This topic is in the 2012 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2012OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
p.3 #1OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Another star.
Both lenses have 9 blade apertures which produce multi point stars.
ZE 22 Slight rainbow of flare above the star and one other purple flare between the stones.Large circular weak white flare on front right stone.
OM 22 Forward rainbow flare more colourful and larger. More flare on front right stone
Edited on Sep 13, 2012 at 06:11 AM · View previous versions
Both lenses have 9 blade apertures which produce multi point stars.
ZE 22 Slight rainbow of flare above the star and one other purple flare between the stones.Large circular weak white flare on front right stone. OM 22 Forward rainbow flare more colourful and larger. More flare on front right stoneEdited on Sep 13, 2012 at 06:11 AM · View previous versions
Sep 13, 2012 at 04:52 AM
p.3 #2OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
.........and another (just because I could!)
It also shows more of the different flare characteristics of the lenses.
ZE F22
OM F22
It also shows more of the different flare characteristics of the lenses.
ZE F22 OM F22Sep 13, 2012 at 04:53 AM
p.3 #3OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
...and finally, another grave series.
Strong direct sun, perhaps I should try something similar in the dull?
Focussed on writing
ZE F2 Again greater CA on letters, (it disappears at F4).
OM F2
ZE F8
OM F8 Colour change to cooler apparent, occurs between F5.6 and F8. A much "cleaner" look than the ZE.
ZE F22 Greater Diffraction effect
OM F22
Edited on Sep 13, 2012 at 06:43 AM · View previous versions
Strong direct sun, perhaps I should try something similar in the dull?
Focussed on writing
ZE F2 Again greater CA on letters, (it disappears at F4). OM F2 ZE F8 OM F8 Colour change to cooler apparent, occurs between F5.6 and F8. A much "cleaner" look than the ZE. ZE F22 Greater Diffraction effect OM F22Edited on Sep 13, 2012 at 06:43 AM · View previous versions
Sep 13, 2012 at 04:58 AM
p.3 #4OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Well it's all over bar the shouting!
This was really started for my own interest, to obtain and compare several highly rated, 100mm FL lenses to decide which suited me best. (I sold the Nikkor 105/2.5 and the C/Y Sonnar 100/3.5 after Pt.I. Both good lenses but they didn't suit me.)
Thanks for bearing with me and not criticising my often weak technique, I think it still reveals the trends between the lenses enough to form a reasonable opinion.
Now for my impressions of the lenses:
The Tokina D 100/2.8 is a great lens. Lovely smooth bokeh, great sharpness at close and far distances, colourful and very contrasty. Hard to make it flare. 585g (+caps) in Canon EF, 55mm filter thread. 9 diaphragm blades.
On the downside, it's designed for auto and in manual mode a bit "twitchy" to focus accurately, especially near infinity where a tiny movement changes focus a lot. It has a focus turn of about 250º
It has a definite colour cast to yellow, easily corrected.
The only real thing against it in these comparisons is that it's F2.8 not F2.
( I tried the Tokina over the Canon 100mm macros because of their even smaller angle of manual focus movement, 150º, making accurate manual focus, especially near to ∞ a real pain)
Between the OM Zuiko and the Zeiss ZE MP 100/2, it's a very unexpected tie. A case of 6 of one and 6 of the other.
After all the incredible reviews on the web about this Zeiss being the bees knees of all 100mm lenses (for both close AND distance work), Diglloyd's "Reference Lens" above all others, the most "pop" and 3D of any Zeiss lens, etc, etc, and the relative dearth of information about the Zuiko, I really, really wasn't expecting this.
These are my overall impressions between these two lenses.
For close work the Zeiss is obviously the King, it leaves the Zuiko at 0.7m (1:5), and carries on down to 1:2 at 0.25m.
Even at 0.7m, the difference in sharpness and separation is clearly apparent.
At mid and far distance they are neck and neck, different characteristics certainly, but no obvious outright "better lens".
The Zuiko is only slightly lower contrast (yet doesn't really look "flat"). The Zeiss is slightly higher contrast and warmer colours and sometimes, but not always, displays the Zeiss "pop".
