Brad:

Take a look at Morton Byskov gallery on Smugmug.
All pics were done with the 85 II. Until I saw it I thought of the 85 as only for portraits.


Larry

John Black has a review of the C/Y Planar 100/2 with comments on the ZF/ZE100/2, 85/1.2L, and 135/2L here:
http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_100mm_Planar.html

Larry,

For what you're looking for the Contax 85/1.4 "N" might also be a consideration, I'm not hearing that macro is one of your priorities - great for portraiture/street and also landscape/nature with AF - slightly different optic and rendering than it's Zeiss 85/1.4 cousin - the biggest challenge now days is availability and cost. There is also a review on PP for that lens.

Here is a comparison from 2010.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/864973/0

Sorry for not posting a comparison but my experience with the Z*100/2 MP is that it is truly unbelievable for portraits as well as landscapes. It's wide open qualities are nothing short of mindblowing in terms of full-frame sharpness, colour & bokeh. The 85L of course is amazing as well, but I love the compactness of the 100/2 as well as it's handling - it's the most fun I've had manual focusing, ever - after all it's a miniature version of an ARRI Cinema lens ;-)

Here are two, completely unprocessed wide open @ f/2 SOOC examples:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/80257/zeiss/OMG-1.jpg
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/80257/zeiss/IMG_7558.jpg

And here's one that's had some resizing & exposure adjustment but nothing else:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4109/4984269057_3fe66c1d0c_o_d.jpg

mMontag wrote:
Here is a comparison from 2010.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/864973/0

I think that test looks very strange. The 85L has about the same bokeh/blur on f/2,0 and f/1,2. When I shoot with my lens it's a big difference between those two apertures

For portraits, I prefer my ZE 85 to my 100MP. Same for landscape and street. Actually for everything that is not close up or wide open. So I second the concept of the 85N, which doesn't suffer some of these limitations.
Otherwise, 85L and 100MP are almost poles apart. You might actually need both, which shows that one is not "better" than the other.

mMontag wrote:
Larry,

For what you're looking for the Contax 85/1.4 "N" might also be a consideration, I'm not hearing that macro is one of your priorities - great for portraiture/street and also landscape/nature with AF - slightly different optic and rendering than it's Zeiss 85/1.4 cousin - the biggest challenge now days is availability and cost. There is also a review on PP for that lens.



Would have to agree. I was able to get an EOS converted 85n right before I switched to Nikon. Had I stayed with Canon, I probably would have kept it over the 85L. It did not focus well at night, though. Between the 100 and the 85? That's tough to call, since they're pretty different. I always will TRY to pull out my 100/2 in favor of my 85/1.4D, but the 85L is better than Nikon's and there are times you can benefit tremendously from autofocus. The 85L II will focus in near darkness and it's very, very accurate. Canon 100 macro is OK in the sense that it doesn't really do much wrong. But there is no "mojo" with that lens. The Zeiss Makro kills it in every respect (except AF, of course).

Cal:

Thanks for the reference reading. I have already read some of his articles
and he does not sugar-coat.........which is to my liking. He tells you "why"!


Larry

Kristjan:

Your shots with the 100 are fantastic! How does it do with outside night shots?


Larry

I think Bobu's comparisons are in the eyes of the beholder.
I think his 1st shot with the 100 showed a degree more separation if the "in-Focus"
than the 85.

Aham:

Thanks for your samples. Appreciate it.


Larry

I am hoping somebody will post a wagon full of night shots with the 100.

I have both and have to say with the exception of Leica M 50 1.4 Asph and Canon 200 F/2L the Zeiss is the sharpest lens I've ever shot.
While the Canon is no slouch and has excellent sharpness the lens really shines when shooting wide open or near it.
For shooting portraits the Canon has better bokeh/character, for everything else the Zeiss.

lms1 wrote:
I think Bobu's comparisons are in the eyes of the beholder.
I think his 1st shot with the 100 showed a degree more separation if the "in-Focus"
than the 85.

It should do if you shoot both at the same aperture. It's a longer focal length. And a longer lens always have better separation of the background. A long tele lens at f/8 will have a lot better separation than these two at f/2

philber wrote:
For portraits, I prefer my ZE 85 to my 100MP. Same for landscape and street. Actually for everything that is not close up or wide open. So I second the concept of the 85N, which doesn't suffer some of these limitations.
Otherwise, 85L and 100MP are almost poles apart. You might actually need both, which shows that one is not "better" than the other.


Philippe,

Why do you prefer the ZE 85mm over the 100MP?

Thanks
Dave

It is a matter of rendering, of drawing style. The 100MP highlights detail and sharpness to a wonderful degree, but it often gives pictures an ever so slight "clinical" or "cold" feel. Whereas the 85 integrates detail in a mor epainterly way. This difefrence is similar to that between the 50 f:1.4 and the 50 MP. I suspect for the same reasons. That also explains why Zeiss keep all 4 lenses in the lineup. Now there are very competent shooters who feel the exact opposite, and my opinion is a minority one. It also reflects the fact that I very seldom shoot wide open, where the f:1.4 twins are not at their best, whereas the MPs are.

magiclight wrote:
If it were solely for portraiture I would go for the Canon.


I agree with this.
The bokeh is really nice.
I've had the 85LII a few months and I only liked it for portraits.

Also keep in mind that when you want to lug it around: this is a heavy lens. Too heavy for my taste.

In the end I'm not the biggest fan of that lens. I sold it and haven't looked back.

philber wrote:
It is a matter of rendering, of drawing style. The 100MP highlights detail and sharpness to a wonderful degree, but it often gives pictures an ever so slight "clinical" or "cold" feel. Whereas the 85 integrates detail in a mor epainterly way. This difefrence is similar to that between the 50 f:1.4 and the 50 MP. I suspect for the same reasons. That also explains why Zeiss keep all 4 lenses in the lineup. Now there are very competent shooters who feel the exact opposite, and my opinion is a minority one. It also reflects the fact that I very seldom shoot wide open, where the f:1.4 twins are not at their best, whereas the MPs are.

Interesting! The f1.4 ZEs sound like they are true artists lenses.

I will probably have to choose bewteen the 85mm and the 100MP, where as I would like to own both.

That shows how clever Zeiss actually are. If they made a "perfect" lens in any focal length, they could only sell you one of each. Because their lenses are, in subtle ways, "imperfect", they can sell you two!