I'm looking at getting a contax zeiss 100mm lens, mainly for some non macro detail shots.
Its a great focal length (although I could use an 85mm 2.8 if it proved to be a better bet) for what I want and I'm a fan of the zeiss look.
Once stopped down to 5.6 or F8 which is where I will usually use it, is there any difference between the two versions of this lens in tems of sharpness across the frame, look, etc..the F2 and the F3.5?
Marc - check John Black's www.pebbleplace.com and maybe chat with John via PM - he's the 100/2 guru in these parts. By the 100/3.5 I assume you mean the Hasselblad/Zeiss 100/3.5 Planar T* ? Supposedly wicked sharp.
Thanks conner..no the 3.5 I meant is the other 100mm contax zeiss lens for the 35mm system...to be honest between the two focal lengths there is little to choose for my needs..its just hard to find tests, etc comparing the various flavours!
Everyone of those is good for a certain assignment, the 100 f/2 Planar being probably the most universal device and resolves a bit higher than the heavier 100 f/2.8 Makro. Compared to these the f/3.5 Sonnar is less desirable.
The 100 f/4 S-Sonnar is different in every respect: widest image circle and highest center resolution of any slr-lens.
Great article.
Most of my lenses for interiors / architecture / etc I use at F8/11 or even higher on occasions so most versions of those lenses (24-50) are similar in performance...
This lens though will be for detail shots and so used at large apertures, 2.8 to 5.6 so the differences between lens versions is more important I think.
How much do they go used for these days..I can not find one here in the uk?...and how, I wonder does this seemingly much loved lens compare to its top pereforming 85mm contax zeiss counterparts..?
The original Contax C/Y 85mm F1.4 Planar has a love-it-or-hate-it relationship. They have a reputation for being soft wide open with varying degrees of CA. I don't think I've seen anything here about the new Zeiss ZF 85/1.4.
Depending on a condition and what's included, a nice 100/2 costs ~$800. If it is mint condition, in box, etc., expect to pay more.
Looking out of the 100mm range, I can tell you that my 85mm f/2.8 Sonnar has just spectacular image quality. Vibrant color, extremely sharp, incredible microcontrast, and very nice bokeh. I honestly am more impressed by this little lightweight $250 gem than practically any lens I've ever owned. It is up in 135L territory for overall image quality. It also has extremely even performance across the aperture range. It's already near peak IQ at f/2.8, and it stays there with extremely small improvements through f/8...extremely high IQ throughout the range, which is very nice. I don't need to stop down for the 'sharpest aperture.' I just stop down if I need more DOF.
My personal preference in the 100mm FL is the Hasselblad/Zeiss 110/2 F via a 35mm adapter - spectacular lens. That said, If I hadn't firmly decided not too have too many lenses in and around the same FL, the 85/2.8 would be on my list.
The 100/3.5 must be rare - can't even find it on the Zeiss database of historic data sheets.
I have both the 85/2.8 and the 100/2.0. Wound up getting them about the same time. I have been very impressed with the shots I got from the 85mm yet almost always pick up the 100mm. Can't really say which is better, maybe I need to do a shoot off between them to see what the differences are. Of course one main difference is price. Going with the 85mm will save you a lot of money.
If you compare the 100/3.5 and 100/2 MTF charts, you see that the 100/3.5 resolves as highly wide open as the 100/2 does at f5.6.
I think the 100/3.5 is worth a closer look. I owned one for a short time and while it was nice and sharp, I'm just not a "Zeiss look" fan (the 21 Distagon and 135 Sonnar are my only exceptions, so far).
Rico will have much to say about the 100/3.5, I think
I also did not kow of the 100/3.5 until I saw it advertised used in a few places.
My choice may well end up on price as if the performance is very similar at the apertures I'll be using (F4/5.6 and possibly 8), and both lenses (100.2 and 85/2.8) have the zeiss look and feel then the 15mm focal length difference is no problem for me.
Jamesdak will be the best to show you differences between the 100 f/2 and the 85 f/2.8. I'm sure the 100 f/2 is the superior lens, but by how much I don't know. Could it be that the premium is just because it's a faster lens? I don't know. All I know is that the 85 f/2.8 gives you the definite Zeiss 3D look.
Thanks James, great example shots of these lenses displaying that special zeiss pop whcih I loved on my hasselbald zeiss lenses and am looking for in my 35m zeiss's.
Out of interest are your 100/2 and 85/2.8 AE or MM and or Japan on west german versions?
I wonder if this would make any visual difference on these lenses on canons.
