StevenPA - I paid $700 USD for my copy. Regarding the Carl Zeiss S-Planar T* 60mm F2.8 Macro, I have not shot that lens but here is the report from Son Pham:
*****
This lens is very sharp and the bokeh is just so beautiful. The lens is very sharp across the whole image plane. This is what you expect from a macro lens image sharpness from corner to corner but this is a typical Zeiss design. The lens is very wide in diameter and thus easy to hold and manual focus. There is another 60mm macro version that is called the Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 60mm F2.8 and it is the same as the S-Planar formula but it was made in Japan. The 3rd version of the Zeiss 60mm macro is called the Carl Zeiss 60mm F2.8C. The C stand for compact and supposedly not as good of the lens as the other two version. The C also have the MM mount. This lens requires some fin shaving if you do not want it to scratch your mirror box. I prefer to keep the fin since I value the Zeiss lens. This lens will work on the Canon 1 series DSLRs with an adapter.
*****************
My mirror and mirror box has been modified so I can shoot all the CZ lens' with the "fin". I use a happypagehk adaptor with af confirm for this lens. The MTF's for the CZ 100 are better than the CZ 60.
Nikon has a great 60mm macro lens and I posted some shots of it on my 5D last week. I wanted the longer focal length for my 5D and also a portrait lens. The CZ100 MP isn't small or compact compared to the Nikon 60mm macro.
> I wonder how this lens compares to the legendary Leica 100mm macro.
I'm guessing the Leica will be sharper, better in the corners, with less CA and beautifully richer colours. <flamesuit on>But somehow it will still look flat, 2D and uninvolving.<keep flamesuit on> ;)
Martin wrote:
How does the CZ Macro-Sonnar N compare??
The c/y Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar used to be my favorite lens. It pulled out amazing levels of detail no matter where it was focused. I no longer have one, and am using the Zeiss N 100mm Makro-Sonnar now.
In terms of MTF performance, it's really a toss up between the 2 lenses. The c/y M-Planar is slightly better wide open at infinity, and the N M-Sonnar is slightly better wide open at 1:1. By 5.6 they are virtually indistinguishable. I don't think that in any use, at any aperture, that the MTF difference will be evident in the images.
What lead me to the N Makro-Sonnar however, are the other aspects of performance and use. The internal focusing of the Makro-Sonnar can be a big help in a few ways. First is allows auto-focus, which may or may not be useful in macro, can be useful in more general photography in which the 100mm M-Sonnar can be very productively employed. Further, when the M-Planar is focused to 1:1 the lens virtually doubles in length as the major lens elements move. This dramatically reduces the working distance between the front lens element and the subject. In certain situations this could be problematic. With the internal focusing of the M-Sonnar this does not happen. Working distances are preserved. Further when the M-Planar lens is racked all the way out, it throws off the balance of the set -up, putting a lot of weight way out in front -- an minor problem which you might only recognize in comparision with the M-Sonnar
In addtion, in the 25 years between when the M-Planar and M-Sonnar designs, Zeiss has made significant advances in other aspects of the performance. that might not be showm in an MTF chart. I think you will find that the M-Sonnar imparts a remarkable clarity to it's images. Beyond that, you will find the M-Sonnar to be the superior performer in the areas of flare, ghosting, and resistance to internal reflections. You will also find the chromatic aberration to be significantly reduced compared to the older M-Planar. Clearly these aspects can have a big impact on your images. Some have also suggested that the M-Sonnar has a more pleasing bokeh -- I agree, but that is a subjective call that one will have to make for themselves. We also have yet to mention auto-aperture control and full EXIF image capture data in your files -- both of which can be quite useful conveniences.
By producing a internal focusing, AF capable lens that matches the MTF performance of the manual focus c/y 100mm Makro-Planar, the Makro-Sonnar is really nothing less than a small miracle. The 100mm Makro-Planar is a great lens capable of truly amazing performance. The 100mm Makro-Sonnar is all that AND more convenient to use (especially when converted for use on Canon DSLR's).
Yes, Lotusm50, I was expecting you to chime in :-). I did see a little flare in a small nbr of my shots but i didn't use a hood. The exif and AF would be very nice ... but the N will cost 2x as much once you have it converted. If money were no object or if I made my living with my camera, then I would go the N route ... but given my circumstances, the CY is practical choice for me.
brainiac wrote:
I'm guessing the Leica will be sharper, better in the corners, with less CA and beautifully richer colours. But somehow it will still look flat, 2D and uninvolving.
I have't done any comparision between these two. I think Leica 100/2.8 Macro is one of the best lenses I ever had. Yes, sometimes, not always for some unknown reasons, less 3D feelings. Sorry, I posted this picture before. This is just for your information.
Lotusm50 wrote:
... The internal focusing of the Makro-Sonnar can be a big help in a few ways. First is allows auto-focus, which may or may not be useful in macro, can be useful in more general photography in which the 100mm M-Sonnar can be very productively employed.
We don't need no steekin' internal focus or auto-focus: we don't even need rigid mounts! Here's how we shoot little things in the Wild West:
Just pulling your leg, Lotus. I'm showing the black sheep of the CZ macro family, the S-Planar 100/4 with dedicated Contax bellows stuck on a 1Ds. I have posted this sample in the past, showing the quite incredible performance of this lens at its optimum 1:4, uncropped:
Image above has a swing movement, hence the preserved sharpness down the board despite a viewing angle of 45 degrees. Aperture is wide open - top of the logic chips are OOF!
zhangp wrote:
I think Leica 100/2.8 Macro is one of the best lenses I ever had. Yes, sometimes, not always for some unknown reasons, less 3D feelings.
Thanks for that beautiful example, Zhangp. It was mooted in another thread that a slight lack of 3D might be the price a lens pays for that beautiful soft bokeh that Leica specialises in. Maybe you can't have both... :(
StevenPA wrote:
Edit: Also, I've been thinking of picking up a macro lens recently for flowers and such. I've been looking at what Zeiss has to offer, but have found very few opinions on how the 60 makro, 60 makro-c, and 100 makro compare quality-wise. It's not absolutely necessary to go 1:1, but size is a factor; I'd like to have a macro as kind of a go everywhere lens and thus want it to be as unnoticeable as possible in the camera bag.
the Contax Makro-Planar is one of the best lens I have used. The Leica Apo-Summicron-R 2.8/100 is an amazing lens if you ever own one you will understand.
zhangp wrote:
I have't done any comparision between these two. I think Leica 100/2.8 Macro is one of the best lenses I ever had. Yes, sometimes, not always for some unknown reasons, less 3D feelings. Sorry, I posted this picture before. This is just for your information.
This is simply gorgeous ZhangP. No matter which lens you used, you have pulled off a magnificent image here. thanks for the technical data, but further thanks for the image itself which is clearly a winner
Please keep posting........all will learn from your effortds
brainiac wrote:
The dragonfly is a stunning and unbelievably skilfull image. Is that beautiful rich colour a Leica trademark which nobody else can match?
