To me the makroplanar.jpg image renders finer texture detail, better color contrast, better color reproduction, and a more defined bokeh with the same basic degree of silky softness as the anotherplanar.jpg image. If I had to pick one that fits the FM definition of plasticity it would be the makroplanar image. I'm not sure who's saying what so I dunno who I'm agreeing with tho.
What about at other apertures? Are they pretty close in sharpness?
Wondering if my ~$900 C/Y 100/2 is a much cheaper almost as sharp alternative than the $1800 ZE if you don't need macro, which I don't since I have the Leica 100 APO.
it seems that you're in a very similar situation as I am....
I decided to keep my N100 and C/Y Planar 100, because I feel that the new lens does not offer any significant incentive for me to make the change....
wayne seltzer wrote:
What about at other apertures? Are they pretty close in sharpness?
Wondering if my ~$900 C/Y 100/2 is a much cheaper almost as sharp alternative than the $1800 ZE if you don't need macro, which I don't since I have the Leica 100 APO.
Alright. I went out with the Gitzo today. A blue sky day, and the lighting conditions were pretty much constant during the experiment. It's not easy to find a brick wall in this country, and I settled for this: http://toothwalker.org/temp/fm/100mmscene.jpg
By the way, the Zeiss lens caps are clearly a disaster; certainly in case of the MP 2/100 with the hood in place (and me having cold hands). This lens is now equipped with a royal Contax #5 metal hood with slip-on lens cap. Zeiss should make such caps for the current hoods, I will be the first to buy a dozen.
Agree about the lens caps, they are a pain to put back on.
I am guessing that 1,2, and 3 are zeiss lenses and #4 is some other brand as the first three seem to have the same contrast. I am guessing that the 2nd one is the ZE.
But they all are pretty close and I am probably wrong with my guesses.
First and fourth seem to be ever so higher in resolution/sharper, but many variables that can cause variability from one shot to the next, even with the same lens and sensor.
erichard wrote:
First and fourth seem to be ever so higher in resolution/sharper, but many variables that can cause variability from one shot to the next, even with the same lens and sensor.
Bokeh is best in the last, ;^) .
Toothwalker wrote:
By the way, the Zeiss lens caps are clearly a disaster; certainly in case of the MP 2/100 with the hood in place (and me having cold hands). This lens is now equipped with a royal Contax #5 metal hood with slip-on lens cap. Zeiss should make such caps for the current hoods, I will be the first to buy a dozen.
Agreed, the Zeiss lens caps are fiddly, hard to get on as the center pulls slots are quite shallow. I store my WA Zeiss with the hood on so these OpTech hood hats should work; strechy neoprene? Just may be a bit large to stick in your pocket.
Hoodhat works and is safe with lenses with long hoods, but with lenses with short hoods it's possible that neoprene touches the front lens (due to it's flexibility). I tried hoodhats, but they always drop from lens when you lift it from camera bag etc. so I went back to traditional lens caps.
I have replaced all Zeiss front lens caps with Nikon center pinch lens caps (or eBay copies), and rear lens caps with Optech lens mount cap. Not that there is anything wrong with Zeiss rear lens caps, just personal preference.
Not relevant for ZE lenses, since they are so large, but C/Y and M42 lenses I use also Optech lens mount cap - double and they form nice compact unit size of one ZE lens, which helps when carrying two lens cases on belt.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Not relevant for ZE lenses, since they are so large, but C/Y and M42 lenses I use also Optech lens mount cap - double and they form nice compact unit size of one ZE lens, which helps when carrying two lens cases on belt.
I find that item quite interesting. Thanks for the tip.
