This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012Some 100mm-ish comparisons
p.1 #1Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Not sure if this is humorous or tragic.
About six months ago I decided that I wanted the Zeiss ZE 100/2 but couldn't afford it (at around £1,250+ I just couldn't justify it), so I proceeded to buy some cheaper "alternatives" to try out.
(Most of my photography is mid distance landscape with some close up work, but not really "macro", all on Canon 5DII)
Here is what I've ended up with:
From left to right: C/Y Zeiss Sonnar 100/3.5; Nikkor 105/2.5 Ai; Zuiko 100/2; Tokina Macro 100/2.8 All in lovely condition, though I did have to get a slightly sticky aperture on the Zuiko fixed (cost covered by seller.)
Why tragic? Well, I added up the cost of these, plus the adapters, and it comes to £1180, probably under £100 short of the Zeiss! If only I'd waited and saved!
I initially intended to post this in the style of a, "CAN YOU TELL WHAT EACH LENS IS?" from results, but after a long afternoons shoot with them all last Sunday, I realise I haven't the skills to tease you with that! It surprised me how hard it is to get the exposures exactly equal, also in tiredness I kept missing one or other of the four out of sequences!
Instead I'll post some comparison results as I do them, bit by bit.
There is no clear "best overall", instead each has its good and its weaker points.
There are no "lemons" in the group all are very decent lenses, (which is why I shortlisted these after extensive web research.)
Some general comments, which I'll back up with photos later:
ZEISS S 100/3.5 Very sharp throughout range, fairly warm/contrasty results, prone to flare.
Limited range with F3.5 and 1m close focus. Smooth bokeh despite only F3.5 and 6 blades.
Smallest and lightest in group.
NIKKOR 105/2.5 The coolest results of the group by quite a margin. Poor(est) resolution at minimum distance but probably the best or equal first with the Sonnar for infinity resolution.
Also poor flare control like the Sonnar.
ZUIKO 100/2 A good overall performer, close and distant, colour neutral, Beautiful bokeh, let down by oof colour fringing and tendency to flare.
TOKINA MACRO 100/2.8 The warmest (most contrasty?) images of the group. Not surprisingly the sharpest of the group at close distances and worst at infinity (not weak though). Best flare control of group. As the only AF lens in the group, manual focussing is understandably its weakest point. Also the FL is closer to 95mm than the stated 100mm, (at least if the Sonnar and Zuiko are true 100mms)
Some comparison results to follow.
About six months ago I decided that I wanted the Zeiss ZE 100/2 but couldn't afford it (at around £1,250+ I just couldn't justify it), so I proceeded to buy some cheaper "alternatives" to try out.
(Most of my photography is mid distance landscape with some close up work, but not really "macro", all on Canon 5DII)
Here is what I've ended up with:
From left to right: C/Y Zeiss Sonnar 100/3.5; Nikkor 105/2.5 Ai; Zuiko 100/2; Tokina Macro 100/2.8 All in lovely condition, though I did have to get a slightly sticky aperture on the Zuiko fixed (cost covered by seller.)
Why tragic? Well, I added up the cost of these, plus the adapters, and it comes to £1180, probably under £100 short of the Zeiss! If only I'd waited and saved!
I initially intended to post this in the style of a, "CAN YOU TELL WHAT EACH LENS IS?" from results, but after a long afternoons shoot with them all last Sunday, I realise I haven't the skills to tease you with that! It surprised me how hard it is to get the exposures exactly equal, also in tiredness I kept missing one or other of the four out of sequences!
Instead I'll post some comparison results as I do them, bit by bit.
There is no clear "best overall", instead each has its good and its weaker points.
There are no "lemons" in the group all are very decent lenses, (which is why I shortlisted these after extensive web research.)
Some general comments, which I'll back up with photos later:
ZEISS S 100/3.5 Very sharp throughout range, fairly warm/contrasty results, prone to flare.
Limited range with F3.5 and 1m close focus. Smooth bokeh despite only F3.5 and 6 blades.
Smallest and lightest in group.
NIKKOR 105/2.5 The coolest results of the group by quite a margin. Poor(est) resolution at minimum distance but probably the best or equal first with the Sonnar for infinity resolution.
Also poor flare control like the Sonnar.
ZUIKO 100/2 A good overall performer, close and distant, colour neutral, Beautiful bokeh, let down by oof colour fringing and tendency to flare.
TOKINA MACRO 100/2.8 The warmest (most contrasty?) images of the group. Not surprisingly the sharpest of the group at close distances and worst at infinity (not weak though). Best flare control of group. As the only AF lens in the group, manual focussing is understandably its weakest point. Also the FL is closer to 95mm than the stated 100mm, (at least if the Sonnar and Zuiko are true 100mms)
Some comparison results to follow.
