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.2 #1Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Thank you Edgars, the lowest I've seen was £950 (in good condition), and with Leitax this will get to over £1,000, so I think I'll keep saving for the ZE ........One day!
I considered the C/Y MP100/2.8, it is great value by comparison, I've seen good ones as low as £500, and if my main use was macro it would be great, however I mostly shoot mid distance at this FL and its bokeh isn't brilliant, its also quite a bit bigger and heavier even than the ZE 100/2.
Edit: Just noticed that "N" in your reply! The Contax N 100/2.8 becomes too expensive after a Conorus conversion to EF and again (I think?) the same comments apply that I used for the C/Y 100/2.8. (I may be wrong though as I'm not well read on the "N" lenses because of the cost of Conorus conversion.)
Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 04:27 AM · View previous versions
I considered the C/Y MP100/2.8, it is great value by comparison, I've seen good ones as low as £500, and if my main use was macro it would be great, however I mostly shoot mid distance at this FL and its bokeh isn't brilliant, its also quite a bit bigger and heavier even than the ZE 100/2.
Edit: Just noticed that "N" in your reply! The Contax N 100/2.8 becomes too expensive after a Conorus conversion to EF and again (I think?) the same comments apply that I used for the C/Y 100/2.8. (I may be wrong though as I'm not well read on the "N" lenses because of the cost of Conorus conversion.)
Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 04:27 AM · View previous versions
Mar 21, 2012 at 04:19 AM
p.2 #2Some 100mm-ish comparisons
mirkoc, thanks, I really need to do a colour fringe series to directly compare them.
From general observation using these lenses the Nikkor and Zuiko have quite a lot (I'm meaning out of focus green/magenta fringing mainly) the Tokina does have some but the Sonnar seems almost free. However those observations may be shown to be totally wrong in a direct comparison shoot, when I find a good subject. It's probably my next task.
Concerning my "thoughts so far":
I do like the results from the Tokina but not the shooting experience (again!), but the results outweigh that this time round!
The Zuiko definitely has the best bokeh at all stops and distances, perhaps the best "all rounder" but let down by that poor flare control (and colour fringing.)
The Nikkor is probably my least favourite all round because of the colour and the poor nearest focus performance. I've also used it on tubes and wasn't impressed. I will probably sell on, (towards the ZE!)
For size the Sonnar is wonderful being sharp throughout the range, but oh dear the tendancy to flare at the sight of the sun! It may be a good combination with something like the NEX (?)
I did shoot a sequence into the sun through fine tree branches, but I misfocussed so need to reshoot for it to be meaningful. I'd also like to reshoot that star sequence, this time flagged.
Problem is the lack of clear skies over NW England at the moment. I'd waited weeks for the clear afternoon I shot these, and it may be weeks before the next!
From general observation using these lenses the Nikkor and Zuiko have quite a lot (I'm meaning out of focus green/magenta fringing mainly) the Tokina does have some but the Sonnar seems almost free. However those observations may be shown to be totally wrong in a direct comparison shoot, when I find a good subject. It's probably my next task.
Concerning my "thoughts so far":
I do like the results from the Tokina but not the shooting experience (again!), but the results outweigh that this time round!
The Zuiko definitely has the best bokeh at all stops and distances, perhaps the best "all rounder" but let down by that poor flare control (and colour fringing.)
The Nikkor is probably my least favourite all round because of the colour and the poor nearest focus performance. I've also used it on tubes and wasn't impressed. I will probably sell on, (towards the ZE!)
For size the Sonnar is wonderful being sharp throughout the range, but oh dear the tendancy to flare at the sight of the sun! It may be a good combination with something like the NEX (?)
I did shoot a sequence into the sun through fine tree branches, but I misfocussed so need to reshoot for it to be meaningful. I'd also like to reshoot that star sequence, this time flagged.
Problem is the lack of clear skies over NW England at the moment. I'd waited weeks for the clear afternoon I shot these, and it may be weeks before the next!
Mar 21, 2012 at 04:25 AM
p.2 #3Some 100mm-ish comparisons
timballic wrote:
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!
Maybe it's not so surprising that the Tokina doesn't flare, since the front element is so deeply recessed. Did you use hoods on the other lenses? Their front elements are as exposed as they can possibly be.
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!
