Ripolini wrote:
I never had any difficulty in focusing distant subjects with my 100 MP and those wondering about its focus throw have never used a macro AF lens ...
It depends what you mean. The 100MP has about 1cm of turn from infinity to 5m. That really isn't much, even though the total focus throw is quite long.
I own the 100/2 and never used the 135/2, but isn't the biggest difficulty with the 100/2 to see where the focus is instead of the precision needed to find it.
I really like the short focus throw of the 100/2 between 1m and infinity, because it works faster to find the correct focus (1 pull of my hand). Between 0,44m and 1m it's to long to quickly find the correct focus.
If I read the posts of Samuli about the 135/2 in comparison to the 100/2 (in this thread but also in the ZE/ZF/ZM thread), I can only hope for a sort of combination of the two lenses: APO Makro 100mm f/2 with a focus throw of say 270 degrees: 180 degrees for close-up/macro and 90 degrees for 1m to infinity and the ability of the 135/2 to see the focus very clearly.
I don't have issue with focus throw of 100 MP. To me the difficulty is to see where the focus is, so longer focus throw wouldn't help, at least not in my case.
I have much better success rate with 100 MP on D600 than on D700, can't explain why because most people would think D700 has a better VF than D600.
I use a magnifying eyepiece (DK-17M) on my D700; it helps seeing where the focus is. This could explain why a longer focus throw wouldn't help, at least not in my case.
Ripolini wrote:
I use a magnifying eyepiece (DK-17M) on my D700; it helps seeing where the focus is.
I did too until I figured out it was more of a hindrance (darkens vf and makes it difficult to see entire scene). I 80% of the time do 'action' photography (seldom still life, sceneries, architecture, macro etc) and I would say I'm pretty skilled in MF, but the 2/100 did me in*.
*And this is no faults of Zeiss', the lens is simply not designed for this use in mind.
Rodluvan wrote:
I 80% of the time do 'action' photography
That's the reason why I kept the Micro-Nikkor 105 VR. It's not as good as the 100/2 MP, however it is a better tool for action photography thanks to AF (and for available light photography of still, or slowly moving, subjects thanks to VR).
My success rate on MP100 is also lower than other lens. Even though the lens is well corrected, and POP into finder, The MP100 is very merciless on focus error. So my keeper rate definitely lower. I don't mind slightly softer, but hate sharp happen at different place as I wanted. (I need fast focus too.)
I agree people's comment that its focus throw is not optimized for my leica/like
Ripolini wrote:
I use a magnifying eyepiece (DK-17M) on my D700; it helps seeing where the focus is. This could explain why a longer focus throw wouldn't help, at least not in my case.
P.S.: love the 2nd picture, Wilfred.
I also use a magnifying eyepiece (1.34x). Without it's more difficult for me to focus correct than with.
Ripolini, even I don't press shutter when subject (or whatever I want to be in focus) is NOT in focus = getting always focused shots doesn't mean that I haven't lost photos. In fact I have lost hundreds of photos due to Makro-Planar T* 2/100 too short focus throw at large distances (=slow and inaccurate positioning of the focus distance).
For example 2011 (or 2010, not 100% sure) I had idea of shooting one small stream, but the place I was shooting needed some highlight to photo, and just as ordered there came formation of leaves flowing on the stream, however in order to get the photo to "work" I needed to focus to the leaves and otherwise have shallow DOF. I failed on focusing. I waited about 15 minutes, now other group of leaves were coming little different route and had to refocus, but again failed to get the photo (=didn't acquire focus=didn't press shutter button). Repeated few more times and finally lost the light without getting the photo I wanted. Other typical examples are situations I'm composing for landscape and while I'm not ready something appears (e.g. car/boat/train/person whatever moving and from composition point of view working only if that whatever is on correct place) and I miss it because accurate focusing takes too long time.
Such short focus throw would need very light resistance; Makro-Planar T* 2/100 has quite big resistance - if the mechanism would have similar resistance and feeling to Leica Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 I could imagine focusing would be much easier - btw. that lens is one of the nicest lenses to focus, wish I would like more about "the look" it produces...
philber wrote:
Yeah, I know, Samuli, you are blushing and squirming.
Yes...