(Please feel free to disagree or comment on anything I think I'm seeing. Having read so much about Zeiss high contrast and "pop" and Zuiko Low contrast, it's hard not to be conditioned to see what I expect to see!)
Somewhere between F5.6 and 8, the Zuiko undergoes a pronounced colour change from neutral to cool and usually, but not always, has what I can only describe as a "cleaner" look than the Zeiss, (perhaps because of the cooler colours?)
At F2 both have lovely soft bokeh, but the Zuiko just has more of it!
Concerning flare, the Zuiko needs careful flagging whenever the sun is near the front element, the Zeiss is clearly better here, (yet still not in the same league as the Tokina for flare control, discussed in Pt I)
Size and weight:
The Zuiko is a sweet 580g (with EF adapter and caps) and 78mm l x 70mm w, 55mm Filter.
The Zeiss is 140g heavier at 720g with caps (the ZF.2 version is lighter, rated at 680g) and a bulkier 107mm x 77mm, but still feels well balanced and matched with the 5DII. 67mm filter thread.
Both have a 9 blade diaphragm, (though the Zeiss is described as "9 rounded blades"), capable of giving multi point stars.
The Zeiss has a lovely 360º of focus action, the Zuiko nearly as good at ~ 340º.
Both lenses have about the same resistance of focus turn, just as I like it, not too light not too tight, but the Zuiko is the smoothest of the two.
Both lenses exhibit CA/purple fringing, though the Zeiss is more prone to it, (by quite a bit), though it's gone in both at F4.
The Zeiss has a slightly wider field of view rated as 25º diagonal angle, to the Zuiko's narrower 24º.
The Zeiss is auto diaphragm, exif data etc , whilst the Zuiko is fully manual stop down everything, and requires an adapter. (I've used a Japanese Elefoto one costing £40, and giving perfect ∞ focus at the ∞ stop.)
[The Zeiss cost me £1,000 ($1,600) new; the Zuiko £500 ($800) used, mint-; the Tokina, £250 ($400) used, as new.]
VERDICT: I'll be keeping and using both the Zeiss and the Zuiko 100/2 for a while longer before making any final decision, and selling the Tokina. Well I need to raise money for my next planned Alt Lens purchase, a C/Y 35/1.4 (Not the Voigtlander 125mm, not that I wouldn't really like one!)
Edited on Sep 15, 2012 at 03:43 AM · View previous versions
This was really started for my own interest, to obtain and compare several highly rated, 100mm FL lenses to decide which suited me best. (I sold the Nikkor 105/2.5 and the C/Y Sonnar 100/3.5 after Pt.I. Both good lenses but they didn't suit me.)
Thanks for bearing with me and not criticising my often weak technique, I think it still reveals the trends between the lenses enough to form a reasonable opinion.
Now for my impressions of the lenses:
The Tokina D 100/2.8 is a great lens. Lovely smooth bokeh, great sharpness at close and far distances, colourful and very contrasty. Hard to make it flare. 585g (+caps) in Canon EF, 55mm filter thread. 9 diaphragm blades.
On the downside, it's designed for auto and in manual mode a bit "twitchy" to focus accurately, especially near infinity where a tiny movement changes focus a lot. It has a focus turn of about 250º
It has a definite colour cast to yellow, easily corrected.
The only real thing against it in these comparisons is that it's F2.8 not F2.
( I tried the Tokina over the Canon 100mm macros because of their even smaller angle of manual focus movement, 150º, making accurate manual focus, especially near to ∞ a real pain)
Between the OM Zuiko and the Zeiss ZE MP 100/2, it's a very unexpected tie. A case of 6 of one and 6 of the other.
After all the incredible reviews on the web about this Zeiss being the bees knees of all 100mm lenses (for both close AND distance work), Diglloyd's "Reference Lens" above all others, the most "pop" and 3D of any Zeiss lens, etc, etc, and the relative dearth of information about the Zuiko, I really, really wasn't expecting this.
