It's not microcontrast as such that the 100MP offers. MTF measures microcontrast and even the VS 100-300 has more of it than the MP. With these kinds of Zeiss lenses from that design era, it's more the integration of color and microcontrast that set them apart, meaning you can push it in post work to get a very distinctive look, where modern lenses become candy-like too fast. If you look close enough, it's not sharpness that grabs your eye, either. It's not an 'edgy' lens, and some images resemble the old Contarex series and several of the CY lenses - high density, low edges, fine tone roll-off.
The balance between edge acutance and detail drawing is just fabulous, as is the deep rich palette. Landscapes benefit greatly from lack of distortion, banishing of curvature and great cross-frame consistency. They don't design them like this any more, that era is gone. Bokeh structure and what we might call OOF detail progression was obviously a very high priority 15-30 years ago. Too many lenses move fast to OOF and lose longitudinal perspective, which is vital to the life of many images.
I've the 100mm Makro, just not the great images posted above. I purchased the lens in 2011 NIB for my Contax RTS III and haven't used it much with the Sony bodies, but it was a wonderful lens and obviously made the move to digital. Here taken with Velvia and Neopan 1600. Great thread and having me rethink using the lens on my Sony bodies. The FE 90mm has the additional advantage of eye autofocus for portrait and the 65mm APO looks to be an absolutely stunning lens. Great choices...
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?
Most people don't want to sacrifice three stops for a visual effect they don't like or don't need. Speed freaks have gone with the Nikkor 105/1.4, so even 100/2 looks a bit feeble for light gathering these days. Sony has kept the Minolta 135/2.8 T4.5 in their lineup, meaning the STF feature is valued: being offered in FE mount is a natural progression. For myself, the 100 STF is actually a bit too fast because wide-open aperture is required to generate the Gaussian blur. DOF is a real problem and, since the aperture is essential fixed, subject and distance must be chosen carefully to achieve the artistic outcome. As for buzz on the forum, we few owners appear pretty satisfied and are busy enjoying the lens.
A7ii, 100 STF @ f/16, flash, MFD, no 500D. With sunlight or flash on hand, exposure doesn't suffer the len maximum aperture (whatever it may be).
Hi Ronny
The flower shots are not with tubes, right?
Great shots.
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 / 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
philip_pj wrote:
It's not microcontrast as such that the 100MP offers. MTF measures microcontrast and even the VS 100-300 has more of it than the MP. With these kinds of Zeiss lenses from that design era, it's more the integration of color and microcontrast that set them apart, meaning you can push it in post work to get a very distinctive look, where modern lenses become candy-like too fast. If you look close enough, it's not sharpness that grabs your eye, either. It's not an 'edgy' lens, and some images resemble the old Contarex series and several of the CY lenses - high density, low edges, fine tone roll-off.
The balance between edge acutance and detail drawing is just fabulous, as is the deep rich palette. Landscapes benefit greatly from lack of distortion, banishing of curvature and great cross-frame consistency. They don't design them like this any more, that era is gone. Bokeh structure and what we might call OOF detail progression was obviously a very high priority 15-30 years ago. Too many lenses move fast to OOF and lose longitudinal perspective, which is vital to the life of many images....Show more →
Philip, thanks for that very interesting explanation. One question: do you feel that modern Zeiss lenses "move fast to OOF and lose longitudinal perspective" or did you have other brands in mind when writing this? My Sony 85 GM seems to fit your description much more than my Otus, for example.
nandadevieast wrote:
Hi Ronny
The flower shots are not with tubes, right?
Great shots.
Thanks
I don't really remember .. but I think some flower pictures can be with 12mm tubes
On my insects I don't use more than 36mm, which does not really get 1: 1 but is enough for me
and frog pictures and dragonflies, snails, Lucanus cervus 12mm
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
Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2 by Ronny Olsson, on Flickr
Thanks
I am considering Sony 90 macro but wondering if the flowers can be done with the 135L that i have. Last i remember i was able to do that without any tubes, perhaps 1:1 or even 1:2 is an overkill for flowers.
Ronny Olsson wrote:
Thanks
I don't really remember .. but I think some flower pictures can be with 12mm tubes
On my insects I don't use more than 36mm, which does not really get 1: 1 but is enough for me
and frog pictures and dragonflies, snails, Lucanus cervus 12mm
nandadevieast wrote:
Thanks
I am considering Sony 90 macro but wondering if the flowers can be done with the 135L that i have. Last i remember i was able to do that without any tubes, perhaps 1:1 or even 1:2 is an overkill for flowers.
Um, depends on the flower. And on the composition. Just put that thing on your camera and see how it goes on the flowers you want. If the flowers are 2mm across you need a macro. If they are 20 cm across you definitely don't. In between, depends on your image. If you need a bit more mag than you can get with the 2/135 invest in a achromatic diopter like the canon 250D. Despite the extra glass it will likely perform better than tubes, and not lose light as much.
p.4 #10 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
DavidBM wrote:
Um, depends on the flower. And on the composition. Just put that thing on your camera and see how it goes on the flowers you want. If the flowers are 2mm across you need a macro. If they are 20 cm across you definitely don't. In between, depends on your image. If you need a bit more mag than you can get with the 2/135 invest in a achromatic diopter like the canon 250D. Despite the extra glass it will likely perform better than tubes, and not lose light as much.
p.4 #11 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
there was such a rumour, which was countered by the opinion that since CV was making the Zeiss, they would not want to compete with one of their customers in such a direct fashion-all of which is opinion and not fact.
I think if a campaign was started to get CV to make the lens in FE, it would get wide support.
Michail Erlwine on the Luminous Landscape forum is a dead serious macro photographer and he thinks the Voigt. 125 is his best lens. He has a lot of his work on his site, which is drop dead amazing.
one thing about the lens I have, Canon mount, it does not have aperture settings on the lens you have to get the camera to choose them, so I don't know if say a Nikon mount would work. I have the fotodiox adapter, and have no problem with f stops.
p.4 #14 · Sold: Hasselblad 500C/M with CF 50/4 FLE
Philippe, I feel it is a broad trend across brands, now they have great glass to deliver high res at f1.4. They all look at each others' work, perhaps much more than we know. Zeiss have long been renowned for what (I think it was DaveFP) called *structured bokeh*. [As an aside terminology is very important - abstract concepts are not real unless we can express them and make them concrete with shared understanding - and I'd love to see this one enter general 'lenspeak'.]
Zeiss seem to be resisting better than the others in the structured bokeh battle zone even in their modern lenses, all of them are intended for variety of tasks and this sure helps with that. I am far more impressed with the Loxia 85mm in this regard for higher bokeh content images than in f5.6-f8 open landscapes where it is rather temperamental in flat light. The Otuses are impeccable, of course. The Milvuses very close, as Dustin Abbott points out.
It's a sensitive point for me as a user of slow prime lenses - my work needs that context of background figures/content still identifiable even in well-blurred form. Structured bokeh, rather than the hasty rush to flat bokeh fields, is very important in 'telling the story' in these kinds of images. It's a balance, both have a part to play. Many lenses (e.g. FE55) seem to treat all OOF the same regardless of distance. As Ronny's images above show, if you have large unformed bokeh, the subject must be strong. So it's an image by image thing. You can't be a zealot, lol.
Herbc wrote:
one thing about the lens I have, Canon mount, it does not have aperture settings on the lens you have to get the camera to choose them, so I don't know if say a Nikon mount would work. I have the fotodiox adapter, and have no problem with f stops.
is probably the only Lens I will never sell 
