I've also tested multiple copies of the of the ZF/100/2 and it's very close to the same after the first f/stop as the Contax 2.8. The 2.8 (yet again) is slightly sharper wide open - which is what these tests all are.
Bifurcator wrote:
Nope, nothing is wrong with it! It's one of two I purchased - both identical! This is just the MP 100 on the GH1 with all of the ACR defaults CHANGED to 0. That's just how it is. And believe me, that's actually very very good for my camera at these settings. It's just that in comparison the Lanthar is extreme and doesn't need the ACR defaults. With the ACR defaults (or LR defaults) applied the Zeiss cleans right up!
Bif, I own the 100MP and if it rendered this softly, I would not have bought it. I don't know what the problem is, but there is a problem.
Is this on the GH2? Maybe the difference is that my 12MP are spread over a FF sensor. I would be surprised if the ZF100MP falls flat at higher resolutions, but I guess I will find out in 1 month when my D800E arrives.
carstenw wrote:
Bif, I own the 100MP and if it rendered this softly, I would not have bought it. I don't know what the problem is, but there is a problem.
Is this on the GH2? Maybe the difference is that my 12MP are spread over a FF sensor. I would be surprised if the ZF100MP falls flat at higher resolutions, but I guess I will find out in 1 month when my D800E arrives.
Bif could have been more clear; it is the Y/C MP 100/2.8 that he used for these test shots.
Fly,
I'll have to go back to the scene and look but I think that net is actually striped. So it looks kinda like color moire but that's just the net. Again, I'll have to double check next time I'm there tho.
Cars,
No, this is the GH1. I said so in my post. The Panasonic sensor is probably the worst 12mp sensor and system on the market from any interchangeable lens camera - ever. The lesser models from the same year are a tad worse - like the G1 and the GF1 too I guess. All have too strong AA filters, very noise even at 100 ISO, pattern noise all over the place at higher ISOs, etc. I dunno how the sensor contributed to these results exactly but I can just about guaranty with full confidence that if you sent me your copy of this same lens and I preformed the same tests with the same settings the results would be identical! Honest engine!
TW,
Not sure how I could have been any more clear. I mean there's massive pictures of the two lenses being tested here in the OP.
Bifurcator wrote:
And lastly don't forget that the Zeiss is an exceptional lens by itself! Besides the Lanthar it's the sharpest lens in my collection and that includes the Canon 300 f/2.8 L which I love and the 4.0L. And I still maintain ToothWalker is wrong or had a bad copy.
Is wrong about what?
There were two things in your earlier posts that I did not agree with, namely:
1) The MP 100/2.8 has no "LoCa" at all.
2) The MP 100/2.8 is better than the MP 100/2.0.
Ad 1)
Your present samples clearly show "LoCa", where I still assume that you use the term LoCa to mean defocus color fringing. This point is then closed.
Ad 2)
You need to present some evidence. So far all signs point in the opposite direction.
I have no experience with the Lanthar and it may well be better than the MP 100/2.8. It looks like a jolly fine lens in your tests. The horrendous aliasing is of course distracting.
EDIT: I originally had my wires crossed when I said that the C/Y MP-100/2.8 had tested better than the "Newer Zeiss 100mm f/2.0" lenses. In fact I meant that it had tested better than the (Contax) C/Y 100mm f/2.0 lenses. My Bad!
Hehe, yeah, it's an egret (白鷺 shirasagi in Japanese). Also not too much of a PITB... just slide the tripod forward a bit. I agree that doing so is not a perfect comparison tho. But the Zeiss should get the sharpness advantage from it - if any.
Bifurcator wrote:
Hehe, yeah, it's an egret. Also not too much of a PITB... just slide the tripod forward a bit.
yeah, but that changes perspective and the subject to camera/subject background ratio, which is key to bokeh. if you're just looking at sharpness it's easy enough, but you should use a planar subject.
Bifurcator wrote:
I guess we have to agree to disagree and drop it. You said "the 100/2.0 outperforms the 100/2.8 in the center and in the corner, also at large apertures, at infinity and at 1:2" and that just does not jive at all! Sure evidence is a good thing. Pleas test your two lenses and start a new thread called CZ-CY vs. CZ-EF or something. I did my tests already. I would love to read your review of the two lenses - seriously! More information is always good! I selected the CY version on purpose because after spending a full day testing (as scientifically as possible) several copies of each CZ 100 that existed at the shop there the C/Y was the winner. That included several copies of the new CZ in Nikon mount. "ZF" right? I shot buildings, trees, test charts, signboards, in-shop posters, and macros of various things all on a tripod - and then compared using the last version of Capture One 4 (4.x).
