p.1 #1 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
Last week I received my new Zeiss 2.0/100mm Makro Planar ZE. Today I did some tests against my 1.2/85L and my Zeiss 3.4/35-70mm (with Zörkendörfer Adapter).
The test were done with a 5DII on a Gitzo tripod, mirror lockup and live view 10x manual focus. Lightroom settings were: sharpness 50/0.7/100, contrast +60. Here are the results of a brick wall test. Later I will also show you some real world snapshots wide open, to test the bokeh of this lens. Short summary: great corner performance and great bokeh wide open.
p.1 #4 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
The CZ 100 is an amazing lens w/ wonderful color contrast and beautiful CZ blur; we dont get to see all of its attributes in these images. Used as a portrait; product or macro and you will get great results; truly great.
p.1 #6 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
Ok, ok. This was just a test for me, to check whether this new lens has any defects and is as good as my 1.2/85 (at >= f/2.0), because it will probably substitute this lens for me. I thought someone might be interested in the results. Obviously I was wrong.
As promised, here are some real world snapshots (with 100% crops). All shots were handheld and wide open at f/2.0.
p.1 #8 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
Looks like the 35-70 is soft in the corners. That is all I get out of this. Boris, why did you test the 35-70 @ 50mm? So we have 100mm, 85mm and 50mm comparisons but the FOV changes so that comparison is harder (e.g. the brick and detail on the brick changes in size).
p.1 #9 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
Now THAT looks good. (sorry, just that number of brick photos is very much, well dull). This looks as sharp at f/2 as my 100L looks at f/2.8 (both are wide open, but obviously the CZ has the extra stop). That's saying something, too, as my 100L is probably the sharpest lens I've ever used wide open. Great bokeh and really nice contrast. Nice to see why people put this lens (and it's older variants) in the discussion for 'best lens ever' quite often.
Curious about the noise though...that's quite a bit for the 5D II at ISO 100. I thought before I checked the EXIF that it was at something like 1600 or so...did you massively underexpose these and have to bring them up in post?
p.1 #10 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
galenapass wrote:
Looks like the 35-70 is soft in the corners. That is all I get out of this. Boris, why did you test the 35-70 @ 50mm? So we have 100mm, 85mm and 50mm comparisons but the FOV changes so that comparison is harder (e.g. the brick and detail on the brick changes in size).
The 3.4/35-70mm was set to 70mm. Since there is no electronic connection between lens and camera, the EXIF-info is wrong (it's on the default value).
p.1 #11 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
Jman13 wrote:
Curious about the noise though...that's quite a bit for the 5D II at ISO 100. I thought before I checked the EXIF that it was at something like 1600 or so...did you massively underexpose these and have to bring them up in post?
I think the noise is the result of some underexposure (LR setting was Belichtung +1,88 and Helligkeit -17, I don't know how theses settings are named in the english version) and a sharpness setting of 100% for details, which is my default setting for landscape pictures.
p.1 #13 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
Bobu wrote:
I think the noise is the result of some underexposure (LR setting was Belichtung +1,88 and Helligkeit -17, I don't know how theses settings are named in the english version) and a sharpness setting of 100% for details, which is my default setting for landscape pictures.
Boris
yeah, that'd do it. Those are 'exposure' and 'highlights' in english, btw. Anyway, great lens!
p.1 #14 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
gheller wrote:
alot of work with practically no purpose...
+1
How can you compare a 100/2 macro lens against an 85/1.2 lens? They are designed for completely different purposes. If you're not needing the f/1.2-1.8 apertures, then there's no reason to buy such a lens.
That would be like me saying I don't need my 85/1.8 because I have a 24-105/4 zoom.
p.1 #15 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
Well, I disagree up to a point, wickerprints. When trying to understand the rendering style of a lens, it is very useful to have a known reference point. It does not mean that the lenses have to be directly comparable, IMHO.
p.1 #16 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
philber wrote:
Well, I disagree up to a point, wickerprints. When trying to understand the rendering style of a lens, it is very useful to have a known reference point. It does not mean that the lenses have to be directly comparable, IMHO.
But then to take photos of brick walls to understand how a lens renders?
p.1 #17 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
wickerprints wrote:
But then to take photos of brick walls to understand how a lens renders?
It's one test I think which is good for at least seeing the extent of vignetting and seeing the Zeiss is a MP, and should have excellent flat field reproduction, the brick wall test isn't a bad idea at least for this lens. The 85 and zoom, probably have much more field curvature, so getting sharp corners at large apertures might be impossible from this test - the curvature means that just ahead of or behind the wall is where the corners/edges might be sharp.
Now that real world example shows how superbly sharp this lens is even wide open. There seems to be a number of people that are selling fast 85mm primes for the Zeiss 100 f/2 MP on the alt forum and prefer the Zeiss rendering.
p.1 #18 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's one test I think which is good for at least seeing the extent of vignetting and seeing the Zeiss is a MP, and should have excellent flat field reproduction, the brick wall test isn't a bad idea at least for this lens. The 85 and zoom, probably have much more field curvature, so getting sharp corners at large apertures might be impossible from this test - the curvature means that just ahead of or behind the wall is where the corners/edges might be sharp.
Now that real world example shows how superbly sharp this lens is even wide open. There seems to be a number of people that are selling fast 85mm primes for the Zeiss 100 f/2 MP on the alt forum and prefer the Zeiss rendering....Show more →
+1
No test is perfect and can answer all the potential questions that people may have. As such there will always be complaints from 'armchair' participants.
p.1 #19 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
I use the 85L for portraits and for isolating objects in travel photgraphy (mostly in the range f/1.2 to f/2.0). My main reason for buying the lens was the superb bokeh. I also use the lens for landscape shots at f/11. Since I mostly do nature photography, i also want a macro lens for the occasional mushroom or frog. I hope the 100 MP can do all of this. I think the bokeh for portraits at f/2.0 is at least 95% as good as that of the 85L at f/1.2-1.8.
So, for me they are comparable and I will probably sell my 85L in the future.
As I said, the brickwall-test was just to check the sharpness (alignment/centering etc.) not the rendering. You need a flat object to test this and it is better to do a relative test against other lenses since the corners are always not as good as the center and it is difficult to judge how good is good enough.
