p.3 #2 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
I'm afraid I don't understand the reaction of some people here in this forum.
First of all, if you want to test the sharpness (center and corner at different apertures) you need a flat object. A brickwall is the best thing you can find. Of course you can not judge the drawing style and bokeh on such an object, but you can evaluate sharpness, contrast and some more things.
The drawing style is best judged by viewing some of the thousands of pictures you can find on the internet shot with the specific lens. When I buy a new lens I've done this already and I'm pretty confident, that this lens has a drawing style that I like.
But I've bought some lenses, mainly Canons, that were not sharp across the whole image, mostly they were slightly decentered. Therefore I'm always testing the sharpness of a new lens (on brickwalls).
p.3 #3 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
Bobu, thanks for taking the time to share your experience.
To be honest I greatly prefer the "older" test over the brick wall, but both have their purpose I guess. Some people will value both, some one or the other.
IMHO the tests show that the 85L is actually performing even better than expected for an f/1.2 design.
The 100mm is also impressive as a portrait lens, but I've since found that although I love the drawing style of many alternative lenses, I find the lack of AF to be handicap limiting its usability and thus disqualifying any lens over EUR 500,- and only if said lens has something very special that can't be approximated by an EOS lens.
Of course I am just a fun loving hobbyist, not a serious Photographer.
p.3 #4 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
THe zeiss 100mm is not only a macro lens but was designed as a portrait and general 100mm lens. I have this lens and the canon 85mm and the leica 100mm apo macro. In my opinion the leica is still better as a macro lens compared the zeiss but as a regular 100mm lens-- the zeiss is better. It is so hard to justify which ones to keep wickerprints wrote:
+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.3 #5 · Zeiss 100 MP ZE (vs. 1.2/85 vs. 3.4/35-70)
I think that photography spans many interests, from the technical (because many camera are tools made with precision and technology) to the artistic (the tool can produce wonderful images). It is not necessary to appreciate the technical aspects of photography to be artistic and vice versa. As a scientist, it makes complete sense to me to test a lens against a brick wall. This is just one aspect of lens performance but the test itself is useful to judge whether a lens has centering problem, is sharp in the corners etc... Its certainly better than listening to anecdotal evidence from people that for all you know could be legally blind and wearing lenses in front of their eyes as thick as coke bottles, or opinions from those whose minds are made up for them by advertising and blind brand loyalty, or those who are threatened because their precious 85L is being scrutinized.
I can also appreciate the artist point of view which would focus on output of the lens and whether everyday shots from a lens produce the desired effect. However, as stated by Boris, I too am baffled by the negative responses here. If you can’t appreciate the approach then move on. Others will find it useful.
