Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
  

Archive 2010 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2

  
 
ManWearPants
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


Which is more accurate? identical distance between focus plane and sensor or between focus plane and front element?


Jun 23, 2010 at 03:11 AM
Yakim Peled
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


denoir wrote:
I'm sure you'll enjoy it - it's a great lens.


10X. I played with one and think so too.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.



Jun 23, 2010 at 03:23 AM
SKumar25
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


Mike Tuomey wrote:
This is the most convincing comparison in favor of Zeiss I have ever seen.



Hi Luka (Denoir),

the 2.8 Zeiss sample appears to have a lot of sharpenining artefacts vs the Canon.

Was processessing identical?



Jun 23, 2010 at 06:40 AM
denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


Yep, the same RAW development settings and the same resize script was used - the one I showed earlier in the thread. I'm not sure I can see any sharpening artifacts in either case though. Are you sure you don't mean the noise banding artifacts? Anyway, any detail regardless of origin will be more visible on the Zeiss due to the higher micro contrast.


Jun 23, 2010 at 07:26 AM
SKumar25
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


denoir wrote:
Yep, the same RAW development settings and the same resize script was used - the one I showed earlier in the thread. I'm not sure I can see any sharpening artifacts in either case though. Are you sure you don't mean the noise banding artifacts? Anyway, any detail regardless of origin will be more visible on the Zeiss due to the higher micro contrast.


Thanks.



Jun 23, 2010 at 08:08 AM
jotdeh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


ManWearPants wrote:
Which is more accurate? identical distance between focus plane and sensor or between focus plane and front element?


I've been thinking about this for a while now, but I need another hint!
More accurate for what pupose? Do you want to take a tape measure to confirm focus or something like that?!



Jun 23, 2010 at 09:20 AM
ManWearPants
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


jotdeh wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a while now, but I need another hint!
More accurate for what pupose? Do you want to take a tape measure to confirm focus or something like that?!


I am refering to the tests above. I am quite sure the 2 lenses are of different length. So if the camera is maintained at the same position would mean that the 2 lenses would have different distance from the coffee cup. Would that still be an accurate measure? Alternatively, if you place the 2 lenses to be at the same distance away from the coffee cup, then the plane of the sensor would be at different distances. Which method would give a more accurate test result?



Jun 23, 2010 at 11:16 AM
jotdeh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


I see. The sensor should remain at the same location.

The physical length of a lens does not matter in this setup (it might more so if you're entering macro territory and the lens may start to cast a shadow on the subject).
For all you know the front element may be optically important or not. Imagine putting a UV filter 1cm in front of the lens and consider this (lens + filter) a "new" lens. You wouldn't move the whole camera back 1cm now, would you?

A more significant influence on the images would be from the actual focal length of the lenses. One may be 84mm while the other is 85.5, but both are designated 85mm by the manufacturer. This would have an effect on the field of view or perspective composition (same sensor position / same magnification of the plane in focus, respectively).

A lens may be optimised for infinity focus or portrait distances (a few meters only). Whether the camera is 2.00m or 2.05m away from the plane in focus will not show significant change in a lens's performance for different focussing distances.



Jun 23, 2010 at 11:35 AM
tollefsonmw
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


denoir;

Looking at your second set of samples I can see what your talking about, the colors are different somehow in the 100MP, perhaps more alive, real (??) (don't want to say organic). Although I think the 100L looks pretty good too (probably biased because I have one). I am still a relative new comer to dslr and appreciate looking at great pictures, especially macro as they have fired my imagination.

Good thread, thanks!



Jun 23, 2010 at 11:42 AM
ManWearPants
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


jotdeh wrote:
I see. The sensor should remain at the same location.

The physical length of a lens does not matter in this setup (it might more so if you're entering macro territory and the lens may start to cast a shadow on the subject).
For all you know the front element may be optically important or not. Imagine putting a UV filter 1cm in front of the lens and consider this (lens + filter) a "new" lens. You wouldn't move the whole camera back 1cm now, would you?

A more significant influence on the images would be from the actual focal length
...Show more

Thanks for explaining, However, in the 2 tests above, the L always appear larger and nearer. I am thinking that this is due to the L being longer and offers a slightly different angle of view. If we move the subject slightly backwards to have the same perspective as that of the ZE MP. Would it improve the IQ since the cup being white in colour and being closer to the lens, it will reflect more lights and increases the exposure slightly more and this may causes the colours to be less contrasty?



Jun 23, 2010 at 01:00 PM
Toothwalker
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


ManWearPants wrote:
Thanks for explaining, However, in the 2 tests above, the L always appear larger and nearer. I am thinking that this is due to the L being longer and offers a slightly different angle of view. If we move the subject slightly backwards to have the same perspective as that of the ZE MP. Would it improve the IQ?


If you want the same perspective, you must ensure that the entrance pupils of the lenses are at the same location. If you want the same image magnification, you must ensure that the front principal planes are the same location. (Assuming identical focal lengths.) The positions of pupils and principal planes generally do not coincide with those of the front element or the sensor.