The trouble with your claim, however, is that the MTF charts published by Zeiss support toothwalker's claim about the ZE/ZF. So from the evidence that is available to me it still seems pretty clear that the ZE/ZF Makro-Planar is sharper in the centre and corners. If you or other have I would be happy to see it, but without seeing it you can paint me as sceptical.
Bif, I think you can better leave testing lenses to people who know what they are doing. This is meant friendly. This amateurish point and shoot testing is leading nowhere.
Toothwalker wrote:
Bif could have been more clear; it is the Y/C MP 100/2.8 that he used for these test shots.
Maybe using a photo title that didn't read "Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm" would be good. Rather, write "Contax Makro-Planar 100mm". Even better, add the max aperture, i.e. "Contax Makro-Planar 100/2.8". Then there is really no doubt.
Good idea about the naming Cars. I assumed I didn't need to because for anyone reading the thread it's overwhelmingly obvious what two lenses are being compared. Sorry for the mix-up tho.
Wiseguy,
this is meant friendly but you can just bite me! I've read literally hundreds of white papers (perhaps thousands of pages?) on optical systems and testing methods. I've tested hundreds of lenses personally. There's nothing amateurish nor point and shoot about the tests conducted here. They're meant to be semi-scientific real world comparisons between two lenses of major repute. Nothing more than that. This site is full of tests both more and less "scientific" (tho usually less!) than this one. I wouldn't call any of them amateurish and neither should you. I don't think I've even seen one I would refer to as "point and shoot testing". There's probably a lot I still don't know or have the equipment for, but I certainly know enough to compare two lenses - and then some. Take from these tests what you will. They're for you and the other readers here, after all.
Steve,
I was just writing another of my justification shrugged shoulders replies when I decided to find my data, prove my point, and put an end to all this nonsense:
Whooops! I'm a nit-wit! I relocated all my data from that day and it was NOT the ZF that tested worse. OK, this is embarrassing! It was the C/Y Planar 100mm F2.0 Damn, I hate it when that happens! I did test (only) one ZF/100/2.0 but the two C/Y-100/2.0's are the ones I was comparing with. The other was a C/Y Sonar 100. From looking at my worksheets I didn't compare the ZF very closely at all - probably because it was $2,100 and the C/Y MP100/2.8 (with a closer Macro) was less than half that. It doesn't diminish anything in these tests of course, but I will go back and change any posts with tests in them to reflect the correct lenses mentioned/compared/tested. Wow, humble apologies all around. Except to wiseguy... you can still bit me! And I mean that in the most friendly way.
wiseguy010 wrote:
Bif, I think you can better leave testing lenses to people who know what they are doing. This is meant friendly. This amateurish point and shoot testing is leading nowhere.
I don't agree. These tests are nicely executed, but it's a shame about the camera used. Is it even legal in Japan to mount those legendary lenses on such a crappy camera?
Bifurcator wrote:
Good idea about the naming Cars. I assumed I didn't need to because for anyone reading the thread it's overwhelmingly obvious what two lenses are being compared. Sorry for the mix-up tho.
Wiseguy,
this is meant friendly but you can just bite me! I've read literally hundreds of white papers (perhaps thousands of pages?) on optical systems and testing methods. I've tested hundreds of lenses personally. There's nothing amateurish nor point and shoot about the tests conducted here. They're meant to be semi-scientific real world comparisons between two lenses of major repute. Nothing more than that. This site is full of tests both more and less "scientific" (tho usually less!) than this one. I wouldn't call any of them amateurish and neither should you. I don't think I've even seen one I would refer to as "point and shoot testing". There's probably a lot I still don't know or have the equipment for, but I certainly know enough to compare two lenses - and then some. Take from these tests what you will. They're for you and the other readers here, after all.
Steve,
I was just writing another of my justification shrugged shoulders replies when I decided to find my data, prove my point, and put an end to all this nonsense:
Whooops! I'm a nit-wit! I relocated all my data from that day and it was NOT the ZF that tested worse. OK, this is embarrassing! It was the C/Y Planar 100mm F2.0 Damn, I hate it when that happens! I did test (only) one ZF/100/2.0 but the two C/Y-100/2.0's are the ones I was comparing with. The other was a C/Y Sonar 100. From looking at my worksheets I didn't compare the ZF very closely at all - probably because it was $2,100 and the C/Y MP100/2.8 (with a closer Macro) was less than half that. It doesn't diminish anything in these tests of course, but I will go back and change any posts with tests in them to reflect the correct lenses mentioned/compared/tested. Wow, humble apologies all around. Except to wiseguy... you can still bit me! And I mean that in the most friendly way.
The Panasonic sensor is probably the worst 12mp sensor and system on the market from any interchangeable lens camera - ever. 
)