The Canon is a very nice lens. But it can't touch the image quality of the Zeiss 100
from the review:
The most impressive aspect of the Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE Lens is the image quality it delivers.
This lens is very sharp wide open - completely to the extreme full frame corners. Stopping down typically improves a lens' image quality, but you are not going to see a significant difference with this lens stopped down. Improvement is not needed - expect to be impressed.
The Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro-Planar T* ZE Lens is practically CA (Chromatic Aberration)-free and is essentially distortion-free. Even with the sun directly hitting the corner of the frame, the ZE 100 shows very little flare.
This lens is often touted as being amazing bokeh, but interesting to see that the Canon 100 Macro has even amazing bokeh
That was at F5.6. I think the Canon's bokeh is a lot more distracting/busy, but that's a personal preference. In terms of absolute amount of blur, the Canon can get more with it's higher magnification, while the Zeiss can get more at 1:2 and lower due to it's 1-stop advantage. Neither are weak.
then he is doing something wrong in his ISO 12233 chart comparison. the Zeiss is showing some purple fringing (mis focuses?) and the image from the canon has better contrast (from the link I put on the thread). I dont own either lens, and dont have a dog in this fight, so I am merely stating what I am observing on his comparison.
The only manual focus lenses I own are the nikon 14-24 and Samyang 14 on the 5d2, both ultra wides, where critical focus is not that important, and I often use them with live view and stopped down anyway.
In the test charts provided, you can actually see that the Zeiss has noticeable axial chromatic aberration, which is visible at the image center, whereas the Canon has absolutely none. However, the situation is reversed with lateral chromatic aberration--the Canon lens has a small amount in the corner.
This should dispel the claims that the Zeiss has better "microcontrast" than the Canon, as this cannot be true at f/2.8.
Further claims about the bokeh are also lacking in evidence. I have yet to see any definitive comparison that the quality of blur is superior in the Zeiss--if anything, TDP's test at f/5.6 shows the Canon has just as good a result if not slightly better.
The Canon is less expensive, has IS, goes to 1:1, has USM AF, does not extend upon focusing, and is weather-sealed. The Zeiss goes to f/2. That's all it has going for it. Any claimed differences in image quality are really quite minor, and any claims of the "clear" superiority of the Zeiss is just typical fanboy trash.
He say in his test that the Zeiss is practically CA (Chromatic Aberration)-free.
It's also funny that everytime somebody post a test or photo here from a Canon mount Zeiss lens, it only takes ten minutes until the fanboys here will say a similar canon lens will be better
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
He say in his test that the Zeiss is practically CA (Chromatic Aberration)-free.
I have two eyes. I can SEE the test chart for myself. It's his own chart results. LOOK at it and I dare you to tell me you cannot see spurious purple color in the image center from f/2 - f/2.8.
You can't just pick out a few parts of the test and say they are the truth. And then the other parts of the test that you don't like is not true. If he say in the review that the lens is practically CA (Chromatic Aberration)-free. Then you can't refer to the test and say the lens has a lot of CA.
Generally speaking I have no interest in manual lenses, however, if IQ of such a lens is exceptionally good and noticeably better than the Canon equivalent, then I'd certainly listen.
Therefore I'd like to hear from FM members and practicing photographers who own and have used both lenses extensively, i.e., the Zeiss 100 and 100L.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
You can't just pick out a few parts of the test and say they are the truth. And then the other parts of the test that you don't like is not true. If he say in the review that the lens is practically CA (Chromatic Aberration)-free. Then you can't refer to the test and say the lens has a lot of CA.
I'm telling it as it is. The Zeiss has axial color wide open. The Canon has lateral color in the corners. The fact that you are refusing to accept these observations when they are CLEARLY visible in the test charts, and then accusing me of being selective and biased, proves that you are the one with the bias.
The Zeiss is a great lens. But with this post in the Canon forum it will not be as good as the Canon 100 macro
Just like the Canon macro will not be as good as the Zeiss if you post it in the Alt Forum
What I see from these test charts: the Ziess may have been slightly misfocused for the shot. There is definitely a purple tint to the Zeiss image towards wide open, indicative of the longitudinal CA / defocus color fringing that has been commented on a lot for the Zeiss. Right at focus, the image should be color neutral (before transitioning to a green tint on the other side of focus), and possibly regain some contrast against the Canon. The Canon does have the advantage on this point (much better longitudinal CA correction, and possibly higher small-scale contrast, though the misfocus on the Zeiss may hamper this comparison). On the other hand, the Canon has significantly worse lateral chromatic aberration, seen as color fringes reducing the corner performance, where the Zeiss is more uniform across the frame. These are different lenses with different strengths, both good at what they do.
Anyone know of a good APO 100mm macro adaptable to Canon? Neither of those lenses look acceptable to me at any aperture for macro work, granted, the Zeiss chart looks misfocused, but I still don't like color fringing in my OoF areas.
Wickerprints, either you accept the tester's competence, and then you should also accept the conclusions, or you pick and choose his/her conclusions, which is fine by me, but also says something about what you think of his/her competence. I can't see it any other way, irrespective of whether the Zeiss has or hasn't this or that virtue/problem.
I own and use both so I'll make a couple of quick comments. I already posted a bunch of images comparing both in the other thread that MVers linked to.
Sharpness wise, the most notable difference IMO is that the Zeiss is consistently sharp across the frame and from MFD to infinity. The Canon is as sharp as the Zeiss in most cases but you can see zones where the Canon sharpness drops (and it changes as you go out to infinity). For most people in real world shooting, I doubt they would notice the difference. You'd basically need to make sure that all other factors that lead to blurry images get taken care of first (like precise focus, MLU, etc...). Oh and you need to make sure you get a good copy of the Canon.
Longitudinal CA is definitely worse with the Zeiss. Though it disappears quickly with the Canon when stopping down, it lingers for even smaller apertures with the Zeiss.
There are some color differences, especially in the yellows and greens. I have a slight personal preference to the Zeiss color rendering, but again the difference isn't anything earth shattering.
Both are great for macro work, the Canon has the advantage hand holding (which is mostly when I use it) and the Zeiss is great for landscapes (which is mostly where I use the Zeiss).
Sp12 wrote:
Anyone know of a good APO 100mm macro adaptable to Canon? Neither of those lenses look acceptable to me at any aperture for macro work.
You will probably get more feedback for your question on the alt lenses board. The Leica APO-Macro-Elmarit 100/2.8 and Cosina/Voigtlander 125/2.5 APO-Lanthar SL are both excellent lenses in this range. From my past comparison between the Leica and the non-L Canon 100/2.8 macro, the Canon does similarly well at the center (for sharpness and color correction), but the Leica is uniformly excellent out to the very corners (and also has a different "drawing style"). The Leica only goes 2:1 on its own, but does 2:1-1:1 with Leica's "Elpro" closeup optic (specially designed to work with the lens and preserve the excellent image quality). The Voigtlander does 1:1 natively (I do not have personal experience with that lens, but have seen many excellent images posted from it, and it is considered a "cult classic" by those who own one).
