If you buy a used copy of a good lens and use it for a few months you are not going to lose money when you put it back in the used market, as a good lens will hold its value. Besides, the Canon version is (or was) significantly cheaper than the Nikon version.
Gosh ... I wish I had kept my Lanthar 125. I bought and sold it for the same price i.e. $1,250 ... and one got sold on FM for $1,950 ... damn!
+ 1 on your 'wickerprints' comment.
thedigitalbean wrote:
I would love to give the CV APO Lanthar 125 a whirl but certainly not at the absurd prices that people are asking for that lens these days.
And yes, more civility would be great but I completely understand 'wickerprints' frustration.
+1 CV APO Lanthar 125 Pity about prices and availability. Unfortunately no real hope to have another II run as for some CV lenses.
MP100 is maybe sharper but has CA visible sometimes down to f4 and strangely I feel getting more detail with new 35/1.4 ZE. It really cant`t be true. Stupid me. Maybe learning curve but on the other hand I have 100MP longer than 35. CV 125 bokeh is more creamy, I prefer this combination about sharp/unsharp more than 100MP.
Canon 100 IS is sharp enough, light enough to be comfortable used with 5DII, with AF and IS but somehow boring with its presumptive character (I hope I choose right words, not good at English) reminds me somehow CV 90 APO Lanthar. Again, totally different lenses about color rendering but first mach come in my mind. Perfect lens on use if only not so predictable. I pass this lens after first try although thinking about it again and again concerning convenience on use.
Damn, I don't know where I stand since apparently I am and "alt user" and a "Canon user". Oh someone please tell me!! If nothing else I am upset with myself for even wasting my time reading half of this. Who cares! Do you have a Canon 100L and like it? Do you have a Zeiss 100 and like it? Great, I am really happy for you. Why get on here and complain about the other when most likely you have never even used it. If you think Zeiss is over-rated then don't by one. That is it, end of story.
What you should do is spend the time trying to find the lens that fits your shooting style. Each lens has it's own characteristics. For some people their shooting style brings out more of the character of the Zeiss lens. For others they don't. For some people a Canon lens perfectly fits what they are wanting to do. Others may find it lacking. That doesn't make one lens bad. If you want to shoot test charts that is great. I don't find them that exciting but whatever works for you. I am just a fanboy of taking pictures. I could care less about the name that is on the lens.
So now you can continue to make fun of each other about how they don't know what they are talking about.
But, at the very least we can compare MTF charts and rendering differences and come up with our own conclusions. I very much prefer Zeiss greens and blues, but find Leica to have the best reds. All brands produce stinkers.
Most Zeiss lenses have a significantly different rendering style from other brands, likely due to the consistent tangential/saggital performance in OoF areas, as well as specific color casts. It's certainly possible for a Zeiss fan to write an unbiased review.
charlesk wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I find wickerprints to be a rational breath of fresh air around this place. His posts are intelligent and it's obvious from reading him over a long period of time that he knows what he is talking about.
And that's especially true when it comes to the alt lens fanboi-ism. I've watched this phenomenon in its various forms on this forum for many years.. heck, I even got drawn in by the hype myself at one point. I've owned nearly all of the Contax Zeiss lenses (and still have a few I haven't bothered to sell off yet). I saw the hype first-hand, and worse, the shilling by people who had a financial interest in playing up these lenses. I've done direct tests between Zeiss and Canon lenses, I've read many reviews and comparisons, and I've witnessed the exact double standards that wickerprints is talking about in this thread: the situational evaluations, the "flaws" that become "character traits" on the alt lenses, the "3D look" bullsquat, and so forth.
There's nothing wrong with liking Zeiss lenses or any other type of hardware. But the preference should be based on reality, and with a nod towards not just the strengths but also the weaknesses of a choice. There's a difference between a fan and a fanboi, and while it's hard to express in words, it's not difficult to notice when you see it....Show more →
I don't think reviews on the the-digital-picture.com should be fully trusted, taking into account the strange results produced by some lenses there. Consider also the limited scope of any review that's based largely on shooting a test chart at close range and examining crops from only three areas of the frame. That tells us something about a lens — maybe even a lot — but certainly not everything.
Still, the 100 mm Makro-Planar clearly impressed the reviewer. Does it justify its price tag? Some people think so, and others don't. This shouldn't be surprising.
Zeiss SLR lenses can obviously be appreciated from many angles, only one of which is sharpness on a test chart. Among their many attractions are peerless heritage, traditional materials and build quality, considered industrial design, highly effective antireflective coatings, and unique optical properties. All lenses have unique optical properties, of course. And Zeiss lenses have their own distinctive set of compromises. These design decisions will necessarily please some people more than others.
However, together these features and others do lend Zeiss lenses a certain poise that excites some photographers as surely as it bewilders others. It's a question of aesthetics, so it's foolish to be overly dogmatic about this. But since wickerprints has pitched himself against denoir in this thread, I'll use those two posters to illustrate a point. Does it surprise any of us that wickerprints has a rainbow-hued animated GIF under his name, or that denoir owns an LC3 chair (see fourth photo, where he carefully shows it off) in addition to his Zeiss lenses? Probably not. In fact, from those two titbits of personal information I could correctly guess their preferred lenses!
superfrog wrote:
...Do you have a Canon 100L and like it? Do you have a Zeiss 100 and like it? Great, I am really happy for you. Why get on here and complain about the other when most likely you have never even used it. If you think Zeiss is over-rated then don't by one. That is it, end of story.