These are my overall impressions between these two lenses.
For close work the Zeiss is obviously the King, it leaves the Zuiko at 0.7m (1:5), and carries on down to 1:2 at 0.25m.
Even at 0.7m, the difference in sharpness and separation is clearly apparent.
At mid and far distance they are neck and neck, different characteristics certainly, but no obvious outright "better lens".
The Zuiko is only slightly lower contrast (yet doesn't really look "flat"). The Zeiss is slightly higher contrast and warmer colours and sometimes, but not always, displays the Zeiss "pop".
(Please feel free to disagree or comment on anything I think I'm seeing. Having read so much about Zeiss high contrast and "pop" and Zuiko Low contrast, it's hard not to be conditioned to see what I expect to see!)
Somewhere between F5.6 and 8, the Zuiko undergoes a pronounced colour change from neutral to cool and usually, but not always, has what I can only describe as a "cleaner" look than the Zeiss, (perhaps because of the cooler colours?)
At F2 both have lovely soft bokeh, but the Zuiko just has more of it!
Concerning flare, the Zuiko needs careful flagging whenever the sun is near the front element, the Zeiss is clearly better here, (yet still not in the same league as the Tokina for flare control, discussed in Pt I)
Size and weight:
The Zuiko is a sweet 580g (with EF adapter and caps) and 78mm l x 70mm w, 55mm Filter.
The Zeiss is 140g heavier at 720g with caps (the ZF.2 version is lighter, rated at 680g) and a bulkier 107mm x 77mm, but still feels well balanced and matched with the 5DII. 67mm filter thread.
Both have a 9 blade diaphragm, (though the Zeiss is described as "9 rounded blades"), capable of giving multi point stars.
The Zeiss has a lovely 360º of focus action, the Zuiko nearly as good at ~ 340º.
Both lenses have about the same resistance of focus turn, just as I like it, not too light not too tight, but the Zuiko is the smoothest of the two.
Both lenses exhibit CA/purple fringing, though the Zeiss is more prone to it, (by quite a bit), though it's gone in both at F4.
The Zeiss has a slightly wider field of view rated as 25º diagonal angle, to the Zuiko's narrower 24º.
The Zeiss is auto diaphragm, exif data etc , whilst the Zuiko is fully manual stop down everything, and requires an adapter. (I've used a Japanese Elefoto one costing £40, and giving perfect ∞ focus at the ∞ stop.)
[The Zeiss cost me £1,000 ($1,600) new; the Zuiko £500 ($800) used, mint-; the Tokina, £250 ($400) used, as new.]
VERDICT: I'll be keeping and using both the Zeiss and the Zuiko 100/2 for a while longer before making any final decision, and selling the Tokina. Well I need to raise money for my next planned Alt Lens purchase, a C/Y 35/1.4 (Not the Voigtlander 125mm, not that I wouldn't really like one!)
Edited on Sep 15, 2012 at 03:43 AM · View previous versions
Sep 13, 2012 at 05:43 AM
p.3 #5OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Thanks for sharing the pictures and impressions. Well done!
Sep 13, 2012 at 06:04 AM
p.3 #6OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Yes, indeed, thanks again.
It's interesting how different we thin about these lenses. Looking at your images make me lust for the Zuiko 100/2 (again!) while the Zeiss leaves me cold. But, the lens I sometimes really regret having sold is none of these but the Voigtländer 125mm APO. Oh well. Now I'm a micro 4/3 user and unfortunately short (say around 25 and 50mm...) and fast APO lenses don't exist.
It's interesting how different we thin about these lenses. Looking at your images make me lust for the Zuiko 100/2 (again!) while the Zeiss leaves me cold. But, the lens I sometimes really regret having sold is none of these but the Voigtländer 125mm APO. Oh well. Now I'm a micro 4/3 user and unfortunately short (say around 25 and 50mm...) and fast APO lenses don't exist.
Sep 13, 2012 at 01:11 PM
p.3 #7OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Thanks from here as well, interesting and confirming. I would love to see someone compare the 90/2 with the 100/2
Sep 15, 2012 at 08:55 PM
p.3 #8OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Thanks for the hard work required to get those results. Anyone who thinks of lens testing as trivial is gravely mistaken.
