< sarcasm > I think the lens must be a dud, as no one wants to show off their shots. < / sarcasm >
I *may* pick one up to try against my Voigtlander 125/2.5, Nikkor 85PC, and a Sigma 150 2.8 that's coming. I loved my Zuiko 90/2 on my ol' 1Dmk2. That length is a blast with a fast aperture lens.
Anyone in Boston (with the Zeiss to bring to the party) want to get together to try these all out? One caveat - I shoot a D200 - so any EF users out there, you'll need to bring your own adapters.
If only it were a Nikon Mount Macro we'd be in business. Interestingly enough, I've now that I've had more time to play with the Voigtlander, I've decided to sell the 85PC.
Still, someone has to have this lens and actually be taking shots with it. Come on people, share!
check diglloyd's site - has sample pics and raves over the 100/2 and the 35/2. Looking at the resolution tests of the 35/2 on photozone I can understand why - holy !@#.
Anyone know what the 100/2 is like mid-distance & the focus throw range (e.g. 360 deg or 720 deg). Thinking of suitability for portraits as well as macro.
I can't answer your question regarding the throw of the ZF100, but I can post a couple of shots from the ZF 2/35.
Let me preface this by saying what I think makes this lens so great. The color reproduction is better than ANY other lens I've ever used. And that includes all the Nikons I've tossed on this body, and the Canon's (and Zuiko's) I used in my Canon days. It's just spot on. Sure, I could "punch it up" in post, but I don't take pictures to capture how things weren't, I take them to capture how they were, and with that aim in mind, I am exceptionally happy with this lens.
No crazy PP, just a simple snap of a friends' lovely daughter who had just finished showing me their cordless phone.
Another friend's backyard. Don't tell me about my horizons - it's the bay that's not straight. This is not sharp, is noisy, and was handheld at 1/15th, but printed it still a great mood to it and kinda works. Kinda.
One more. Posted before in the Nikon Forum. A young Sox fan relaxing in the Summer sun. Yeah, the clouds could use some work, but hey, a nice lens can't make up for blown technique!
One thing that's not captured in the pictures is how nice this lens is to use. It's just nice - and relatively inexpensive considering ... Ok, that might be a bit of rationalization there ...
Finally, none of these shots were shots that I took thinking "man, I really want to try and show off this lens" - they were all shots where I thought "dang, I love this moment" - snap.
One of the things that I like about the Zeiss ZFs's and Voigtlander is the fact that should I jump camps again back to Canon, I can take lenses I already like (love?) with me.
1. The lens review from the Japan website shows very bad CA at big aperture. The lens used could be a pre-production sample. Wonder if the final product still exhibit the CA.
2. How does this lens compare to the Leica AA 90 f2 at the non-macro range.
Conner999 wrote:
With the 35/2 what I find intriquing is the close focus distance - 0.3m (app 1')
That is pretty standard I believe. The Nikkor 35/2 will also do this. If you find that intriguing you should look at the 25/2.8. I believe it can focus to less then .1m.
