philber
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #17 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE | |
I have owned the Zeiss 100 Mp, and used the Sony 90, ad the 2 lenses could hardly be more different, excellent though they both are. To keep it simple, maybe a bit simplistic, I'd say:
- difference n°1 is that the Zeiss is very often used wide open, at f:2.0, for close-ups with tons of delicious bokeh (and more than a healthy dose of CA); OTOH, the Sony is best when used for macro (closer than the Zeiss can get), and stopped down substantially. Not the same useage. It doesn't mean that the Zeiss isn't good stopped down, or the Sony wide open
- difference n°2 is the Zeiss is a true MF lens, and the Sony a AF lens. Not the same "feel" at all.
- difference n°3 is that the Zeiss has very strong micro-contrast, prioritizing detail and sharpness. The Sony has weaker micro-contrast, prioritizing overall integration, and beautiful colours. Neitehr is better or worse, just different horses for courses.
What it amounts to: I could see a person using and loving both, for different uses and results, as I would judge the two lenses to be roughly equally matched in abilities and weaknesses, just almost opposites.
2 other possibiities: the CV 65 APO (different FL, APO, very fine lens, though not quite the "killer-of-everything-else" that it is sometimes made out to be). Plus, it is lighter, native FE, and the least expensive. Or, if you ar emore into close-ups than hard-core macro, use a top-tier lens other than a macro, but with an extension tube. This is why I use a Zeiss Otus 55 with 8mm, 14mm or 22mm tubes, and couldn't be happier with the results. The same would be true with a Zeiss 135 APO.
|
