fredmiranda.com

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 … 34 35 end

Archive 2011 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

PetKal wrote:
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.

I own the Zeiss and the Canon 100/2,8 USM macro (and 3 Sigma macro lenses). And I have used the Canon 100 IS L maybe 15 times.
I think the Zeiss is better than the two Canon lenses. And especially if you like to use it for more than macro shooting. If you only use the lens at one meter and shorter distance the Canon IS lens will probably be as good or even better because of the 1:1 macro.
But the image quality already wide open at f/2 with the Zeiss is fantastic. The best out of any lens shorter than 200mm that I have used. Incredibly sharp & contrasty even at the edges.
The lens also has a really nice and smooth focusing helicoid MF. Much better than the MF on any Canon lens.
But it can be rather difficult to MF wide open. Also depending on the body and focusing screen you will use.

May 22, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Cliff L.
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

Sounds like sour grapes from a Cosina (sorry, Zeiss...) fanboy who can't accept that Canon can make a decent lens?

May 22, 2011 at 12:13 PM

thedigitalbean
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #3 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

Lars Johnsson wrote:
The lens also has a really nice and smooth focusing helicoid MF. Much better than the MF on any Canon lens.
But it can be rather difficult to MF wide open. Also depending on the body and focusing screen you will use.

Yea thats really something that doesn't come out in most reviews, what each lens is like to use. The combination of superb build quality and smooth focusing of the Zeiss just make it more fun to use. Yea, I admit its kind of a dumb reason, but it is what it is.

May 22, 2011 at 12:15 PM

kevindar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

mpmendenhall wrote:
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...Show more →
That is a good possible explanation. As I said, despite defensive reaction from some people, I am not putting the zeiss down, just merely making an observation from the chart. I own sigma lenses, and Nikon lenses, and like most people, look at these at tools, and understand that every lens is a compromise. You have to consider many factors, such as various aspects of optical performance (sharpness, microcontast, ca, flare, distortion, coma, astigmatism, bokeh, field curvature, center performance, corner performance, close object sharpness, far object sharpness,) focusing (auto vs manual, USM, accuracy, full time manual, speed, ease of manual focus) Built (weight, weather sealing, fell, size, whether it extends or not) Features (fstop, zoom vs prime, IS,) and of course cost. I am sure there are a bunch of other things I am missing.
I will admit that this zeiss lens is not one that I would have an interest in at its price point. I am quite happy with my sigma 150 Macro and the MPE 65 when it comes to macro work, and my 85 1.2 when it comes to portrait work, and the balance of all those factor I mentioned for ME, would discourage me from buying the zeiss. I am sure there are many happy owners of this lens, for whom the factor balance in favor of this lens.

May 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM

wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

It's very telling that when a Canon lens shows aberration or softness on a test chart, people say, "oh, the lens is bad," but when the a Zeiss lens shows any flaws, the response is, "maybe it's misfocused." That's why lens comparisons should be done in a single-blind or double-blind manner.

May 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM

Lars Johnsson
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

May 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

wickerprints wrote:
It's very telling that when a Canon lens shows aberration or softness on a test chart, people say, "oh, the lens is bad," but when the a Zeiss lens shows any flaws, the response is, "maybe it's misfocused." That's why lens comparisons should be done in a single-blind or double-blind manner.

I would have done the same if chiming in on a discussion with a Canon lens with LoCA issues on a test chart. There are certainly cases where "fanboys" chime in with accusations of missed focus / poor procedure when there is no evidence for the claims (besides personal bias). However, in this case, the purple coloration (or greenish coloration on the other side) is a clear tell-tale for misfocus (in this case, focused too far away) on any lens with significant LoCA (Zeiss or not).

May 22, 2011 at 12:30 PM

PetKal
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

Lars Johnsson wrote:
I own the Zeiss and the Canon 100/2,8 USM macro (and 3 Sigma macro lenses). And I have used the Canon 100 IS L maybe 15 times.
I think the Zeiss is better than the two Canon lenses. And especially if you like to use it for more than macro shooting. If you only use the lens at one meter and shorter distance the Canon IS lens will probably be as good or even better because of the 1:1 macro.
But the image quality already wide open at f/2 with the Zeiss is fantastic. The best out of any lens shorter...Show more →

Thanx Lars, that helps.

