I would love to see this lens having a thread of its own due to its superlative nature. Easier to find the relatively few photos I assume will be posted.
Ronny, those shots are hand held? Hard to believe. They are wonderful.
I did some comparison printing this eve with images that I had shot with the 85 F1.4 a few weeks ago and some that I shot today with the 100MP and the 85 were clearly sharper.
I am wondering now if I just got a bad copy of the 100.
Jay968 wrote:
Ronny, those shots are hand held? Hard to believe. They are wonderful.
I did some comparison printing this eve with images that I had shot with the 85 F1.4 a few weeks ago and some that I shot today with the 100MP and the 85 were clearly sharper.
I am wondering now if I just got a bad copy of the 100.
Thank's Jay
All images are hand-held and no focus stacking or similar .. Guaranteed !
I have 85 P and I don't think it sharper than 100MP (rather the opposite )
But 85 P rendering style is awesome I think (different with 100MP )
But 100MP fits perfectly into motives that I like to shot
and think it is sharp enough.. But it took a few weeks to learn to use it properly and how I should focus
but it was probably mostly because it was one of my first MF lens that I got
think you should give 100MP some more time and test some more .. if you don't like it after that, sell it and enjoy your other Zeiss lens
talking about the 85P and why I chose to stick with it and not the 100MP (which is perfectly illustrated by Ronny above). Where the 85P is like a fresh summer's breeze, the 100MP is like a punch to the stomach.
Rodluvan wrote:
Anyway, according to the MTF charts and by a vast majority of opinions the 2/100 is sharper.
According to MTFs (@ infinity) P85 has slightly higher contrast in center of image at 10, 20 and 40lp/mm, but MP100 is maintaining the quality to corners. But the MTF of P85 is very good even 40lp/mm dips 60% contrast, as the 20lp/mm and 10lp/mm lines stay high. http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/zf/planar_14_85_en.pdf http://www.zeissimages.com/mtf/zf/mp_2_100_en.pdf
When not at infinity the differences are larger. MP100 is good performer at all distances. P85 is not so great close-up, thou I have never had any issues if I compensate focus shift and stay above f/2.2.
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
But 85 P rendering style is awesome I think (different with 100MP )
+1 - I mostly prefer P85 rendering style, and not only boke but also I like P85 stopped down to f/11 and/or infinity landscapes.
Ronny _Olsson wrote:
But it took a few weeks to learn to use it properly and how I should focus
but it was probably mostly because it was one of my first MF lens that I got
I shoot since ZF series was introduced with ZF version, and switched to ZE once it become available. I never learned to focus well handhold MP100. But as I have zero tolerance for focus errors.
Macros are easy to shoot handhold with MP100, with tripod I was only referring to landscapes and other far focus distance stuff.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
According to MTFs (@ infinity) P85 has slightly higher contrast in center of image at 10, 20 and 40lp/mm, but MP100 is maintaining the quality to corners.
Yes, at The Great Equalizer "4 stops down from wide open". Show me a lens that isn't
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
Notes for next try of star trails:
- shoot wider than 25mm to include North Star (center of circular motion)
- 15 minute exposure is not long enough
- pick night without moonlight and area where there are less lights
- bring second tripod, it's really boring to wait 15+ minutes (I usually anyways carry 2-3 cameras, so could use the time in between to setup next on other tripod)
- bring tea/coffee, and don't go shooting when it's -20C (-4F)
Two months ago my rental car got stuck in the Namibian desert, and I was forced to spend the night out in the open. I took a long exposure of the nearest tree, basically because I had nothing better to do. The long-exposure noise reduction of the 5D2 was accidentally switched on, which I think caused the band at the right-hand side. At 100% there are also horrendous color dots all over the frame, but downsized for web display the result is passable:
- North star not included
- 75-minute exposure
- no moonlight or other ambient light
- only one tripod
- red wine, +20C
Anyway, here is an update and to be honest it's kind've an embarrassing one at that.
A few weeks ago, I tried out an 85 for a couple of days and was actually impressed with it but decided to go with the 100MP due to the 85's focus shift possiblities. I did have the 100 once before, never really cared all that much for it but figured, ok lets give it another go. To make a long story short, when I had the 85, I shot only some JPGs and made some prints. When I got the 100 the other day, I shot both JPG and RAW and yesterday I only viewed and printed from the RAW files. Well for those of you who are not familiar with the 6D, its JPG capabilities are actually outstanding, while the RAW files take a lot more PP to achieve what the JPGs give out of the camera. The result was that I was comparing RAW images from the 100MP with JPG images from the 85 and the punch that the JPGs were giving me made the RAW files look flat, somewhat soft and just uninspiring. Late last night I started printing some of the JPG files that I had neglected and all of a sudden the 100MP came to life. The difference was like night and day.
I know this runs contrary to what a lot of people feel about JPG vs RAW, but I think the 6D is just optimized for JPGs and happens to do a wonderful job with them, whereas Canon seemed to have left RAW processing up to the end user. I know this is usually the case (my 5D MKIII is exactly the opposite, the RAW files actually being sharper than the JPGs) but so be it. I am now seeing some images that I have shot with the 100MP look the way I felt they should.
So, yes the 85 is pretty darn good and actually not a bad lens at all, but the 100 is a bit better across the entire field, better at close distances, and better at wide apertures.
Thanks to all who made suggestions, but I think I am starting to understand the lens and get it under control now.
Toothwalker wrote:
- North star not included
- 75-minute exposure
- no moonlight or other ambient light
- only one tripod
Now I'm puzzled (won't require much...); there are two centers of rotation in your picture
Toothwalker wrote:
- red wine, +20C
vodka on rocks, -20C or tea when I'll have to drive
Carl Zeiss Distagon T* 2/25 ZE @ f/8, 369s, ISO 100 @ Sony A7
or tea when I'll have to drive 