Jun 23, 2010 at 01:08 PM
adamdewilde
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


Yakim Peled wrote:
Of course I see the difference, but IMHO it is far from dramatic. Marginal is the word I'd use. And when you combine it with the 1:2 magnification ratio, with the lack of AF and with the added cash and the Canon looks like the lens to buy. FWIW, I'd forego the AF issue but the 1:2 magnification ratio is the real deal breaker for me. Humble apologies to all Zeiss lovers but it looks like a bad deal to me. I would not consider buying it even if it was priced the same as the Canon.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.
...Show more


I'd have been so happy if it were cheaper.. Understand your points, and respect them. Though still super in love with my decision.



Jun 23, 2010 at 01:28 PM
Xavier Rival
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


Fantastic Thread, great stuff everyone!

I am very interested in this Zeiss 100ZE vs Canon 100L debate, as I was recently using my Sigma 150 macro and thinking it was too long and I should sell it for a 100 macro of some sort. And of course, the lenses that came to my mind first are those two.
I have to say I am a bit shaken by the results posted here. I expected the Zeiss to have a little bit of an advantage in terms of IQ but nothing that dramatic (so that I was starting to think that half price + IS should do it for me to go Canon this time). Now, I am a little bit puzzled.
One thing that makes the decision for the Zeiss a little bit hard is that I do most of my macro work without a tripod and would benefit of not only AF but also IS (I just cannot commit to re set up for each shot). There is price also, but that does not matter so much, since I can decide to wait for a long time for a lens I really want (I have done it in the past, and never had regret for waiting a few more months to get the Rigth lens, as it will stay forever after that).



Jun 23, 2010 at 02:02 PM
denoir
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


ManWearPants wrote:
Thanks for explaining, However, in the 2 tests above, the L always appear larger and nearer. I am thinking that this is due to the L being longer and offers a slightly different angle of view. If we move the subject slightly backwards to have the same perspective as that of the ZE MP. Would it improve the IQ since the cup being white in colour and being closer to the lens, it will reflect more lights and increases the exposure slightly more and this may causes the colours to be less contrasty?



Actually the situation was the opposite. The second image was a closeup where the 100 MP (which extends) is longer (physically). So the front element of the Zeiss was perhaps 2 cm closer to the cup compared to the Canon. I say perhaps because it wasn't at MFD and the front element of the Zeiss is more recessed. So the difference might have been smaller.

It doesn't matter anyway - it's not something that would affect the amount of light entering the lens. Remember - these are fairly long 100mm lenses so the second close up was taken perhaps half a meter from the cup. A couple of centimeters of distance would have made no difference. The type of glass in the lenses and the coating affects light transmission much more.

The difference in FOV that you see is simply because neither the Canon nor the Zeiss are actually 100 mm lenses. The Zeiss is actually a 97.5 mm lens, not a 100mm. I don't have the equivalent number for the 100L but it is unlikely that it is exactly 100mm. Furthermore both lenses change focal length as you focus - and they change it differently.

Edited on Jun 23, 2010 at 02:23 PM · View previous versions



Jun 23, 2010 at 02:17 PM
jfreak
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


Fantastic Thread, great stuff everyone!

I am very interested in this Zeiss 100ZE vs Canon 100L debate, as I was recently using my Sigma 150 macro and thinking it was too long and I should sell it for a 100 macro of some sort. And of course, the lenses that came to my mind first are those two.
I have to say I am a bit shaken by the results posted here. I expected the Zeiss to have a little bit of an advantage in terms of IQ but nothing that dramatic (so that I was starting to think that half price +
...Show more

The IQ difference is not something you would see unless you have the zeiss image for the same shot. Just like denoir said in one of his post, you may call canon pic as sharp and will find zeiss little more sharp. I do believe now after I put up some pics on this thread to know which has zeiss character and people could tell it right while I could not. So I am keeping my zeiss and sell of my canon 100L. Counter intuitive reason to keep it but I could see the difference once told and I would strive to be able to pick that difference myself as I shoot with it. I, somehow, like the images better while looking at the whole picture taken with Zeiss than with canon; On 100% though, they look very similar. I am not into much macro and closeup shots with 100L was main reason to buy it as I really liked the IS.

As for you, if you shoot without tripod, I think it makes every sense to get 100L. Without IS i feel you need to have atleast 150-200 shutter speed to get it sharp especially at close distances. I have 1D IV and to me less than 200+ shutter speed makes me little doubtful with close shot (not macro). It is enticing to get zeiss ( the feel of lens, little better IQ, and something else which I can not describe) but for your style I strongly feel 100L makes more sense.

Another thing, the zeiss extends a good 1-2 inch with 1:2 which you would use for macro while canon is all internal focussing. Out shooting macro, I feel zeiss is gonna get dust in it for sure.

Edited on Jun 25, 2010 at 08:41 AM · View previous versions



Jun 23, 2010 at 02:21 PM
ManWearPants
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Canon 100mm IS L vs Zeiss 100mm f2


How different is the rendering of Contax N 100 compared to the Zeiss ZE 100 MP, other than the former being 1 stop slower? Anyone with Contax N 100?


Jun 23, 2010 at 03:32 PM
1       2       3      
4
       end




FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3      
4
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.