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Such short focus throw would need very light resistance; Makro-Planar T* 2/100 has quite big resistance - if the mechanism would have similar resistance and feeling to Leica Elmarit-R 90mm f/2.8 I could imagine focusing would be much easier - btw. that lens is one of the nicest lenses to focus, wish I would like more about "the look" it produces...
It seems that the Makro-Planar 100 has a very high variability when it comes to the damping of the focus ring.
I can remember testing out the original ZF versions of both the 50mm and 100mm Makro-Planars in my local camera shop and they both had extremely stiff focus rings (bordering on the un-usable to my mind).
I ordered the ZE versions with some trepidation thinking they would have a similar high damping but when they arrived I was pleasantly surprised to find the focus was as smooth as my other ZE lenses.
In fact a quick test shows that my ZE 100mm F2 and ZE 135mm F2 feel about the same with regards to focus 'resistance'.
Do I remember correctly that some people have had Zeiss re-grease their stiffer lenses with a smoother lubricant to help with focus problems?
Thanks Riccardo, the picture was taken in Nara, Japan, where deers just roaming in the city. It was difficult enough for me to nail the focus on their eyes with the 100MP.
I do have DK-17M on my D700 but still I has higher hit rate with D600 (without any added-on) than the D700.
My ZF 100 MP is very smooth, I actually have no complains about it mechanics. My only issue with it is probably the purple fringing around OOF areas (using NX2 is better than ACR since NX2 handle that better).
My eyes are not as flexible as they were 20 years ago and so use glasses even when focusing my D800E. I also have no choice of focus screen. My observation is that although there is a different focus setting for infinity and say 200 yards, with clearly visible differences in the final image, I can neither see them through the viewfinder nor feel how much I have to move the focus ring. It has to be a very tiny amount.
When I use live view I can see the effect far more clearly but it really seems like I only have to think about moving the focus ring because the actual movement is obscured by the flexing of the skin on my fingers and thumb. It is truly subtle at long distances.
I'll be quite happy to replace this lens with a 2/135 APO which I have tried on a Canon camera and found to be much easier to use at long distances than the 2/100 MP.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
hwan, I don't shoot much macro stuff and the short focus throw of Makro-Planar T* 2/100 at normal shooting distances has annoyed me since 2008. For me the 2/135 is great relief since it makes focusing much easier and faster, mostly because of the longer focus throw and extraordinary wide open performance.
I don't have time to calculate degrees but here are millimeters from the lens barrel:
Far distances - from 10 meters to infinity:
Makro-Planar T* 2/100: 4.5mm
APO-Sonnar T* 2/135: 10mm
Medium distances - from 2 meters to 10 meters:
Makro-Planar T* 2/100: 19.5mm
APO-Sonnar T* 2/135: 47mm
Close-up distances - from 1 meters to 2 meters:
Makro-Planar T* 2/100: 30mm
APO-Sonnar T* 2/135: 79mm
Magnifications/distances in Makro-Planar T* 2/100 @ close distances:
From 1:2 to 1:3 (in meter scale 0.44m-0.52m): 78mm
From 1:3 to 1:4 (in meter scale 0.52m-0.61m): 39mm
From 1:4 to 1:5 (in meter scale 0.61m-0.70m): 21.5mm
From 1:5 to 1:10 (in meter scale 0.70m-1.18m): 44mm
As you can see most of the throw in 2/100 is wasted to makro:
Lasse Eriksson wrote:
How can it be wasted when it's a Macro lens
Well, it doesn't even do 1:1 so purists may not call it a true macro lens and most people probably don't buy it for dedicated macro usage because it performs sublimely on all distances, so it would have been nicer to have a bit more precision at longer distances.
AhamB wrote:
Well, it doesn't even do 1:1 so purists may not call it a true macro lens and most people probably don't buy it for dedicated macro usage because it performs sublimely on all distances, so it would have been nicer to have a bit more precision at longer distances.
The throw is not at 1:1 either But the lens is obviously made for people that like to shoot close up or 1:2 macro shots. So I can't see why people get upset when a lot of the throw is in that distance. It would be a lot more strange if most of the throw was close to infinity or far away.
But the lens is obviously made for people that like to shoot close up or 1:2 macro shots. So I can't see why people get upset when a lot of the throw is in that distance. It would be a lot more strange if most of the throw was close to infinity or far away.