philber wrote:
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....Show more →
You hit the nail on the head.
They are different which is why I have been considering its purchase.
You are correct about my intended usage too. The images that draw me to the Zeiss are usually shot wide open. I have seen many amazing images of that type. And yes; I generally shoot the Sony stopped down.
I could easily own and enjoy both. Heck; I have five 50s and enjoy each for its own signature.
What is interesting is the number of responses here that indicate that it is a lens that was ultimately sold.
I think I am going to go with tubes on my new 135 ZE for the time being.
Going forward I will look at the CV 65 or the Sony 100 STF.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Yeah, the two tubes should be no problem at all, but I have never used four and don't know how well it would work. I get no vignetting with my 71mm tube, so maybe that would be ok?
Why would tubes cause vignetting? At worst, too much extension would mean that the infinity focus point would be inside the lens, right?
Dave, if, like you, I owned a 135 ZE and lusted after wide open shots with a 100Mp macro, I would definitely go with tubes. Whatever the 100 Mp can do optically, the 135 can do, and then some IMHO; Your useage of tubes shouldn't be extreme, because, to match the 100 Mp, you'd "only" for to 2:1, so I wouldn't expect to be any trouble at all for your 135.
Have fun!
Phillip - I was wondering if you could comment on how the 65mm APO compares to the Sony Zeiss 50/1.4. I continue to be pretty blown away by that lens and since the 65mm is close to normal FL, I was wondering how it would compare in terms of rendering/sharpness/bokeh? Sorry for the OT question.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I was in a pretty similar situation as you: The MP100 has a very good reputation and it is one of the sharpest lenses around. So I got one and kept it for about a year. This review is the result of that. For me it didn't really work as well as I had hoped. Sure it is very sharp with nice bokeh and has that high macro-contrast/quick focus transition look from f/2 which makes some subjects stand out so I got some pretty nice images out of it. But at the same time I often had to worry about the CA and handling wasn't great since it is a bit heavy for the a7 series, the focus ring has a rather short throw and isn't as smooth as I would have wished for. So in the end I sold it and I haven't really missed it.
Since then I have owned the FE90 Macro for a longer time and I enjoyed shooting with it more than with the Zeiss even though I am biased to manual lenses. CA correction isn't perfect but it is among the better corrected lenses and for real macro work native 1:1 is worth quite a lot. The Sony is really really sharp at close distances.
First it is a native lens so you don't have to deal with an adapter and you get exif and automatic OSS settings.
Second it is sharper that the MP100 (which is quite some feat) with nearly perfect CA correction. As the MP100 it can makes subjects stand out.
Third it is much more enjoyable to use because it is shorter, lighter and better balanced with a smoother focus ring.
If my focus was on macro I would probably have kept the FE90 but as it is I am really happy to have 1:2 when I need it occasionally but most of the time I use it at longer distances and I am always happy with the results.
philber wrote:
Dave, if, like you, I owned a 135 ZE and lusted after wide open shots with a 100Mp macro, I would definitely go with tubes. Whatever the 100 Mp can do optically, the 135 can do, and then some IMHO; Your useage of tubes shouldn't be extreme, because, to match the 100 Mp, you'd "only" for to 2:1, so I wouldn't expect to be any trouble at all for your 135.
Have fun!
I will do just that; thanks. Happy to have everyone's responses; saved some money !
morpheus2891 wrote:
Phillip - I was wondering if you could comment on how the 65mm APO compares to the Sony Zeiss 50/1.4. I continue to be pretty blown away by that lens and since the 65mm is close to normal FL, I was wondering how it would compare in terms of rendering/sharpness/bokeh? Sorry for the OT question.
I have never used the 1.4/50 so I rely on second hand information about it. I think others can give you a more reliable information on how they compare. This is a good thread to get started: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1443700/4
My bad Phillip, it was actually Thom Hogan’s review at sansmirror.com
“Sony has adopted the push/pull of the focus ring to move the lens from autofocus to manual focus. In the pull (back to camera) position, the focus ring is directly and apparently mechanically coupled to the focus elements in the lens, something still a bit unusual in the Sony world, which has been focus-by-wire for the most part.”
Phillip Reeve wrote:
PZ does not write that, quite the opposite: "Typical for E-mount lenses, focusing works "by-wire" although it tries to mimic mechanical focusing by offering a focus scale."
A bit off topic, sorry:
Why don't we hear more about the Sony 100 STF? Seems like it was an odd departure for Sony, given other holes in the e-mount lineup. It made a bit of news at the time, given that everyone was(is) hungry for new lenses, but then word of it all but disappeared from the forums. Seemed like a cool idea. Too specialized? Effective aperture too dark?
p.3 #10 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
philber wrote:
- 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.
I had look at the lensrentals' MTF for both and they show that a good copy (the score is lowered by the very high variane) of the FE90M has pretty similar micro-contrast as the MP100 when both are compared at their widest aperture in the center. At a 1:2 reproduction ratio it is actually the Sony which displays quite a bit more micro-contrast.