Maybe it's not so surprising that the Tokina doesn't flare, since the front element is so deeply recessed. Did you use hoods on the other lenses? Their front elements are as exposed as they can possibly be.
Mar 21, 2012 at 05:02 AM
p.2 #4Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Aham, no, for this first series I left completely unflagged. Flagged to follow when weather permits! I'll be very interested in the results too.
However on the real flare test above, where the Tokina still does so well, I checked, and the sun was full on that front element, being only fractionally out of frame.
However on the real flare test above, where the Tokina still does so well, I checked, and the sun was full on that front element, being only fractionally out of frame.
Mar 21, 2012 at 05:15 AM
p.2 #5Some 100mm-ish comparisons
timballic wrote:
I considered the C/Y MP100/2.8, it is great value by comparison, I've seen good ones as low as £500, and if my main use was macro it would be great, however I mostly shoot mid distance at this FL and its bokeh isn't brilliant, its also quite a bit bigger and heavier even than the ZE 100/2.
I have this Contax and I like how sharp and contrasty it is and how good the colours, but you're right that the wide open bokeh isn't that great (gets better at f/4), and it's quite big and heavy because of the long helicoid needed to reach 1:1. I specifically bought it because it's so strong at medium and long distances (and well corrected for CA), in addition to the macro capability. The heavy weight is a slight nuisance though, so I'm thinking about getting a Sonnar 100/3.5.
I considered the C/Y MP100/2.8, it is great value by comparison, I've seen good ones as low as £500, and if my main use was macro it would be great, however I mostly shoot mid distance at this FL and its bokeh isn't brilliant, its also quite a bit bigger and heavier even than the ZE 100/2.
I have this Contax and I like how sharp and contrasty it is and how good the colours, but you're right that the wide open bokeh isn't that great (gets better at f/4), and it's quite big and heavy because of the long helicoid needed to reach 1:1. I specifically bought it because it's so strong at medium and long distances (and well corrected for CA), in addition to the macro capability. The heavy weight is a slight nuisance though, so I'm thinking about getting a Sonnar 100/3.5.
Mar 21, 2012 at 05:16 AM
p.2 #6Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Having said the above about flagging, I did shoot this series into the sun very carefully flagged. I included the strip of sky on purpose to see if it caused veiling.
Not sure if F11 is best but I wanted to gauge their relative dof too. I shot through their complete aperture ranges if anyone wants to see them wider.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @11
Nikkor 105/2.5 @11
Tokina 100/2.8 @11
Zuiko 100/2 @11
Again, to me the Tokina stands out for its clarity.
Edit: The point of focus was the writing on the front right stone.
Not sure if F11 is best but I wanted to gauge their relative dof too. I shot through their complete aperture ranges if anyone wants to see them wider.
Sonnar 100/3.5 @11 Nikkor 105/2.5 @11 Tokina 100/2.8 @11 Zuiko 100/2 @11Again, to me the Tokina stands out for its clarity.
Edit: The point of focus was the writing on the front right stone.
Mar 21, 2012 at 05:22 AM
p.2 #7Some 100mm-ish comparisons
What do you actually mean by flagging? Using your hand to shade the front element, just outside of the FOV? Anyway, the Tokina obviously maintains itself w.r.t. having best contrast.
Mar 21, 2012 at 05:29 AM
p.2 #8Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Aham, the Sonnar 100/3.5 prices seem to have hiked up from the moment I started looking, (NEX buyers?). It's the only lens in my collection that I consider I paid over the odds for at £265, (though it is MM mint-). There's one (MM) on ebay in the Netherlands for £295 ono at the moment, marked as "exceptional condition" (good I presume!), from mkoptics:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Contax-Zeiss-Sonnar-3-5-100-MM-/251005554509?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item3a7118cf4d#ht_2902wt_1202
I've used them before and found, on a vario Sonnar 35-70/3.4, that they are open to much lower offers, so you might get it for around £250. The AE's should go for less, as soon as I bought mine a lovely AE went for £165 in auction. Apart from that they seem to all be above £300 now. I really missed out about nine months ago when I bought my C/Y 28/2.8 as the seller offered me his little used MM 100/3.5 for £200. Hindsight eh!
Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 05:57 AM · View previous versions
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Contax-Zeiss-Sonnar-3-5-100-MM-/251005554509?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item3a7118cf4d#ht_2902wt_1202
I've used them before and found, on a vario Sonnar 35-70/3.4, that they are open to much lower offers, so you might get it for around £250. The AE's should go for less, as soon as I bought mine a lovely AE went for £165 in auction. Apart from that they seem to all be above £300 now. I really missed out about nine months ago when I bought my C/Y 28/2.8 as the seller offered me his little used MM 100/3.5 for £200. Hindsight eh!
Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 05:57 AM · View previous versions
Mar 21, 2012 at 05:41 AM
p.2 #9Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Aham, I flag with a piece of black plastic modellers card (about20 x 15cm), carefully held just out of view. I found I got too many "pink edges" when using my hand! The card is an essential piece of my kit as I like backlit shots and normally I have Grad ND filters or holder in place, so hoods aren't practical for me. When the sun is reflected in water, I use two cards, one above one below, and oh how I'd love an angled LCD for positioning them when standing forward of the camera!
Mar 21, 2012 at 05:48 AM
p.2 #10Some 100mm-ish comparisons
I remember Rusty mentioning in another thread, that he'd seen some shots by denoir (?) with Leica M lenses, which he described as, "looking as if a veil had been removed" when compared with other lenses, that's what I'm seeing again with this Tokina. I'd love to see the difference between it and the ZE 100/2 before I bought. I'm sure the Zeiss would be sharper, and of course the manual focussing would be better, but would it trounce the Tokina?
Mar 21, 2012 at 05:55 AM
p.2 #11Some 100mm-ish comparisons
timballic wrote:
Aham, I flag with a piece of black plastic modellers card (about20 x 15cm), carefully held just out of view. I found I got too many "pink edges" when using my hand! The card is an essential piece of my kit as I like backlit shots and normally I have Grad ND filters or holder in place, so hoods aren't practical for me. When the sun is reflected in water, I use two cards, one above one below, and oh how I'd love an angled LCD for positioning them when standing forward of the camera!
Some thing like this? I use them quite a bit.
http://photocornucopia.com/images/Automotive/l_452_pc_400.jpg
http://photocornucopia.com/images/Automotive/l_451_pc_400.jpg
Aham, I flag with a piece of black plastic modellers card (about20 x 15cm), carefully held just out of view. I found I got too many "pink edges" when using my hand! The card is an essential piece of my kit as I like backlit shots and normally I have Grad ND filters or holder in place, so hoods aren't practical for me. When the sun is reflected in water, I use two cards, one above one below, and oh how I'd love an angled LCD for positioning them when standing forward of the camera!
Some thing like this? I use them quite a bit.
http://photocornucopia.com/images/Automotive/l_452_pc_400.jpg
http://photocornucopia.com/images/Automotive/l_451_pc_400.jpg
Mar 21, 2012 at 06:06 AM
p.2 #12Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Exactly John, but I use my hands and arms for holders!
Edit: And I'm not holding them a long way from the lens like those.
Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 06:22 AM · View previous versions
Edit: And I'm not holding them a long way from the lens like those.
Edited on Mar 21, 2012 at 06:22 AM · View previous versions
Mar 21, 2012 at 06:14 AM
p.2 #13Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Yeah, regarding the prices of Contax lenses, the 100/2.8 can still be quite a bargain. Got mine for 499 quid from ffordes.
About the ZE 100/2: I think that it wouldn't trounce the Tokina, except perhaps in the bokeh department and sharpness and pop at longer distances. Global contrast is one thing, but pop like this (1st image) is another: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1080639/4#10390786
About the ZE 100/2: I think that it wouldn't trounce the Tokina, except perhaps in the bokeh department and sharpness and pop at longer distances. Global contrast is one thing, but pop like this (1st image) is another: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1080639/4#10390786
Mar 21, 2012 at 06:15 AM
p.2 #14Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Yes, Aham, that is great image of snowboarders from the MP 100/2, it really shows that special Zeiss magic I love.
Mar 21, 2012 at 06:18 AM
p.2 #15Some 100mm-ish comparisons
Thanks ... I find the Nikkor 105/2.5 results most interesting. I've never been happy with mine, but that has been shooting @ mfd / close. I'll have to re-evaluate it relative to more distant use ... but also not a huge fan @ Nikkor color. I tend to use my Nikon glass more for images that I want to produce B&W.