That's not the issue here. It's when people claim one lens is significantly greater than another when test after test proves they are virtually identical on respective levels and then still, despite the overwhelming evidence, they maintain their position. That is the problem.
Specularist wrote:
I don't think reviews on the the-digital-picture.com should be fully trusted, taking into account the strange results produced by some lenses there. Consider also the limited scope of any review that's based largely on shooting a test chart at close range and examining crops from only three areas of the frame. That tells us something about a lens — maybe even a lot — but certainly not everything.
No one person should ever trust a single source, so yes you do have a valid point. However there are a couple other sources (one that posts here) that back TDP's findings.
The ZE 100MP is a magnificent optic. Before making the Zeiss purchases I used to be skeptical ( see my review of ZE 50 MP here - https://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=392&sort=7&cat=53&page=1 ) but no longer. The Canon 24-105L is still a good friend but sees far less use now that I work with the ZE 50MP and ZE 100MP.
PetKal wrote:
I just checked the ZE 100 price (new)......with shipping and sales taxes it would come to about $2,200. Unfortunately, I can't possibly justify that sort of a purchase given all other lenses I have in that application range, although I'd be curious to give the lens a fair shake.
While undoubtedly the ZE 100 f/2 is a superb piece of kit, the reality is that unless you need f/2, the 100L is such a good lens in itself that it's hard to overlook. I got mine for $850 brand new, and was most pleased to see that it was tack sharp wide open, had fast AF, great colour and contrast, does 1:1 and IS to boot. You can own a 100L and a 135L for the same money as a ZE 100 f/2 and the IQ differences aren't worth it IMO. Now if the Zeiss were a more sensible $1000 say, I would most likely snap one up.
Rajan Parrikar wrote:
The ZE 100MP is a magnificent optic. Before making the Zeiss purchases I used to be skeptical ( see my review of ZE 50 MP here - https://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=392&sort=7&cat=53&page=1 ) but no longer. The Canon 24-105L is still a good friend but sees far less use now that I work with the ZE 50MP and ZE 100MP.
+1
Both the ZE 50MP and ZE100MP are outstanding lenses. And the optics are fantastic
Pixel Perfect wrote:
While undoubtedly the ZE 100 f/2 is a superb piece of kit, the reality is that unless you need f/2, the 100L is such a good lens in itself that it's hard to overlook. I got mine for $850 brand new, and was most pleased to see that it was tack sharp wide open, had fast AF, great colour and contrast, does 1:1 and IS to boot. You can own a 100L and a 135L for the same money as a ZE 100 f/2 and the IQ differences aren't worth it IMO. Now if the Zeiss were a more sensible $1000 say, I would most likely snap one up....Show more →
This is it in a nutshell: the issue is not just how good something is, but how much value it provides. The only people for whom that is not relevant is those who have unlimited funds -- doesn't apply to most of us here. When funds are limited, the question isn't just "how good is the lens" but "how good is the lens relative to what its drawbacks are, including cost", as well as "what other lenses could I buy with what this lens will cost me".
No one here doubts that, even for a minute. The point is .... the 100L is just as good, just a little different. Both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses ... so it's a wash. But when you factor-in the price difference the Canon lens is by far the best bang for your buck.
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
Both the ZE 50MP and ZE100MP are outstanding lenses. And the optics are fantastic
bobbytan wrote:
No one here doubts that, even for a minute. The point is .... the 100L is just as good, just a little different. Both have their strengths and both have their weaknesses ... so it's a wash. But when you factor-in the price difference the Canon lens is by far the best bang for your buck.
If you like the best bang for your buck don't buy the 100L IS. The EF 100/2.8 USM Macro cost nearly half the price and have about the same IQ.
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
If you like the best bang for your buck don't buy the 100L IS. The EF 100/2.8 USM Macro cost nearly half the price and have about the same IQ.
The hybrid IS works like a charm and it is worth the difference to me. Of course, your may not feel that way and you are entitled to your opinion. I even sold my CV 125mm APO Lanthar to get that Canon lens. Oh, yeah I had the Zeiss 100mm f/2.0 Makro, too albeit it was a ZF. I sold the Zeiss to get the Lanthar, which was sold to get the Canon . Ironic, huh?
Might be stupid question but why would anyone compare AF/IS f2.8 lens to a manual focus f2 lens? Almost as stupid would be comparing f1.2 lens to a f1.8, and complaining that at f1.8 they look almost identical.
Sami Ruusunen wrote:
Might be stupid question but why would anyone compare AF/IS f2.8 lens to a manual focus f2 lens? Almost as stupid would be comparing f1.2 lens to a f1.8, and complaining that at f1.8 they look almost identical.
I am not sure where you are going with that statement... . We are talking about macro lenses having approximately the same focal length. In a similar scenario, the 85mm f/1.2 is frequently compared to the 85mm f/1.8. I see that all the time actually. Yes, they are different in speed, that is a given but they there are more similarities rather than less. Maybe I am missing something here, please do explain.
Not to me. The hybrid IS, weather sealing, better built, etc makes the price difference worthwhile. I think the difference is a lot more significant than the difference between the 85L Mk 1 and Mk II versions.
Besides, we are comparing the 100L to the ZE 100 .... not the L vs the non-L.
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
If you like the best bang for your buck don't buy the 100L IS. The EF 100/2.8 USM Macro cost nearly half the price and have about the same IQ.
Pity about prices and availability. Unfortunately no real hope to have another II run as for some CV lenses.
Unfortunately, I can't possibly justify that sort of a purchase given all other lenses I have in that application range, although I'd be curious to give the lens a fair shake.
. Ironic, huh?