Mar 20, 2012 at 10:41 AM
p.1 #2Some 100mm-ish comparisons
First, examples of bokeh at each lenses widest aperture.
All tests shot on 5DII, camera set to Neutral style. I tried to equalise exposure at the shooting stage. No post process.
Backlit daffodils, focus on middle bloom.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @ 3.5
Nikkor 105/2.5 @ 2.5
Zuiko 100/2 @ 2
Tokina 100/2.8 @2.8
All tests shot on 5DII, camera set to Neutral style. I tried to equalise exposure at the shooting stage. No post process.
Backlit daffodils, focus on middle bloom.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @ 3.5 Nikkor 105/2.5 @ 2.5 Zuiko 100/2 @ 2 Tokina 100/2.8 @2.8Mar 20, 2012 at 01:03 PM
p.1 #3Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Next, another easy one, flare. This is with the sun just out of frame lower left, absolute worst case.
Only the Tokina comes out of it reasonably well. These are at F3.5, but stopping down doesn't change things a lot!
Sonnar 100/3.5
Nikkor 105/2.5, moved back slightly to account for difference in FL.
Tokina 100/2.8
Zuiko 100/2
Only the Tokina comes out of it reasonably well. These are at F3.5, but stopping down doesn't change things a lot!
Sonnar 100/3.5 Nikkor 105/2.5, moved back slightly to account for difference in FL. Tokina 100/2.8 Zuiko 100/2Mar 20, 2012 at 02:13 PM
p.1 #4Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Native colour temp of lens. I've arranged them here cool to warm. All F3.5. Focussed on "ALSO" on upper cross base. The Sonnar seems to operate as sharply at its widest 3.5 as at all other apertures.
Nikkor 105/2.5 @3.5
Zuiko 100/2 @3.5
Sonnar 100/3.5 @3.5
Tokina 105/2.5 @3.5
Please feel free to add comments!
Nikkor 105/2.5 @3.5 Zuiko 100/2 @3.5 Sonnar 100/3.5 @3.5 Tokina 105/2.5 @3.5Please feel free to add comments!
Mar 20, 2012 at 02:22 PM
p.1 #5Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Tests are always interesting in that they indicate the issues and characteristics of most interest to the tester, and thanks for these.
Just note in passing these are all close ups, with a huge OOF/blur-to-content ratio, and that flare handling is an over-rated 'problem', easily defeated by good technique. A little like testing several sports cars running on kerosene to see which goes best, or should I say, least worst. Different apertures confound bokeh analysis, except in the broadest sense.
Just note in passing these are all close ups, with a huge OOF/blur-to-content ratio, and that flare handling is an over-rated 'problem', easily defeated by good technique. A little like testing several sports cars running on kerosene to see which goes best, or should I say, least worst. Different apertures confound bokeh analysis, except in the broadest sense.
Mar 20, 2012 at 02:56 PM
p.1 #6Some 100mm-ish comparisons
I've always been fond of the Zuikos and felt the 100/2 was a bit overpriced as you can get similar results(as shown above) for much cheaper.
Thanks for the thread.
There are so many (good) 90-105 lenses that it's a daunting task to even consider one.
Thanks for the thread.
There are so many (good) 90-105 lenses that it's a daunting task to even consider one.
Mar 20, 2012 at 02:58 PM
p.1 #8Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Something a bit more distant to vary things. All F8. Focussed on the branches above the roof. I may replace with F11 as the tower is just off. (or F16?) I also shot the sequence focussed on the roundel on the tower, but then the branches are off!
Sonnar 100/3.5 @8
Nikkor 105/2.5 @8
Tokina 100/2.8 Looks the "cleanest" overall here, to my eyes.
Zuiko 100/2
One of the reasons I posted closer shots and bokeh examples was that these lenses are so similar in many respects, that I was trying to show the more obvious differences. Also when I took these they were for my own interest and therefore are biased to the types of thing I will be shooting.
Edited on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:25 PM · View previous versions
Sonnar 100/3.5 @8 Nikkor 105/2.5 @8 Tokina 100/2.8 Looks the "cleanest" overall here, to my eyes. Zuiko 100/2One of the reasons I posted closer shots and bokeh examples was that these lenses are so similar in many respects, that I was trying to show the more obvious differences. Also when I took these they were for my own interest and therefore are biased to the types of thing I will be shooting.
Edited on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:25 PM · View previous versions
Mar 20, 2012 at 03:12 PM
p.1 #9Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Star shapes. Not something I set out to take, they just "appeared in a sequence I took for another reason. All focussed on the metal stem holder near centre.
I didn't flag the lenses here so the Sonnar shows up very badly with its veiling flare. I wasn't aware of this at taking. I've shot another without stars which I did flag. It just shows me how careful I'll have to be with the Sonnar.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @16 With bad veiling flare
Nikkor 105/2.5 @16 With some specular (?) flare
Tokina 100/2.8 @16 No flare
Zuiko 100/2 @16 Surprisingly no flare!
