Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2008 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

billsnature
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #1 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

I have searched the forum and did find a few strings on the Contax N 100 mm Makro lens, and it seems to be a really sharp lens. However, I haven't found any direct comparisons to the Canon 100mm macro.

I have decided to add a new lens to try and upgrade my kit, and I am wondering if I would be better served to buy the Canon 100mm macro, or the Contax. The difference in money is huge so I gues the question is: Is it really worth it?

As background, I already own the Canon 180mm f3.5 macro lens, and a couple of Contax lenses (18mm and 35-70mm). I might be the only one on this forum who is not wowed by either one of these contax lenses I own. Maybe I just suck at MF, but to me the 18 is not way better than the 16-35 II and if you are at f8 on a tripod, the 35-70 is only slightly better than the Canon 24-105.

So if you were looking for a real upgrade, would you buy the 100mm Makro?
Would you consider a converted Contax 24-85?

Or would you just buy a Canon 100mm macro and a ticket on SW airlines to a scenic place?

Any compaisons of the Canon and Contax N 100mm Macros would be greatly appreaciated

Bill

I

Sep 06, 2008 at 12:17 AM

jrn813
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Bill, I Too Have Never Seen A Direct Comparision Of These Two..
But I Have Both The 24-85 & The 100 Makro Converted N's

Superb Glass & The Zeissness Is The Deciding Factor. Color, Contrast And
Resolution Are Great. Photoshop Can Add All These Things To A Degree ....
But It Never Seems To Measure Up, To The Eye...

Look At The Conurus Site (www.conurus.com) ... Maybe That Will Give You A Tad More Insight.

John R

Edited on Sep 07, 2008 at 09:30 PM

Sep 07, 2008 at 09:29 PM

pdmphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #3 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

My guess is thst it's not much better - or you would see a comparison!

Sep 07, 2008 at 10:11 PM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

pdmphoto wrote:
My guess is thst it's not much better - or you would see a comparison!

Hmmm. That's not necessarily the conclusion to draw. Rather, the 100mm Makro Sonnar is quite rare so the possibility that someone might have both, and is disposed toward testing is very small.

It is unquestionably a fabulous lens. I have one and it is great. I have no doubt what so everv from what I have seen that it significantly better than the Canon macro. However, as has been suggested, I am biased. So, if anyone has a Canon macro and wants to send it to me for a comparison I will do one. I, like other Zeiss 100 Makro-Sonnar owners, have no interest in buying, or need to buy, a Canon macro so that is perhaps the only way a comparison might get done.

Sep 07, 2008 at 11:07 PM

jrn813
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #5 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

pdmphoto wrote:
My guess is thst it's not much better - or you would see a comparison!

Or The Mako Is So Much Better That Comparisons Are Futile ...

Again, I Own The 100 Makro, And Also See No Reason To Look Any Farther...
The Canon Lens Is Considered A Fine Lens, But "I" Have Never Seen A Photo
To Rival My Zeiss...

But Then Again, I Paid The Price, And May Be A Little Influenced By Ownership.....

Sep 08, 2008 at 06:31 AM

edwardkaraa
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #6 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

I used to have the Canon macro and now use the manual focus 100 MP. Never did comparisons as I owned them at different points in time. I am pretty sure however that my Zeiss is by far superior to the Canon. The more recent N lens must be even better.

Edited on Sep 08, 2008 at 06:41 AM

Sep 08, 2008 at 06:41 AM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

I pro photog friend of mine snapped a few shots of me last week with his new Canon 100 macro.

I was floored. It looked like an 85L shot to me. The only reason I didn't order one the next day is 'cause Photokina is coming up.

No offense to the alternative crowd (of which I am one, of course) but it would take one HECKUVA lens to beat the Canon, at least when used as a non -macro lens. I don't even need to see a comparison to know this. It might literally be one of Canon's best 3-4 offerings, despite not having a cute lil' red ring.

Edward would seem to disagree, but then hindsight is what it is. -Or he's referring specifically to macro performance. Surely someone here has both and can snap some comparisons?

Edited on Sep 08, 2008 at 06:50 AM

Sep 08, 2008 at 06:44 AM

pdmphoto
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Where are the pics?

Sep 08, 2008 at 08:22 AM

edwardkaraa
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Cableaddict wrote:

Edward would seem to disagree, but then hindsight is what it is. -Or he's referring specifically to macro performance. Surely someone here has both and can snap some comparisons?