May 22, 2011 at 12:34 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

Neither look so great to me in the test shots, though they have different aberrations as Wikiprints mentioned.

EBH

May 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM

wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

You're not understanding what I'm saying. I'm not talking about the review itself. I'm talking about people's propensities for interpreting test results differently depending on the brand of lens. If those test charts were shown without mention of the lens that took it, nobody would be saying, "oh, maybe this one was misfocused."

The knowledge of the brand of lens biases the viewer. That is unassailable fact.

May 22, 2011 at 01:00 PM

Sir_Loin
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

I'm with wickerprints on this one I'm afraid regarding the perceived superiority of Zeiss lenses. Is the ZE 100 MP worth twice the price of the 100L? Certainly not for what, if any, gains in image quality it may offer you. Bang for buck, the 100L takes some beating when you get IS, 1:1 magnification, internal focussing, weather sealing and oh yes, AF.

And when I look at the Zeiss thread in the Alt forum, the slavish praise for the images posted can be nauseating. Good PP can work wonders eh?

I suppose I'm going to get slaughtered for my post, but I don't really care.

May 22, 2011 at 01:14 PM

wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

mpmendenhall wrote:
However, in this case, the purple coloration (or greenish coloration on the other side) is a clear tell-tale for misfocus (in this case, focused too far away) on any lens with significant LoCA (Zeiss or not).

Not necessarily. In lenses with axial color, there is no way to focus the lens without inducing some spurious color, because by definition, the planes of sharpest focus for each wavelength do not coincide. You have to think about what it means to say that such a lens is "in focus."

The presence of the magenta fringing doesn't necessarily mean the lens is misfocused; it simply shows that some aberration exists--focusing the lens slightly differently can change how that aberration manifests itself, but it doesn't get rid of the aberration.

May 22, 2011 at 01:15 PM

Sp12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

I certainly think both the Canon L and Zeiss look like trash in those shots. The Zeiss clearly is misfocused as there is Loca. You can make it fringe green if you focus too close. Despite that, it highlights on of the biggest weaknesses with the Zeiss -- Loca in OoF areas.

I've used a ZF 100/2 before, and it was perfect on the actual plane of focus, but unacceptable before and after it. Unfortunately, it looks like a Voigt 125 APO or Leica APO is out of my price range.... Maybe a Sigma 150 OS would be good?

May 22, 2011 at 01:16 PM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

Sp12 wrote:
Unfortunately, it looks like a Voigt 125 APO or Leica APO is out of my price range....
If the ZF100 is in your price range, then either of these should be too. Admittedly, there has been a recent sudden jump in (nearly all) lens prices, but don't go by the ridiculously inflated eBay "buy-it-now" prices as a guide. A couple years ago, the Leica and CV were available around $1400 and $1000, respectively; even now, with price inflation, you should be able to find these for well under the $1800 price of the Zeiss if you are patient and attentive.

May 22, 2011 at 01:34 PM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

wickerprints wrote:
Not necessarily. In lenses with axial color, there is no way to focus the lens without inducing some spurious color, because by definition, the planes of sharpest focus for each wavelength do not coincide. You have to think about what it means to say that such a lens is "in focus."

The presence of the magenta fringing doesn't necessarily mean the lens is misfocused; it simply shows that some aberration exists--focusing the lens slightly differently can change how that aberration manifests itself, but it doesn't get rid of the aberration.

Your caveats are all true; the plane of best focus is not precisely defined, and there is the possibility of residual color aberrations at any focus point. I do not own and have not used the Z* 100/2, so I can't know for certain about this lens.

However, I am basing my judgement of misfocus on my uniform experience with every other lens that I have personally examined. Wherever LoCA is an issue, I have found that there is a highly color-neutral point between near- and far-focused that also corresponds with the best apparent sharpness and contrast. There may be lenses for which this is not the case (do you know of any?), but the invariable pattern I have observed from reasonably wide experience is that a magenta cast is tied to misfocus (on the farther side) and less-than-optimal sharpness/contrast. I do not know whether the Zeiss will actually get significantly sharper/contrastier when properly focused (in fact, chances are good that the Canon lens still has it beat in this department), but for such a comparison it should at least be given the chance to do so (and equal care should be taken to assure the Canon is showing its best capability).