Edited on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:31 PM · View previous versions
I didn't flag the lenses here so the Sonnar shows up very badly with its veiling flare. I wasn't aware of this at taking. I've shot another without stars which I did flag. It just shows me how careful I'll have to be with the Sonnar.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @16 With bad veiling flare Nikkor 105/2.5 @16 With some specular (?) flare Tokina 100/2.8 @16 No flare Zuiko 100/2 @16 Surprisingly no flare!Edited on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:31 PM · View previous versions
Mar 20, 2012 at 03:20 PM
p.1 #10Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Thanks for doing this set of comparisons.
The Tokina's considerably better resistance to veiling flare really stands out in the overall contrast of the tower pictures --- the shadows are all pushed to solid black, while a little contrast-reducing haze lifts the shadows (showing more shadow detail) for the other lenses. Presumably this could be equalized by lowering the black point in PP for the Tokina.
The Tokina's considerably better resistance to veiling flare really stands out in the overall contrast of the tower pictures --- the shadows are all pushed to solid black, while a little contrast-reducing haze lifts the shadows (showing more shadow detail) for the other lenses. Presumably this could be equalized by lowering the black point in PP for the Tokina.
Mar 20, 2012 at 03:22 PM
p.1 #11Some 100mm-ish comparisons
On the star shapes shots, the "Zuiko 100/2 @16 Surprisingly no flare!" actually does have a flare spot hiding in the grass a bit below and right of center.
Mar 20, 2012 at 03:25 PM
p.1 #12Some 100mm-ish comparisons
mpmendenhall wrote:
On the star shapes shots, the "Zuiko 100/2 @16 Surprisingly no flare!" actually does have a flare spot hiding in the grass a bit below and right of center.
+1
You could say it's the worst in this respect!
On the star shapes shots, the "Zuiko 100/2 @16 Surprisingly no flare!" actually does have a flare spot hiding in the grass a bit below and right of center.
+1
You could say it's the worst in this respect!
Mar 20, 2012 at 03:30 PM
p.1 #13Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Ah ha, so it does Michael, well spotted! This exercise has been a learning curve for me. I'd definitely flag them all another time with the sun anywhere near the front element. However, as you say its the veiling flare from all three manual focus lenses that reduce contrast on the tower, and there the sun wasn't on the front.
Mar 20, 2012 at 03:30 PM
p.1 #14Some 100mm-ish comparisons
I've never liked those Nikkor colors...
I see two flares on the Tokina shot btw. A green one at the bottom edge and a bluish one close to the star at 10-11 o'clock.
Edited on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:41 PM · View previous versions
I see two flares on the Tokina shot btw. A green one at the bottom edge and a bluish one close to the star at 10-11 o'clock.
Edited on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:41 PM · View previous versions
Mar 20, 2012 at 03:35 PM
p.1 #15Some 100mm-ish comparisons
I'll post a couple more series that I took, tomorrow. I also want to see the differences in dull flat conditions, these were all taken on a rare cloudless sunny afternoon. I also want to do a colour fringe series. I know that the Zuiko is bad for oof colour fringes but I haven't done a direct comparison with them all together yet.
Edit: I'm quite interested how well the Tokina is showing, it certainly hasn't the best resolution if I look at 100% (apart from close up where it really is at its best), but it has the clarity that I first loved. I sold my first one in November after being fed up with manual focussing it, but then I looked through shots I'd taken with it and that clarity stood out, so I ended up buying another!
Edited on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:58 PM · View previous versions
Edit: I'm quite interested how well the Tokina is showing, it certainly hasn't the best resolution if I look at 100% (apart from close up where it really is at its best), but it has the clarity that I first loved. I sold my first one in November after being fed up with manual focussing it, but then I looked through shots I'd taken with it and that clarity stood out, so I ended up buying another!
Edited on Mar 20, 2012 at 03:58 PM · View previous versions
Mar 20, 2012 at 03:35 PM
p.1 #16Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Thanks for looking so closely Aham, you are of course right! Interesting, it seems to have little or no veiling flare as it is still so clear overall. I do normally flag all my shots, here I just wanted to see how they managed without. I'll post a series I did flag, tomorrow. Time for bed now!
Mar 20, 2012 at 03:43 PM
p.1 #17Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Some more at near infinity setting, first at F2.8 (Except Sonnar at F3.5), also showing near bokeh on the stone, then near 100% at F11on the distance.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @3.5
Nikkor 105/2.5 @2.8
Tokina 100/2.8 @2.8
Zuiko 100/2 @2.8
Now the 100% @F11. I tried to post these alonside the above but couldn't, I got "deleted file" each time, pity.