It isn't as simple as that. When I had the Canon I thought it was my sharpest lens (I shot 1:1 macro exclusively with this lens, lighting quite flat for jewelry), but when I decided to go back to the Contax way, I felt the results I was getting with the makro planar were much better, not only in sharpness, but especially in terms of micro-contrast, overall contrast and colors, which are anyway Zeiss' trademark.

I was so surprised at this that I even opened a thread asking if others had the same results.

Edited on Sep 08, 2008 at 09:15 AM

Sep 08, 2008 at 09:13 AM

Martin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

I compared these two lenses with the Zeiss Macro on a Pentax K20D, and the Canon 100 mm macro on Canon 40D.

Now I realize that this comparison is not a scientific test, since the bodies are indeed different.

However, surprisingly, the Canon was just a bit sharper at full aperture. At smaller apertures, the differences are quite minor.

Just my observations.

Martin

Sep 08, 2008 at 11:40 AM

Lotusm50
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Martin wrote:
I compared these two lenses with the Zeiss Macro on a Pentax K20D, and the Canon 100 mm macro on Canon 40D.

Which Zeiss Makro did you have on a Pentax K20D? We are talking about the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Sonnar for the Contax N and you can't fit the it to a Pentax.

Sep 08, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Martin
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

I am talking about the Zeiss ZK 100 mm Makro not the older Zeiss 100 Makro N mount.

Martin

Sep 08, 2008 at 12:33 PM

Jman13
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

How does the Zeiss 100mm macro compare to the Voigtlander 125 APO Lanthar? From what I've seen, that's the most impressive macro lens I've laid eyes on.

Sep 08, 2008 at 12:53 PM

wayne seltzer
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #14 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

What about the Leica 100mm 2.8 APO? Weekh posted a thread where he preferred this lens over the CV 125 and the 100 ZF I thought.

Sep 08, 2008 at 03:15 PM

davidearls
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #15 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

OP already has Canon 180L macro, so the comparison here isn't to the Canon 100, it has to be to the 180. After all, what does a 100 do that the 180 doesn't do? OP even a 1-series, so he (sort of) has AF as well as 1:1.

IMO, you push a RAW image from the 180 a little for color and contrast, and you've got as good as it gets. And yes, they can take it.

Naturally, YMMV.

Sep 09, 2008 at 03:55 AM

Cableaddict
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #16 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

pdmphoto wrote:
Where are the pics?

Sadly, I didn't save them.

Edward, thanks for the clarification. I must say, now I'm intrigued.

Sep 09, 2008 at 04:18 AM

billsnature
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Hi David,

You are correct that I have the Canon 180mm already, but I was thinking about buying a 100mm macro. If I can believe that Photozone.de review, the Canon 100mm does have a better MTF 50 topping out at about 2000 @ f5.6, where the Canon 180mm tops out at about 1850 at f8.

Don't get me wrong, I think the Canon ia a great lens, especially considering the long working distance compared to the Canon 100mm. However the assumption I was making was that the IQ of either the Canon or Contax 100mm, might have that little extra pop that would put the images over the top.

So while I was originally asking about the comparison between the two 100mm lenses, your experience of liking the Canon 180mm better than the Canon 100mm has made me re-think the entire proposition.

I still have to say that the web based images from the Cantax N100mm f2.8 really do look stunning. I was jusy hoping to find someone who had owned both and compared them.

Bill

Sep 09, 2008 at 04:29 AM

jrn813
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #18 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

100mm Makro

2012 © jrn813

Edited on Sep 09, 2008 at 07:44 AM

Sep 09, 2008 at 07:35 AM

jrn813
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Sep 09, 2008 at 07:51 AM

billsnature
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Hi John,

Great images, especially the flower. That image which holds great detail in the whites, and has such great snap in the yellow stamins is what I am looking for.

I noticed from your profile that you also own, the Canon 180mm. So, my question to you would be: Do you think you could have captured a very similar image with the 180mm, suggesting that the light and post processing of the image is the critical factor in it's stellar IQ? Or do you think the use of the Contax N 100 was a key contributor to having the snap and detail in the white petal highlights that would have been very hard to recreate with the Canon 180mm?

Last question - since you own both, which one do you find yourself grabbing when it's time to shoot macros? (or is that Makros?).

