cyberstudio wrote:
She likes to perch on the laptop with which I wrote the conurus firmware.

She also apparently like to pose. ;-)

If She Ever Gets Too Chilly In The Vancouver Winter, She Can Come To South Texas.
And I Won't Even Try To Get Those Trade Secrets ... hee,hee
She'll Love The Palm Trees....

Comparing the MTF's of both the CY Macro Planar and its N cousin. In macro mode MTF's are a toss up, no too much difference with even pros/cons. However, in the non macro range

- wide open the CY MP is considerably sharper than its N cousin (60 versus 50) and holds the corners just a tad better
- stopped down at 5.6 the N is sharper in the center (avg 75 vs avg 68) but gap narrows slightly in the corners

I would expect both to be so good at >=8 that it really doesn't matter which you use and the difference marginal. I find I use 5.6 very litte. Most of the time I want that big falloff or wide DOF. The CY can be had for above half the price of a converted N today. So, with the AF confirm adaptors, is the autofocus worth that premium ? Is there something else I am missing?

Jon-

I read the MTF's slightly differently, but come to the same conclusion regarding MTF performance -- it's really a toss up. The c/y M-Planar is slightly better wide open at infinity, and the N M-Sonnar is slightly better wide open at 1:1. By 5.6 they are virtually indistinguishable. I don't think that in any use, at any aperture, that the difference will be evident in the images.

By producing a internal focusing, AF capable lens that matches the MTF performance of the manual focus Makro-Planar, the Makro-Sonnar is nothing less than a small miracle.

What you are missing, however, is the other aspects of performance and use that might lead one to the Makro-Sonnar. The internal focusing of the Makro-Sonnar can be a big help in a few ways. First is allows auto-focus, which may or may not be useful in macro, can be useful in more general photography in which the 100mm M-Sonnar can be very productively employed. Further, when the M-Planar is focused to 1:1 the lens virtually doubles in length as the major lens elements move. This dramatically reduces the working distance between the front lens element and the subject. In certain situations this could be problematic. With the internal focusing of the M-Sonnar this does not happen. Working distances are preserved. Further when the M-Planar lens is racked all the way out, it throws off the balance of the set -up, putting a lot of weight way out in front -- an minor problem which you might only recognize in comparision with the M-Sonnar

In addtion, in the 25 years between when the M-Planar and M-Sonnar were designed, Zeiss has made significant advances in other aspects of the performance. that might not be showm in an MTF chart. I think you will find that the M-Sonnar imparts a remarkable clarity to it's images. Beyond that, you will find the M-Sonnar to be the superior performer in the areas of flare, ghosting, and resistance to internal reflections. You will also find the chromatic aberration to be significantly reduced compared to the older M-Planar. Clearly these aspects can have a big impact on your images. Some have also suggested that the M-Sonnar has a more pleasing bokeh -- I agree, but that is a subjective call that one will have to make for themselves. We also have yet to mention auto-aperture control and full EXIF image capture data in your files -- both of which can be quite useful conveniences.

So, in the end, a converted N 100mm Makro-Sonnar may indeed be worth the $600 or so more than the older c/y 100mm Makro-Planar. But, of course, every potential buyer will have to decide if the advantages of the Makro-Sonnar are worth it to them in their uses. It is to me.

OK great. I think between the 2 of us we laid out the pros and cons for everyone so they can make an informed decision

Thank You Both....

John R

It is the final phase of cherry blossom in Vancouver. From a 1Ds I purchased yesterday and a Makro-Sonnar 100/2.8:



More at: http://support.conurus.com/viewtopic.php?p=387#387

Joey the Green-Cheeked Conure and Chan Chan the St Thomas Conure, perching on my laptop.

1Ds + Zeiss Makro-Sonnar 100/2.8

and yet another flower. This time a clemitis...
5D and Zeiss 100mm f2.8 Makro-Sonnar at f11.

Out of curiosity - since I haven't had the chance to use these alternate lenses, did anybody compare the N 100/2.8 to Canon's own 100/2.8? The Canon is by all accounts a pretty good lens, and much cheaper than the converted lens.

Don't get me wrong - the Conurus conversion sounds outstanding, and I'm sure the results are excellent (and it's a really cool thing to have developed). I'm just wondering where the advantage lie: resolution, bokeh, or some less definable parameter, such as 3D-ness.

Cheers,

German designed lenses typically have little or no annoying CA, better micro-contrast, better edge to edge performance, and are designed to resolve in the 200 l/mm range, making them upwards compatible with future sensors that will have super-duper megapixels in the future. Canon's lenses Are typically designed to resolve in the 90 l/mm range, and are hitting (or have hit) their theoretical design limits with sensors right now.

Still Lern'in ....

1Ds - 100mm f2.8 "N"