I love mine
I just wish I had a full frame body for it. My friend let me use his 5D for a few shots with my MM version; very impressive. I'm using mine mostly on my 1D Mk II.
Feel free to post your images from this great lens. Paul I know you have a couple to share
Are Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss) 110mm f/2 shots also allowed? I believe these two designs are very closely related, and adapted on FF-35mm cameras look very similar, according to John Black: Canon 1Ds3 and 110/2 and other pages on his blog.
If OP does not mind, I'd love to see the pictures from the Hassy 110.
As pointed out, I think it produces very similar type of characteristics.
I've heard it's pretty heavier than the Planar though...
Paul Yi wrote:
I think OP wants this thread to be "show your Planar 100/2.0 pictures".
I hope you are not correcting me on commenting that I liked the images, Paul - since you posted this right after my comment. I thought that was part of threads like this - that random viewers that donīt have the lens can "ahh" and "ooh" a bit over posted images they like.
Paul Yi wrote:
I personally think that we should have this kind of thread for a few popular lenses...
It's very difficult to go through alternative Image thread to look for pictures taken with particular lens.
Not quite what you asked for, but sort of http://www.pebbleplace.com/Personal/Contax_100mm_Planar_4.html There are around 50 images from the Planar on that page and I'm still digging through all the HD's looking for others. Too many years of pictures and things are a bleeding mess... Hopefully by summer's end I will have rounded up all the stray 100mm images and they'll be consolidated in that gallery. Right click for a larger view because the 720x720 downsizing in flash slide show tends to muck with the image quality a bit.
Regarding the Hasselblad 110mm; If shooting on just a FF dSLR, skip it. It's heavy, focus rings are stiff, adapters are pretty crappy and optically I think the Contax's are sharper at F2. Overall I think there is more hype than fact surrounding the Hasselblad. I've tried two 4th gen's and one 5th gen. If you're shooting medium format AND a dSLR, then Hasselblad makes more sense because it can be used on both systems assuming something like a Contax 645AF, Mamiya 645AF or the appropriate Hasselblad body.
Back to the Contax 100/2; Jay if you're looking for a cheap way to get a 100/2 on FF, maybe the 1Ds? I think I'd opt for the 5D at this point just because the 1Ds is a bit dated (small LCD, not the best ISO performance, etc). Anyway, this was among my first images with the 100/2 way, way, way back in '05 on a 1Ds.
I have FF (1Ds), but the P100 shark fin is a problem. Rather than molest the lens, I use a 7.5mm Contax extension tube which limits focus to 1.5m. Sample image (wide open): http://patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/cp900.jpg
While a great lens, the Planar gets little air time compared to the spiffy Sonnar 100/3.5.
John, I've said this before but, if it weren't for your wonderful review of the lens, I'd probably have never purchased the lens.
It's pretty easy to manual focus it too....
I like the vitage car shot ... it looks so rich & real, with a nice angle on the composition that give it that 'depth' along with the classic Zeiss 3D effect.
I'm torn between this lens and its counterpart Zeiss 100 2.8 Macro.
Looking at 'the charts' it seems the 2.8 Macro might have even more micro-contrast capability (non-macro mode) than the 2.0. I really love that Zeiss 3D look that pops. Does anyone have any info or pics to how the two compare / differ in IQ / 3D micro contrast (Macro & 2.8 vs. 2.0 noted)?
after reading the review of this lens at pebbleplace and looking at pictures i have always drooled at owing a Planar 100/2. The pictures are just unmistakeable taken with this lens. One day I shall own one of these babies.
