p.2 #2 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
I need a completely clear day to do some flare testing and specular highlight bokeh under unchanging conditions. Hopefully this weekend(?)
I suppose what I am seeing in these comparisons isn't so much how excellent the ZE is but how closely the Zuiko is keeping up with it and in the case of CA/fringing, bettering it. At F2 I may even prefer the Zuiko's rendering, (but it's SO close), whilst stopped down a bit, the "bite" of the ZE becomes a tiny bit more apparent....or am I just fooling myself?!
The slightly "muddier" colours of the Tokina are showing, but it's not lagging by very much at all IMO.
p.2 #3 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Star pattern.
All at F22 and shot at 15th sec. This is about 100% enlargement, so all doing well definition wise.
Similar types of multi-pont star, but the Zuiko obviously the stronger but also the most flare prone from this example.
However as the sun has moved from above to below the branch I wouldn't read that much into it, beyond seeing the types of star they provide.
p.2 #4 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
I did shoot a couple more sequences last Sat, but it appears that the light changed during them, as with the hanging basket sequence, so the results aren't worth posting.
I'll wait for a clear afternoon to do a few more, mainly for personal interest to try and clarify the differences between the Zuiko and Zeiss as much as anything.
So far I'd say the Zeiss and Zuiko are battling it out for first position in my affection, and the Tokina is taking a very respectable 3nd place.
My main interest in getting the Zeiss was for its supposedly unique 3D "bite" and the bokeh wide open under different conditions, as well as having a lens for close up (I rarely go as far as Macro, so the 1:1 capability of the Tokina isn't important to me.)
In the case of the bokeh, I'm not sure the Zeiss has any advantage over the Zuiko.
I need to find a subject that shows me the Zeiss 3D "bite" over the Zuiko's rendering. I thought I was really seeing it in one of the sequences I've not posted, until I realised that the light was much softer in the Zuiko set.
p.2 #5 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Questionable light?
Although the Exposure is consistent at F@ 200th sec in the original RAW the difference is clearly apparent in these reduced jpegs it is far less so!
I need to do something like this when I can be sure the light stays the same.
ZE F2
OM F2
EDIT: this is the ZE version with slight (+2) added saturation and contrast to show the difference I'm seeing in my viewer with RAWs
ZE with +2 boosted sat and +2 boosted contrast (in DPP) to give a closer look of the real difference I'm seeing in RAW.
p.2 #6 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
I'm very glad that I decided to show the last comparison as it reveals how much is being lost in the conversion to jpeg.
This problem is obviously present in every sequence, though it was only in the last that it was apparent.
p.2 #8 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
"In the thread on the new Carl Zeiss Apo Sonnar T* 2/135", AhamB commented:
"Definitely an exciting lens, but I wish they would have made the Makro-Planar 100/2 apochromatic."
I'm beginning to wholeheartedly agree! (However doesn't apochromatic rather spoil the bokeh giving donut rings, or am I getting Aspherical elements and apochromatic muddled?)
I'd really LOVE to get a Voigtlander 125/2.5 to compare, although I think 125mm may be just a bit too long for me.(I got rid of a lovely Contax 135 for that reason)
I seem to remember Bifurcator having done something with the Voigt some time back and I was impressed with his results.
EDIT: Found it here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1090828/1 But I'd forgotten that he was comparing the Voigt with the Contax C/Y MP 100/2.8, not the ZE MP 100/2
I think the Voigt (used), is now about £1,600, ($2,500), ie even more than the price of a new Zeiss ZE MP 100/2, so I don't think I'll ever get the chance to try one, very sadly!
p.2 #9 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
In page 1 #16 and this page #5 and #7 the Zuiko shows so much better bokeh that, to my taste, the choice is easy. In p1#16 and f8 I wonder if you focused both lenses the same? If you did, well, then I would be settled. Keep the Zuiko and don't look back.
p.2 #10 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Jonas B wrote:
In p1#16 and f8 I wonder if you focused both lenses the same? If you did, well, then I would be settled. Keep the Zuiko and don't look back.!
Thanks Jonas. No there was a fractional difference in focus, probably only a matter of 2-3mm, that I only noticed afterwards (I commented on it on the intro to #16 "Focussed on the base of the front grey petal where it starts to turn purple....again slight difference as I focussed the OM a few mm further in.")
p.2 #11 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
timballic wrote:
(...)
(I commented on it on the intro to #16 "Focussed on the base of the front grey petal where it starts to turn purple....again slight difference as I focussed the OM a few mm further in.")
Yes, you did. You focused better than I read. I'm afraid I dived straight into the images
p.2 #12 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
I mused earlier, "I think the Voigt (used), is now about £1,600, ($2,500), ie even more than the price of a new Zeiss ZE MP 100/2, so I don't think I'll ever get the chance to try one, very sadly!"
I wish this lens might be re-intoduced? (Probably an oft repeated desire from many here.)
Over on MFLenses, kds315* wrote: "- don't waste your money on a Zeiss ZF Macro Planar 2/100mm, I find its CA awful (unless you stop down to at least f4); had it, sold it. "
I'm seriously beginning to wonder if this will be my experience too, knowing my style of photography.
