Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
So since I seem to be caught with both the best of the Zeiss 100mm lenses (the Zeiss MP100 F/2.8 C/Y AEG - which has better IQ and CA control than the newer version(s) as well as a full 1:1 macro), and also the newly discovered (for me) Voigtlander APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 SL, I'm in a position to compare the two in a heads-up fashion.
I love macro as well as medium length telephotos so 6 months ago or so when I heard the Zeiss was the ultimate in both I just had to get it and try it out! And wow was I impressed with it too! It was better than anything I had tried preciously with the exception of the Canon MP-E 65mm and the Olympus 38mm F/2.8 - both of which are dedicated macro-only lenses with a less than optimal working distance - ultimate speciality lenses tho they are and then some! The zeiss however was also by far the sharpest short telephoto lens I had used for anything over a 1m subject distance. It was so different, so much better, I thought maybe it was out-resolving my GH1 sensor.
The AEG C/Y MP version of the Zeiss lens is noticeably better than the other C/Y100mm versions - notably the C/Y Planar 100mm f2.0 and the C/Y Sonar 100mm F/3.5. When the Voigtlander Image thread happened and I additionally started using my Voigtlander 50/1.5 all at about the same time. With the 50/1.5 being a fairly inexpensive and yet a very impressive lens - and with everyone saying how good the APO 125mm Lanthar was in that thread and elsewhere, I wanted to try it out for myself. I assumed the Zeiss would either match it or kick it's butt and I was hoping for the later - being retired with no income and the Zeiss being a little less than half the price of the Lanthar, I could afford to keep the Zeiss in my collection a little longer. Thus my hopes.
So I tracked down a new CV APO Lanthar and purchased it - I selected an OM mount version because OM is more easily adaptable to Nikon, Canon, Sony, and Pentax. Well, as soon as I mounted it on my camera and looked through the EVF my hopes were dashed! It was obviously and markedly better than my Zeiss. Damn! Damn-damn-damn! 
To quantify and qualify "better" is what this thread is about for me. I'll be adding what I consider to be meaningful examples and comparisons over the coming weeks. Feel free to discuss any aspects of these two lens models or ask any questions you might have. I may not know the answers but someone here probably will.
Here are the stats of the two lenses and some side by side shots:
CZ Lens Composition: 7 elements, 7 groups ----- CV Lens Composition: 11 elements, 9 groups
CZ Aperture Blades: 8, Curved type ----- CV Aperture Blades: 9, Curved type
CZ Angular Field: 24 degrees ----- CV Angular Field: 20 degrees
CZ Working Distance: 160mm @ 1:1 MFD ----- CV Working Distance: 226mm @ 1:1 MFD
CZ Minimum Focus: 410mm (16 in) (1:1) ----- CV Minimum Focus: 380mm (15 in) (1:1)
CZ F-stop scale: f2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 ----- CV F-stop scale: f2.5, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22
CZ Filter Size: 67mm screw-in type ----- CV Filter Size: 58mm screw-in type
CZ Lens hood: screw-in type No. 4 metal hood (with 67/86 ring) ----- CV Lens hood: Bayonet mount Square metal hood (included)
CZ Weight: 740 grams (1.63 lbs) ----- CV Weight: 690 grams (1.52 lbs)
CZ Lens size: ø76mm x 86.5mm (length) ----- CV Lens size: ø76mm x 88.2mm (length)
CZ Available Mounts: C/Y ----- CV Available Mounts: F (AIS), FD, K-A, K-AF, M42, MD, C/Y, EOS-EF (no aperture ring!), and OM
One of the tests I do with just about every lens I get which has the ability for focus down to 1m or less, is to point it at my LCD monitor showing a white blank area. This tells me a number things including sharpness, micro-bloom if I may coin that term, and near-focusing field curvature. I think it may also tell how well the spectral zones R, G, and B are corrected for at short distances. Right? If I nail the focus for a green cell for example, then how well the red and blue ones appear to be in focus is a sign of how well the lens is correcting for those wave lengths... So here are both lenses wide open at 1:1, mounted on the GH1, mounted on my macro-rails, mounted on a sturdy tripod, and focused on the green cell (focus brackets of 5):
Voigtlander APO Lanthar Macro 125mm f/2.5 SL Series 1
100% Crop
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm F/2.8 C/Y AE Germany
100% Crop
I'll let you draw your own conclusions but it's fairly obvious to me that the CV just ripped the CZ a new one! And lest I forget to mention it; that CZ example is exceptional among other lenses!
Another test I like is the 1m (w/50mm lens) rez-chart. I usually only use it for comparing similar lenses like these or a batch or Normals, so that it remains a comparison and not a scientific number generator. This test again tells me sharpness but additionally tells me how the lens influences the camera's Auto White balance. I power-bracket 5 frames turning the camera off then on, then critically focusing at 20x mag, shooting, and then repeating for the other 4 shots. This (I think) helps to ensure that the AWB and AE levels aren't a fluke of some kind. With one lens being 100mm and the other 125mm, Both at approximately 2m away, I had to move the CZ a little closer to identically match the magnification. In this regard the Zeiss has a very slight advantage - but probably nothing measurable.
CZ @ f/2.8 - 100% Crop
CV @ f/2.5 - 100% Crop
CZ @ f/5.6 - 100% Crop
CV @ f/5.6 - 100% Crop
Again, I'll let you draw your own conclusions. For me the CV is still clearly superior but the differences are less pronounced than at the lens's respective 1:1 minimum focus distances (MFD). The AWB is loving the CV whereas the CZ is causing the results to come out slightly shifted to the blue/red. The weather here is still on-and off lousy and the nice days seem to be clashing with my moods and interests - but soon I'll take these guys outside for some real-world tests... at least on a GH1 anyway... if anyone is interested I mean.
EDIT: I originally had my wires crossed and said that the C/Y MP-100/2.8 had tested better than the "Newer Zeiss 100mm f/2.0" lenses when in fact I meant that it had tested better than the older C/Y 100mm f/2.0 lenses. This caused considerable off topic side chatter which may be confusing to the reader and for which I apologize. Oops!
Edited on Mar 12, 2012 at 05:12 AM · View previous versions
|
