Karel Geertsem wrote:
So, the ZE 100 MP 2 is here!
I'm sorry, but I sold the 100L before I could buy the ZE, so I can't compare directly.
Rapid conclusion:
The 100 L is the most practical lens, due to weight and magnificent IS. The huge lens shade is a bummer though.
The 100 ZE is far better at longer distances to infinity; this is why I bought it: decent macro (1:2) and better versatility as a short tele, I like the small lens shade, but I WILL miss the IS. Oh yes, on a crop, using only the center of the lens, the 100L is also very good, it is just not as good on FF.
At macro and short distances my impression is that they are pretty close in IQ; I think you can't go wrong with either. For manual focus the ZE rocks; the 100L has a pretty flimsy "fly by wire" MF....Show more →
Karel, the most important thing is that you are happy with your choice.
Incidentally, 100L has the standard manual focus feature for EF USM lenses: the MF ring is mechanically connected to the AF group thru some sorta friction coupling.
85L is the only lens currently in production which has electronic MF (AKA "fly by wire" MF).
With the advent of autofocusing EF lenses, Canon relegated manual focusing to a secondary or auxilliary feature. As a result, the regular EF lenses lost much robustness and tactile quality of the MF feature. Many Canon EOS photographers seldom use MF if ever, thus an apparent loss of quality there is of little consequence to the user. Yet, the "flimsy" MF ring not only trims the lens production cost, it also helps with lens weight reduction.
That's exactly how I felt with the CV APO Lanthar with 1:1 macro. And I did get some pretty shots too ... hand-held, mind you, as I am too lazy for tripods even though I had all the time in the world. I could have gotten better shots with a tripod as it will allow me to stop down the lens for more DOF. Then came the 100L and I switched immediately. The IS did make a huge difference ... to me, so even though the IQ comes pretty close (in sharpness but maybe not in color and micro contrast) the AF and IS tipped the scales for me. Do I have seller's remorse? Frankly, yes ... but hey ... I get A LOT more keepers with the 100L.
So Anil ... will you buy the ZE 100?
saaketham wrote:
I shot for an hour with the Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro Planar ZF.2 on a Nikon D7000 earlier today. Using LiveView, MF is rather easy, but I forgot my wireless remote, so a bit of shake might have taken away from the true sharpness of the lens. The keepers I had are beautiful (to me at least(. I've never owned the 100L macro, but I've shot a lot with 100mm f/2.8 macro, the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro and Canon 180mm f/3.5 and the Zeiss is right up there w.r.t IQ. As mentioned by folks earlier, I am banned from posting any samples taken with a Nikon body in the Canon forum. But, it's fun to shoot with that lens, I can tell you....Show more →
PetKal wrote:
Karel, the most important thing is that you are happy with your choice.
Incidentally, 100L has the standard manual focus feature for EF USM lenses: the MF ring is mechanically connected to the AF group thru some sorta friction coupling.
85L is the only lens currently in production which has electronic MF (AKA "fly by wire" MF).
Thank you, yes I'm happy. Part of that is when I loaded the first test images (15 minutes in the garden) in Lightroom, my wife said "wow, they look VERY good, escpecially for a first fast try".
Didn't know that it wasn't true fly-by-wire, it just feels there is no mechanical coupling.
BTW, about your eyesight: have you ever considered using MF with LiveView using a Zacuto Z-Finder? That's all I do and I like it very much. I also have an EG-S focussing screen, but that doesn't do the trick for me.
PetKal wrote:
Karel, the most important thing is that you are happy with your choice.
Incidentally, 100L has the standard manual focus feature for EF USM lenses: the MF ring is mechanically connected to the AF group thru some sorta friction coupling.
85L is the only lens currently in production which has electronic MF (AKA "fly by wire" MF).
Thank you, yes I'm happy. Part of that is when I loaded the first test images (15 minutes in the garden) in Lightroom, my wife said "wow, they look VERY good, escpecially for a first fast try".
Didn't know that it wasn't true fly-by-wire, it just feels like there is no mechanical coupling.
BTW, about your eyesight: have you ever considered using MF with LiveView using a Zacuto Z-Finder? That's all I do and I like it very much. I also have an EG-S focussing screen, but that doesn't do the trick for me.
Karel Geertsem wrote:
BTW, about your eyesight: have you ever considered using MF with LiveView using a Zacuto Z-Finder? That's all I do and I like it very much. I also have an EG-S focussing screen, but that doesn't do the trick for me.
Thanx, Karel, that Zacuto Z-finder looks like a promising gadget.
With the advent of autofocusing EF lenses, Canon relegated manual focusing to a secondary or auxilliary feature. As a result, the regular EF lenses lost much robustness and tactile quality of the MF feature. Many Canon EOS photographers seldom use MF if ever, thus an apparent loss of quality there is of little consequence to the user. Yet, the "flimsy" MF ring not only trims the lens production cost, it also helps with lens weight reduction.
I found the 100L really difficult to focus manually with live view near infinity (more difficult than 85L, actually). The AF was impressively reliable on that lens, so this is probably marginal problem for most users.
Ernie Aubert wrote:
One each, full frame from 5D II, and 100% crop:
Shot on tripod with MLU and cable.
Converted to JPEG in CS5, with "camera neutral", no adjustments except resizing to 800 on the long side for the full frame versions.
I won't reveal which is which for now, other than that each crop follows its parent. Indeed, I just shot and processed these, and I don't have time right now even to evaluate them myself.
I prefer #2 a bit better; it appears to have a little extra contrast, color range, and finer detail on the crop (though the detail is close enough that it might be a slight focus difference --- the blurry bottom/foreground grass indicates that there might be a slight focus difference between the images, perhaps too small to see even on 10x liveview). Since I don't own either the Canon 100L or Zeiss ZE 100, I'm not going to try guessing which is which.
P.S.: the edit button is still on the bottom right of the posts, next to "Report".
This pair of pictures is apparently a situation that the lenses do reasonably similarly (though not identically) in.
Someone needs to send Ernie a crackle-finish mug and a lemon
bobbytan wrote:
So the 1st image was shot with a lens that cost half as much ... damn good, if you ask me!
Of course
There are comparisons showing more or less difference between these lenses, presented or referenced in this thread. The "zeiss-effect-sceptics" choose to belive in the comparisons showing almost no difference, and question the validity of the comparisons showing substantial differences. That is also quite telling.
In my experience, the image quality differences between all kinds of lenses do vary quite a bit depending on light and subject matter.
I think IQ strengths and weaknesses should be sought in more ways than sharpness alone. All Canon macro lenses are very sharp, and 100L is certainly not an exception. Those of us who have shot with 100L a fair bit should understand that.
Perhaps comparing IQ of $1,850 Zeiss 100 f/2 and $480 EF 100mm f/2.0 USM would be more appropriate and telling.
There are comparisons showing more or less difference between these lenses, presented or referenced in this thread. The "zeiss-effect-sceptics" choose to belive in the comparisons showing almost no difference, and question the validity of the comparisons showing substantial differences. That is also quite telling.
In my experience, the image quality differences between all kinds of lenses do vary quite a bit depending on light and subject matter.
What subject matter and light would highlight these differences the most?
The plot thickens.... That image screams 3D in my book. What lens did you use on that shot? Was that the Voigtlander APO Lanthar you already sold since you were referring to that lens above?