I have a photographic holiday planned for end Oct/early Nov, I'll give it a proper try out against the Zuiko then and decide after that.
p.2 #13 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
From the forcast I'm not going to be getting out for more shooting for a while, so a few more examples of Bokeh that I did take before the light started changing.
Focussed on the white card.
ZE F2
OM F2
Tok F2.8
Focussed on "e" in Towers
ZE F2
OM F2 Least colourful and contrasty of the three.
Tok F2.8 Definitely most colourful and contrasty of the three..
Focussed on "l" in Tomlinson.
ZE F2 Some CA around the letters.
OM F2 Again the lower colour saturation showing, and a hint of CA in the lettering.
p.2 #14 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
More and more I'm seeing the trend repeated, OM Zuiko less colourful but greater bokeh, ZE more colourful but shows CA. The Tokina even more colourful and contrast, but being F2.8, although smooth bokeh, not as great as desired.
Here is a pic I took with the Tokina @F2.8 on my last hol. This is what set me off after the ZE 100/2 more than anything to increase that bokeh. (Not realising that the Zuiko would do it as well if not better)
This is with the Zuiko @F2, to show the sort of thing I'm trying to achieve, sat and colour boosted slightly.
...and of course the shot in the misty woods with the Zuiko @F2, I dread to think what the ZE's CA would have been like here, but it might have looked a bit sharper! .......no stop it, I can't afford the Voigt APO-Lanthar 125mm!
p.2 #15 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
timballic wrote:
...and of course the shot in the misty woods with the Zuiko @F2, I dread to think what the ZE's CA would have been like here, but it might have looked a bit sharper! .......no stop it, I can't afford the Voigt APO-Lanthar 125mm!
I think Voigtländer is probably your only option, or perhaps the new Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135/2. The Leica Apo-Macro-Elmarit 100/2.8 will be have the same lesser bokeh as the Tokina (due to its smaller aperture and slightly bright edged bokeh). If you just sell the all your 100mm lenses you might be able to afford the Voigtländer or Zeiss Apo-Sonnar. Then again, the Voigtländer doesn't have the Zeiss character.
Alternatively you can try how well you can remove the LoCA in Lightroom 4 or Photoshop. Of course that doesn't take care of the loss of contrast compared to a real apochromat.
p.2 #16 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Distant focus. Just short of ∞ focus
Only ZE MP100/2 and OM Zuiko 100/2, I've put the Tokina D 100/2.8 away for now as I know all I want about it.
It doesn't show very clearly but at F2 the focussing experience with the ZE is far crisper/higher contrast than the Zuiko
All 100% crops (Rapidly moving clouds in a strong wind. I was well sheltered so no wind effect on the tripod)
ZE F2 OM F2 I expected this to look much lower contrast against the ZE, it certainly looked it on the LCD in Live view.
ZE F8 OM F8 Shallower depth of field again showing. Great sharpness from both at this near ∞ setting
ZE F22 OM F22 Even at smallest aperture the diffraction effect is'n'tt as large as I'd expected.
I think it's fair to say from this that both lenses perform admirably at distance setting.
One difference apparent, the ZE EF aperture stops are whole, even stops throughout the range, this is far from the case with the Zuiko:
Between aperture stops F2 and 2.8 there is only 1/3 stop reduction, From F2.8 - 11 the stops are full and even, then between F11 and 16 1 1/3 stops, and between F16 and 22 1 2/3 stops!
This on a lens recently serviced and given an A1 health billing by Olympus OM service centre!
(My Rokkor MC 24mm F2.8 has similar irregularities, but not the MD version. Perhaps it's common with "old" manual lenses?)
p.2 #17 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Close up. (To be redone!)
At minimum focus range for the Zuiko (0.7m, 27")
Here the Macro design qualities of the ZE MP really shine with that 3D 'bite', whilst the Zuiko is fractionally soft and flat.
Focussed on the end of the stigma. 100% crops. NB. Clouds moving rapidl so light change between shots showing, making the Zuiko look more colourful, which it isn't! I need to reshoot close ups in even, still conditions. You'll have to accept my word that close, the ZE looks much better than the Zuiko.
ZE F2
OM F2 (Colour here falsely better because of changed light)
p.2 #19 · OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Flare
These are worst case with the sun only just out of the frame. Stupidly I mis-focussed between them on the wrong finial, but it makes little difference to the flare characteristic.
From Pt I of these comparisons the Tokina was very resistant to flare. The Zuiko is much more flarey, whilst the ZE somewhere in between. Seen here, I could make it flare, but only at one very precise angle to the sun, the Zuiko didn't need to be at any precise angle, it just flared! (The built in lens hood on the Zuiko is a joke, it only extends 20mm)
ZE F2 Hard to make it do this..only at one precise angle to the sun. OM F2 ....no problem getting it to do this!
ZE F8 OM F8
ZE 22 OM 22
EDIT: I cannot stress enough, that whilst these results make the ZE to look nearly as flarey as the Zuiko, this isn't so in practice. The Zuiko needs no encouragement to do this and needs careful flagging to prevent it happening. The Zeiss only flares like this at one precise angle to the sun.
Then again, the Voigtländer doesn't have the Zeiss character.
