Just curious to see if anyone has done a comparison of the vaunted Lanthar 125 vs. the latest Canon 100L. If so can you post some samples and your conclusions?
I had the Zeiss 100/2.8 and did a comparison against the Canon 100 (the old one). I sold the canon 100 in favor of the Zeiss at that time. I don't have either now since I acquired the Lanthar.
I don't know about color/bokeh, but I can say, if the Lanthar is, somehow, any sharper than the new 100L, it would take some strange person to care, as the new Canon 100 is as sharp a lens as I have ever used, and I can't imagine ever needing/wanting anything sharper. It cuts glass. It also has very nice bokeh and very good color. AF is nice and speedy too (and the IS is wonderful).
I didn't have any sharpness problems with the v1 of the Canon 100. Manual focusing the canon wasn't much fun and the lens would hunt while AF. Lanthat MF is a pleasure for sure.
As pointed out the CA is lot better controlled on the Lanthar and it is a little faster at f2.5 vs. f2.8. Can't ask for a better bokeh.
Can't hardly see LoCA in CV125, but can be seen in 100L in some situation. Both are sharp. Quick shot comparison here https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/662530/86#7627074. Certainly the 100L is not perfect but I like it a lot.
The LCA of the new Canon 100 macro is pretty obvious. I thought it was a better performer than before, it appears that those additional elements are only for IS which, in reality, offers little help for macros.
Nov 02, 2009 at 08:23 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
To my eyes the bokeh in both the 1st (especially the tree trunk) and 3rd shot is a little harsh. I would love to see a bokeh comparison of the Canon vs. the Voigtlander vs. ZF 100 macro vs. Leica R 100 macro. I am hoping that burningheart will do such a comparison. He has all four lenses and talked about doing so at one time.
cogitech wrote:
That depend on whether you need AF and IS for macro. The vast majority of people do not.
Add to this the fact that the Voigtlander is superior in nearly every other way, and it becomes far more practical.
Well, that is true if you only shoot macro with a macro lens and if you indeed don't need AF and IS for macro. Personally, I never did this as it can double as a regular lens as well. I also find AF (AI servo) to be invalueable in macro in windy conditions.
Nothing un-practical about the Lanthar from this user either. I don't have AF or IS on all of my lenses but that doesn't make them un-practical and just because the Lanthar does 1:1 doesn't mean I only use it for macro.
More practical means that you have more options. You may choose not to use them but they are there should you ever want to. You can switch off AF and IS on the Canon but you can't switch them on on the Lanthar.
Please note. I'm not saying that Canon is better than the Lanthar or vise versa. I'm also not saying that either is better for any particular user. All I'm saying is that the Canon have more options, thereby making it the more practical one.
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but the Lanthar isn't CA-free. Just very very well corrected. Torture it enough and it will show you the nasties.
Wide open, fully blown background and far oof: http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2998/img2318600.jpg
MichaD wrote:
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but the Lanthar isn't CA-free. Just very very well corrected. Torture it enough and it will show you the nasties.
Wide open, fully blown background and far oof: http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/2998/img2318600.jpg
in the context of comparing this to Canon 100 v2, how does the Canon 100 v2 perform under the same situation as your shot?
