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.
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 ;-)
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.
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).
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"!
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.
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.
Apr 17, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
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.
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.
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....Show more →
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!