Mar 21, 2012 at 06:54 AM
p.2 #16Some 100mm-ish comparisons
timballic wrote:
The Nikkor is probably my least favourite all round because of the colour and the poor nearest focus performance. I've also used it on tubes and wasn't impressed. I will probably sell on, (towards the ZE!)
Interesting about the Nikkor. I use it quite a lot lately (always with the hood) and can't find anything bad I can point to except that I find slight contrast and resolution improvement when I close down to f2.8. I don't do close ups though. I believe you about MFD performance, but can it be that you missed the focus a bit in the sample shot? Was there motion blur involved possibly?
The best infinity performance with my copy is at f5.6 and its flare resistance and contrast is terrific according to my taste. I find oof blur smooth but characterful.
The Nikkor is probably my least favourite all round because of the colour and the poor nearest focus performance. I've also used it on tubes and wasn't impressed. I will probably sell on, (towards the ZE!)
Interesting about the Nikkor. I use it quite a lot lately (always with the hood) and can't find anything bad I can point to except that I find slight contrast and resolution improvement when I close down to f2.8. I don't do close ups though. I believe you about MFD performance, but can it be that you missed the focus a bit in the sample shot? Was there motion blur involved possibly?
The best infinity performance with my copy is at f5.6 and its flare resistance and contrast is terrific according to my taste. I find oof blur smooth but characterful.
Mar 21, 2012 at 07:32 AM
p.2 #17Some 100mm-ish comparisons
timballic wrote:
Again, to me the Tokina stands out for its clarity.
I agree.
Again, to me the Tokina stands out for its clarity.
I agree.
Mar 21, 2012 at 07:37 AM
p.2 #18Some 100mm-ish comparisons
The Nikkor seems to hit a nice balance of contrast and colors that pop. When I had it I find it awesome for middistance to portrait distance usage. Though if you're not weary of the background (if its too close, and objects like branches are in the frame) you can get very defined double lining. I loved it for portraiture.
Mar 21, 2012 at 07:52 AM
p.2 #19Some 100mm-ish comparisons
mirkoc, yes, I think there is some misfocus involved above, however I retested very carefully for closest focus once I saw these results and whilst it doesn't look as bad as it does there it was still the poorest of the bunch close up.
Here it is compared with the Sonnar which is closest field of view and then the Tokina a bit closer.
Nikkor 105/2.5 @5.6
Sonnar 100/3.5 @5.6
Tokina 100/2.8 (I shot closer to directly compare with the Zuiko's closest , below)
Zuiko 100/2 @5.6
I think that on my first set in the churchyard I must have misfocussed slightly with the Nikkor, plus the angle, making it look a lot worse than it is, If the whole frame had been more like the top line it would have been more representative.
Here it is compared with the Sonnar which is closest field of view and then the Tokina a bit closer.
Nikkor 105/2.5 @5.6 Sonnar 100/3.5 @5.6 Tokina 100/2.8 (I shot closer to directly compare with the Zuiko's closest , below) Zuiko 100/2 @5.6I think that on my first set in the churchyard I must have misfocussed slightly with the Nikkor, plus the angle, making it look a lot worse than it is, If the whole frame had been more like the top line it would have been more representative.
Mar 21, 2012 at 08:16 AM
p.2 #20Some 100mm-ish comparisons
This series was to investigate front and back bokeh and relative depth of field. Each lens shot first at its widest aperture, then at F16 I'll also post the Tokina at F32 as it astounds me, I expected it to have died from diffraction but I think its still useable! Colour changes between the apertures is very noticeable, especially with the Sonnar and the Nikkor. Slight exposure differences mask things a bit but I think trying to even them up in DPP would hide more(?) Shot mid-late afternoon
Sonnar 100/3.5 @3.5
Nikkor 105/2.5 @2.5
Zuiko 100/2 @2
Tokina 100/2.8 @2.8
Sonnar F16 Appears very similar colour to the Nikkor here!
Nikkor F16
Zuiko F16 A fraction darker than the others though the colour more neutral and true perhaps?
Tokina F16
Tokina F32
Sonnar 100/3.5 @3.5 Nikkor 105/2.5 @2.5 Zuiko 100/2 @2 Tokina 100/2.8 @2.8 Sonnar F16 Appears very similar colour to the Nikkor here! Nikkor F16 Zuiko F16 A fraction darker than the others though the colour more neutral and true perhaps? Tokina F16 Tokina F32Mar 21, 2012 at 08:49 AM