Sep 15, 2012 at 11:11 PM
p.3 #9OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Came across these photos on flickr, a different view of the 100mm Makro Planar!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/capa_robert_san/5996281896/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/capa_robert_san/5996281586/in/photostream/
Obviously for a half-frame camera!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/capa_robert_san/5996281896/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/capa_robert_san/5996281586/in/photostream/
Obviously for a half-frame camera!
Sep 28, 2012 at 08:46 AM
p.3 #10OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
I know this is an old thread but - this lens testing not getting nearly enough love ! Well done indeed. very helpful.
It's cured my desire for the OM too, I couldn't accept that level of flare, especially when I use the Zeiss for landscapes (superb) as well as portraits etc.
Edited on Oct 22, 2016 at 10:28 AM · View previous versions
It's cured my desire for the OM too, I couldn't accept that level of flare, especially when I use the Zeiss for landscapes (superb) as well as portraits etc.
Edited on Oct 22, 2016 at 10:28 AM · View previous versions
Oct 22, 2016 at 07:53 AM
p.3 #11OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Frogfish wrote:
It's cured my desire for the OM too, I couldn't accept that level of flare, especially when I use the Zeiss for landscapes (superb) as well as portraits etc.
Yes, it's a pity that OM Z lens coatings, even on the later versions, never came up to the standard of Zeiss T* coatings, (or SMC Pentax for that matter). Minolta MC/MD also poor in that respect, by comparison with Zeiss and Pentax, which I have consistently found to be the best re flare resistance.
It's cured my desire for the OM too, I couldn't accept that level of flare, especially when I use the Zeiss for landscapes (superb) as well as portraits etc.
Yes, it's a pity that OM Z lens coatings, even on the later versions, never came up to the standard of Zeiss T* coatings, (or SMC Pentax for that matter). Minolta MC/MD also poor in that respect, by comparison with Zeiss and Pentax, which I have consistently found to be the best re flare resistance.
Oct 22, 2016 at 08:00 AM
p.3 #12OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
timballic wrote:
Yes, it's a pity that OM Z lens coatings, even on the later versions, never came up to the standard of Zeiss T* coatings, (or SMC Pentax for that matter). Minolta MC/MD also poor in that respect, by comparison with Zeiss and Pentax, which I have consistently found to be the best re flare resistance.
Does your OM have a date code on it? Late OM lenses from end of the 90's and early 2000's got a coating update, but finding copies of the 100mm from that period is difficult and always comes with a price premium.
Frogfish wrote
It's cured my desire for the OM too, I couldn't accept that level of flare, especially when I use the Zeiss for landscapes (superb) as well as portraits etc.Does your OM have a date code on it? Late OM lenses from end of the 90's and early 2000's got a coating update, but finding copies of the 100mm from that period is difficult and always comes with a price premium.
Oct 22, 2016 at 08:45 AM
p.3 #13OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2
Yes it does, "April 1986"
From code, on rear black shroud,(started in 1981with TNA1)
"TNF4"
First two letters (TN)= Factory
Next letter, "F" = 1986
Final number "4" = month
From a quick search, Olympus started manufacturing this lens ~1983 and discontinued it ~ 2000 (Dates "vague") All were multicoated, but of course the coating technology was probably updated during that time, without any indication on the lens
So yes, at 1986, mine is earlier rather than later. (Just for interest, the Ser # 103430)
From code, on rear black shroud,(started in 1981with TNA1)
"TNF4"
First two letters (TN)= Factory
Next letter, "F" = 1986
Final number "4" = month
From a quick search, Olympus started manufacturing this lens ~1983 and discontinued it ~ 2000 (Dates "vague") All were multicoated, but of course the coating technology was probably updated during that time, without any indication on the lens
So yes, at 1986, mine is earlier rather than later. (Just for interest, the Ser # 103430)
Oct 22, 2016 at 09:35 AM