Sonnar @11
Nikkor @11
Tokina @11
Zuiko @11
In my editor the Nikkor shows best resloution here, though the Sonnar is almost as good, then the Zuiko and slightly behind, the Tokina.
In the next sequence I hope to show how this changes at closest focussing distances, where first and last dramatically change position.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @3.5 Nikkor 105/2.5 @2.8 Tokina 100/2.8 @2.8 Zuiko 100/2 @2.8Now the 100% @F11. I tried to post these alonside the above but couldn't, I got "deleted file" each time, pity.
Sonnar @11 Nikkor @11 Tokina @11 Zuiko @11In my editor the Nikkor shows best resloution here, though the Sonnar is almost as good, then the Zuiko and slightly behind, the Tokina.
In the next sequence I hope to show how this changes at closest focussing distances, where first and last dramatically change position.
Mar 21, 2012 at 03:29 AM
p.1 #18Some 100mm-ish comparisons
EDIT: I HAVE RESHOT THIS SERIES MORE CAREFULLY ON PAGE 3. THE RESULTS HERE ARE SKEWED BY NOT BEING PARALLEL TO THE SURFACE
For close focus what I've tried to show (for my own interest), was the performance at the closest focus of each lens. I realise that I'm slightly off parallel to the letters so focus does alter top to bottom, but I think you can still gauge sharpest focus with them. In each I tried to get best focus on the "5" (using live focus x10), but I think the line above actually appears sharper.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @3.5 (27.5 x 18.5cm / 10.75 x 7.25 ins)
Nikkor 105/2.5 @3.5 (27 x 18cm / 10.5 x 7ins) Edit NB: Here the angle has skewed the result, only the top line is really representative.
Zuiko 100/2 @3.5 (17.7 x 11.5cm / 7 x 4.5ins)
Tokina 100/2 @8 ( 1:1)
Here the Nikkor is just plain soft until F11 is reached,(though it never has "bite"), also interestingly it's warm! (I've double checked, I have marked them correctly). In hindsight it would have been interesting to have done the Tokina at the same size as the Zuiko, you'll have to take it from me, from other tests, it's sharper by quite a margin, (as you'd expect it to be for a macro). I'm showing the F8 for the Tokina, just because at 1:1 there is such depth of field needed in the number.
Edit: I've reshot these with more care, on small news print. They confirm the above but may be a bit clearer to see the results. Let me know if you'd like me to post them.
Edited on Mar 31, 2012 at 04:51 PM · View previous versions
For close focus what I've tried to show (for my own interest), was the performance at the closest focus of each lens. I realise that I'm slightly off parallel to the letters so focus does alter top to bottom, but I think you can still gauge sharpest focus with them. In each I tried to get best focus on the "5" (using live focus x10), but I think the line above actually appears sharper.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @3.5 (27.5 x 18.5cm / 10.75 x 7.25 ins) Nikkor 105/2.5 @3.5 (27 x 18cm / 10.5 x 7ins) Edit NB: Here the angle has skewed the result, only the top line is really representative. Zuiko 100/2 @3.5 (17.7 x 11.5cm / 7 x 4.5ins) Tokina 100/2 @8 ( 1:1)Here the Nikkor is just plain soft until F11 is reached,(though it never has "bite"), also interestingly it's warm! (I've double checked, I have marked them correctly). In hindsight it would have been interesting to have done the Tokina at the same size as the Zuiko, you'll have to take it from me, from other tests, it's sharper by quite a margin, (as you'd expect it to be for a macro). I'm showing the F8 for the Tokina, just because at 1:1 there is such depth of field needed in the number.
Edit: I've reshot these with more care, on small news print. They confirm the above but may be a bit clearer to see the results. Let me know if you'd like me to post them.
Edited on Mar 31, 2012 at 04:51 PM · View previous versions
Mar 21, 2012 at 03:41 AM
p.1 #19Some 100mm-ish comparisons
an interesting read! you probably know that used ZF 100mm go for around 9 hundred pounds. Still it is interesting to see how close the alternatives come to it. For close up use the Contax N 100mm f2.8 is supposed to be excellent. They sell for some £600 but with conversion it would be expensive.
Mar 21, 2012 at 04:05 AM
p.1 #20Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Very nice comparison. Great job, thanks!
It is really hard to pic one for now. Perhaps the Zuiko for speed + MFD. Those star shapes of Tokina are great. No signs of LCA, are they all that great? Have you tried to provoke it? A shot into the sun would be nice to, although star shape samples are already quite revealing in that aspect.
It is really hard to pic one for now. Perhaps the Zuiko for speed + MFD. Those star shapes of Tokina are great. No signs of LCA, are they all that great? Have you tried to provoke it? A shot into the sun would be nice to, although star shape samples are already quite revealing in that aspect.
Mar 21, 2012 at 04:15 AM