Thanks
Bill

Sep 09, 2008 at 12:20 PM

jrn813
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #21 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Thanks Bill,
The 100mm N' Is A Special Lens, IMO. The Only Reason I Would Use The 180mm,
Is For The Added Reach. If It Was ANYWAY Possible, The Zeiss Would Be My First
Choice. I Am A Firm Believer In The Right Tool For A Given Job. The 180mm Has A Place In
My Kit, It's A Great Lens, Just Not A Zeiss, And All That Can Mean. Luckily I Can Afford A Few
Of These Choices....

100mm Makro (Or Macro, Don't Get Me To Lying)

2012 © jrn813

Sep 09, 2008 at 02:03 PM

Sam N
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #22 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Beautiful shot jrn813, but what's with the capitalization of every word in your post?

Sep 10, 2008 at 10:39 PM

deshojo
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #23 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

I have actually done a direct comparison at macro distances between the C/Y Makro Planar, the N Makro Sonnar and the Canon EF.
They were not scientific in any way, just a casual set-up using tripod and mirror lock-up, and going through the apertures with each lens in turn on the same subject.

Both the Canon and Zeiss have more than adequate resolution for the 40D's sensor (and therefore the 1DSIII's sensor, at least in the image centre).
I saw no practical difference in sharpness until f16. the Canon diffracts noticeably here, whereas the Zeiss does not show much diffraction until f22, so arguably one more useable stop.

Colour was nicer to my eyes with the Zeiss, but still very good with the Canon. The Zeiss has better micro-contrast so tonal changes are more smooth and subtle. Again, the Canon does very well, just not quite as good as the Zeiss.

The area where the Canon wins hands down, and the main factor that made me keep the Canon, is its AF. It is so good that when set to centre point AI Focus, it can be used even at 1:1 to track moving insects, or to counter the back and forth sway of hand held shots. The Zeiss was not even close in this department.

One curious difference was in DOF. The Canon had considerably more DOF at each aperture than the Zeiss. Perhaps this is because the Zeiss's higher resolution produces a smaller Circle of Confusion - I'm no expert in optics so other board members may correct me here.
The point is, the extra DOF with the Canon can be very useful for macro work.

When it comes to medium to long distance work, the Zeiss is most definitely superior. Here I think the greater resolution is more apparent, and its narrower DOF can be used to beautiful advantage. The bokeh is more pleasing with the Zeiss too.
The Canon can (as do many Canon lenses) produce a slightly harsh look in the transitional zone from in focus to out of focus.

In conclusion, I would say that if your subjects are animal, and at macro distances, then the Canon would be the best choice. For everything else the Zeiss will produce a richer, smoother, more gorgeous image.
I believe the Canon 100mm macro ranks amongst their finest lenses, and is one of only 4 Canon lenses I own (the 70-200mm f2.8L IS, 300mm f2.8L IS and 600mm f4L IS are the others), my other lenses are all Zeiss.

However, as you already have the Canon 180mm macro, I cannot see any quality advantage in using the 100mm, as I understand the 180mm is optically superior. Perhaps its smaller size and lighter weight may be important to you.

Sep 11, 2008 at 09:48 PM

billsnature
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #24 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Thank you very much for the very informative reply.

I am extermely interested in the Zeiss lenses (like a moth to a flame?) , but every time I buy one, I do struggle to see the major impact I was expecting. Might be an issue with my subjects, which do tend to be animals, and more subdued colors than any lack of optical brilliance in the Zeiss lenses.

When you same "micro contrast" are you refering to the ability to hold the highlight details in the white petals of teh flowers in this string? Or do you really mean color contrast? I only ask because I have really struggled to be able to hold the levels of details in Johns examples with any of my Canon lenses, and that would be tha main objective of my purchase.

Thanks again
Bill

Sep 11, 2008 at 11:40 PM

edwardkaraa
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #25 · Contax 100mm Makro verses Canon

Micro contrast is directly related to the perceived sharpness of the lens. The way I understand it, it is the ability of the lens to separate adjacent tones. Macro contrast is the lens overall contrast, which can be compensated for with levels or curves. Micro contrast can be enhanced by USM (high radius, low amount). But maybe I got it all wrong

Edited on Sep 12, 2008 at 08:06 AM

Sep 12, 2008 at 08:04 AM


FM Forums \| Alternative Gear & Lenses \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end