When both are at f/2.8 the Zeiss has indeed higher micro-contrast and at f/2 it has higher micro-contrast off center but I don't think you can make a general statement that the Zeiss has higher micro-contrast in every scenario.
p.3 #11 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
nandadevieast wrote:
My bad Phillip, it was actually Thom Hogan’s review at sansmirror.com
“Sony has adopted the push/pull of the focus ring to move the lens from autofocus to manual focus. In the pull (back to camera) position, the focus ring is directly and apparently mechanically coupled to the focus elements in the lens, something still a bit unusual in the Sony world, which has been focus-by-wire for the most part.”
Pretty sure he is wrong.
Jan 27, 2018 at 10:46 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #12 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
johnctharp wrote:
Why would tubes cause vignetting? At worst, too much extension would mean that the infinity focus point would be inside the lens, right?
I wouldn't think it would cause vignetting, but I have never used 100mm of extension so with that much perhaps there are issues that I don't know about.
p.3 #13 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
Dave, check out the Voigtlander 125 apo f2.5 macro for canon. It works well on Sony with the right adapter, and is 1:1 and very good. Also very expensive.
p.3 #14 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
Herbc wrote:
Dave, check out the Voigtlander 125 apo f2.5 macro for canon. It works well on Sony with the right adapter, and is 1:1 and very good. Also very expensive.
Thanks Herb. A wonderful lens. Isn't there a rumor out there that suggests that CV will introduce a similar lens in E-mount soon?
p.3 #15 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
Parariss wrote:
A bit off topic, sorry:
Why don't we hear more about the Sony 100 STF? Seems like it was an odd departure for Sony, given other holes in the e-mount lineup. It made a bit of news at the time, given that everyone was(is) hungry for new lenses, but then word of it all but disappeared from the forums. Seemed like a cool idea. Too specialized? Effective aperture too dark?
It's expensive and slow.
Low magnification means you need a tube or close-up lens for macro or near macro.
Not everyone likes the unstructured bokeh.
Others feel that a lens such as the 85 GM can produce very similar images without the liabilities.
I have seen a lot of really lovely images with it but perhaps it is too specialized given the cost.
p.3 #16 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
Parariss wrote:
A bit off topic, sorry:
Why don't we hear more about the Sony 100 STF? Seems like it was an odd departure for Sony, given other holes in the e-mount lineup. It made a bit of news at the time, given that everyone was(is) hungry for new lenses, but then word of it all but disappeared from the forums. Seemed like a cool idea. Too specialized? Effective aperture too dark?
To add to David's response above:
There is a very narrow set of situations where the 100 STF might produce more desirable output than a faster lens like the 85/1.4GM or say a 135/1.8 | Art. Employing it well takes education and experience.
I would submit that the lens would be useful mostly for daylight portraiture and video, two instances where 100/2.8 depth of field and incredible subject isolation would be desirable with f/5.6 transmission, giving the photographer/videographer two stops less light to have to cut.
p.3 #17 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
To me, the STF shines with fairly tight portraits and for flowers. It will also work as a general purpose 100mm lens albeit poor for low light hand held work. The quality of its bokeh is peerless and it is remarkably sharp and well corrected for CA. I love having it in my bag but when doing portraits I find the 85 GM useful in more situations. Really nice additional arrow in the quiver, however. For flowers, it’s quality of bokeh makes it very useful especially when paired with a close up lens.
p.3 #18 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
Zeiss 100MP is a great lens.. but Tubes is good to have on for macro work
heavy for the a7 series with adapter and tubes
CA exists but I have not had any major problems
Sharp with nice bokeh and micro-contrast
If I not had it before I got Sony A7... I'd probably bought Sony 90 FE
and maybe voigländer 65mm f / 2 macro apo-lantharhar seems like nice lens
Mine is not for sale is probably the only Lens I will never sell
even though it does not fit purely on SonyA7-R... the flaws are 1:2 magnification, size and weight, hard to focus for long distances , CA etc
Ronny //
Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony A7 + Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony A7 + Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony A7R II + Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony A7R II + Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony A7 + Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony A7 + Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Sony A7 + Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
p.3 #20 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
Ronny Olsson wrote:
Zeiss 100MP is a great lens.. but Tubes is good to have on for macro work
heavy for the a7 series with adapter and tubes
CA exists but I have not had any major problems
Sharp with nice bokeh and micro-contrast
If I not had it before I got Sony A7... I'd probably bought Sony 90 FE
and maybe voigländer 65mm f / 20 macro apo-lantharhar seems like nice lens
Mine is not for sale is probably the only Lens I will never sell
even though it does not fit purely on SonyA7-R... the flaws are 1:2 magnification, size and weight, hard to focus for long distances , CA etc
is probably the only Lens I will never sell 
.