May 22, 2011 at 01:52 PM

alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

mpmendenhall wrote:
Your caveats are all true; the plane of best focus is not precisely defined, and there is the possibility of residual color aberrations at any focus point. I do not own and have not used the Z* 100/2, so I can't know for certain about this lens.

However, I am basing my judgement of misfocus on my uniform experience with every other lens that I have personally examined. Wherever LoCA is an issue, I have found that there is a highly color-neutral point between near- and far-focused that also corresponds with the best apparent sharpness and contrast. There may be lenses...Show more →

I think the points from both of you will be supported by the LoCA test from the much maligned site Photozone. The purple fringe seen in the TDP test images looks like a little bit front focus in the PZ image. There is a part of the PZ image that has less fringing than the TDP image, but still there is no pure black in the PZ image. If you look at 400%, it is a color orgy.

This makes me a bit anxious, because the axial color aberrations may be the whole secret behind the reputed brilliant colors of the ZE with real subjects (and this special character is also said to exist only wide open or close to wide open). I hope Luka (denoir) can comment on this even if he doesn't frequent the Canon board so much anymore.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/508-zeiss100f2eosff?start=1

When shooting a target like this and the WB in the white part is correct, there isn't much left to go wrong color wise with this test.

May 22, 2011 at 02:24 PM

wickerprints
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

May 22, 2011 at 02:34 PM

bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

Spot on! And neither one is as good as the Nikon version if you post this on the Nikon forum!

Lasse Eriksson wrote:
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

May 22, 2011 at 02:51 PM

bobbytan
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

Sir_Loin wrote:
I'm with wickerprints on this one I'm afraid regarding the perceived superiority of Zeiss lenses. Is the ZE 100 MP worth twice the price of the 100L? Certainly not for what, if any, gains in image quality it may offer you. Bang for buck, the 100L takes some beating when you get IS, 1:1 magnification, internal focussing, weather sealing and oh yes, AF.

And when I look at the Zeiss thread in the Alt forum, the slavish praise for the images posted can be nauseating. Good PP can work wonders eh?

I suppose I'm going to get slaughtered for...Show more →

May 22, 2011 at 02:56 PM

mpmendenhall
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens

alundeb wrote:
This makes me a bit anxious, because the axial color aberrations may be the whole secret behind the reputed brilliant colors of the ZE with real subjects (and this special character is also said to exist only wide open or close to wide open). I hope Luka (denoir) can comment on this even if he doesn't frequent the Canon board so much anymore.

Color aberrations certainly haven't hurt Zeiss' reputation for rich color and contrast, but I don't think they explain much of it either. There was an interesting single-blind comparison thread posted a while ago on the alt gear forum, and later re-posted on Canon, with side-by-side images taken with equivalent focal length Zeiss and Canon lenses, typically stopped down and near infinity focus (where LoCA is not an issue). On both forums, an overwhelming majority of responders were able to separate the Zeiss and Canon images with 100% accuracy, largely based on perceptions of improved color and contrast. Observations that Zeiss' performance is especially notable near wide open may largely come from comparison with other lenses that are additionally washed-out when wide open, rather than an improvement in the Zeiss due to color aberrations. There certainly are cases where false coloration might contribute positively, especially when they blend in with the "natural" color palette of the image (e.g. fall foliage with rich green and magenta tones), but Zeiss' lenses seem to perform well in a broader variety of situations.

I haven't used any of the Z* glass, but I have a fairly extensive Contax collection (which, from people who have used both, often shares many of the same characteristics). In particular for this discussion, the Contax Planar 100/2 has some LoCA, but I don't think anywhere as severe as the Z* 100, and still manages to be an exemplar of the "Zeiss look." Zeiss' wider/slower lenses, like the famous Distagon 21, are also known for rich color rendering, and do so without typically being used in situations where any similar lens could show LoCA.

May 22, 2011 at 03:07 PM

1 2 3 … 34 35 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 34 35 end