, AF capable lens that matches the MTF performance of the manual focus Makro-Planar, the Makro-Sonnar is nothing less than a small miracle.
What you are missing, however, is the other aspects of performance and use that might lead one to the Makro-Sonnar. The internal focusing of the Makro-Sonnar can be a big help in a few ways. First is allows auto-focus, which may or may not be useful in macro, can be useful in more general photography in which the 100mm M-Sonnar can be very productively employed. Further, when the M-Planar is focused to 1:1 the lens virtually doubles in length as the major lens elements move. This dramatically reduces the working distance between the front lens element and the subject. In certain situations this could be problematic. With the internal focusing of the M-Sonnar this does not happen. Working distances are preserved. Further when the M-Planar lens is racked all the way out, it throws off the balance of the set -up, putting a lot of weight way out in front -- an minor problem which you might only recognize in comparision with the M-Sonnar
In addtion, in the 25 years between when the M-Planar and M-Sonnar were designed, Zeiss has made significant advances in other aspects of the performance. that might not be showm in an MTF chart. I think you will find that the M-Sonnar imparts a remarkable clarity to it's images. Beyond that, you will find the M-Sonnar to be the superior performer in the areas of flare, ghosting, and resistance to internal reflections. You will also find the chromatic aberration to be significantly reduced compared to the older M-Planar. Clearly these aspects can have a big impact on your images. Some have also suggested that the M-Sonnar has a more pleasing bokeh -- I agree, but that is a subjective call that one will have to make for themselves. We also have yet to mention auto-aperture control and full EXIF image capture data in your files -- both of which can be quite useful conveniences.
So, in the end, a converted N 100mm Makro-Sonnar may indeed be worth the $600 or so more than the older c/y 100mm Makro-Planar. But, of course, every potential buyer will have to decide if the advantages of the Makro-Sonnar are worth it to them in their uses. It is to me.
|
