tccin3d wrote: http://tccin3d.com/files/albums/fm/2014/duckcud.jpg
I wish they make improved 100mm or 120mm macro. They have no excuse. Since it is not autofocus, why not improve sealing, better dust resistance, maybe focus lock, better hood - squared instead of rounded. (so it can be used as rest). better paint, smooth aperture control, better lens cap. Since it is not autofocus it should be technical marvel. Not just optical. Otus is different product on its own. and otus also doesnt look dust protected, it looks like cinema cooke lens, with yellow markings, inbreed cinema/consumer lens. Otus are fast lenses - always f1.4, so there is a place for new "standard" apo makro lens with f2 aperture. Price league would be probably little higher than 100MP, but not in otus range. And 120mm would make further distinction in marketing. Better but different....Show more →
I totally agree. I've been saying the 100/2 was "long in the tooth" for two years now. The upgrade should be 1:1 true macro, APO, a bit easier to use focus ring. I wouldn't mind it being full Otus, but I do agree it would need to be tougher than the Otus construction. I've used my 100/2 for years now as a small artifact photography lens, but I go to the Coastal Optics 60 or the ZF 135/2 whenever the object is large enough that I can squeak by with another, better lens.
You would think a seriously upgraded 100/2 true macro or a 120 true macro would be worth the effort to Zeiss just on the sales to those of us doing product photography. My artifact work is structurally the same thing, same studio setup, same distances, size objects as someone photographing watches or jewelry. An improved 100/2 is what we need.
--Dan
Dec 15, 2014 at 09:06 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RiverGuy wrote:
I totally agree. I've been saying the 100/2 was "long in the tooth" for two years now. The upgrade should be 1:1 true macro, APO, a bit easier to use focus ring. I wouldn't mind it being full Otus, but I do agree it would need to be tougher than the Otus construction. I've used my 100/2 for years now as a small artifact photography lens, but I go to the Coastal Optics 60 or the ZF 135/2 whenever the object is large enough that I can squeak by with another, better lens.
You would think a seriously upgraded 100/2 true macro or a 120 true macro would be worth the effort to Zeiss just on the sales to those of us doing product photography. My artifact work is structurally the same thing, same studio setup, same distances, size objects as someone photographing watches or jewelry. An improved 100/2 is what we need.
I love my 100 MP, but I think a 120 f/2 APO Otus ought to be on Zeiss' to do list. After they make a wide or two (a 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 would make the most sense) then a 120 f/2 APO Macro would round out the line very well and if it is an Otus then the extra size with a 1:1 Macro would hardly be noticeable.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I love my 100 MP, but I think a 120 f/2 APO Otus ought to be on Zeiss' to do list. After they make a wide or two (a 24 f/1.4 and 35 f/1.4 would make the most sense) then a 120 f/2 APO Macro would round out the line very well and if it is an Otus then the extra size with a 1:1 Macro would hardly be noticeable.
Looking at what the Otus version did to the size and weight of the regular ZF.2 50 and 85/1.4, I shudder to think what a 120/2 Macro would do to the already not small, and somewhat smaller focal length, 100/2 Macro.
Dec 15, 2014 at 02:37 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
carstenw wrote:
Looking at what the Otus version did to the size and weight of the regular ZF.2 50 and 85/1.4, I shudder to think what a 120/2 Macro would do to the already not small, and somewhat smaller focal length, 100/2 Macro.
It doesn't look to me like the Otus 85 f/1.4 is based on the ZE/ZF 85 f/1.4 and the Otus 55 is definitely not based on the ZE/ZF 50 f/1.4. I don't think an Otus 120 f/2 APO Makro would be based on the 100 f/2 either. If it was based on anything I would think it would be based on the Contax 645 120 f/4 APO Makro and that wouldn't be a bad thing, but obviously there is a huge difference between an f/4 and an f/2 lens.
@carstenw
but f2 is not otus type, otus is owl and owls are always f1.4. So regular design with f2 would be nice, little bit heavier than 100, but APO. 2/100 is very light and nice. love the current design, otus is too 'star wars' for me.
Steve Spencer wrote:
It doesn't look to me like the Otus 85 f/1.4 is based on the ZE/ZF 85 f/1.4 and the Otus 55 is definitely not based on the ZE/ZF 50 f/1.4. I don't think an Otus 120 f/2 APO Makro would be based on the 100 f/2 either. If it was based on anything I would think it would be based on the Contax 645 120 f/4 APO Makro and that wouldn't be a bad thing, but obviously there is a huge difference between an f/4 and an f/2 lens.
For me size or weight for such a macro lens is not that important. As long as there is a good tripod-collar it will do. Most macro-shooters use a tripod anyway.
A real APO 1:1 Otus 100 or 120mm Macro will be a lens that I will buy for sure (unless the price goes through the roof).
And now something else. On the website of Zeiss I saw this conversation:
Secondly, please please please work with Nikon (or a third party in cooperation with Nikon) to develop a focusing screen for their D810 (and future models), so that we can focus more accurately without the rear screen for confirmation. The focus confirmation "dot" is not good enough. I suspect 1.4 at 85mm is going to be more hit and miss than 1.4 at 55mm has been. That said, I'm looking forward to getting and using my 1.4/85 Otus. Well done on such magnificent lenses.
Reply · · 30 November at 23:55
Carl Zeiss Lenses
Dear Linden!
Thank you very much for your feedback and you suggestions.
Regarding your uestion above: We will get back to you soon.
Best regards
ZEISS Camera Lenses Team
I see this as a hint that Zeiss is working with Nikon on some improvements in the manual focus capabilities of their cameras. I might be wrong of course, but it is an interesting quote.
How about part of an eye in focus? I shot this one of my son's face with the 100 MP at f/2 and near MFD. I kind of like the look, but you can clearly see the very think DOF. Only part of the eye (where the iris starts nearest the camera) is in focus.
Thanks Luka, Jim and Matthew
Luka: It works great with A7 ..but of cause it pretty big and heavy for a A7 body .. but there are no major problems.. it's pretty easy to focus and handling
I still have D700 but looking to upgrade it to a D800-E
Most I'd like to have D810 .. but don't have the budget for it right now .. in Sweden it costs about 4000 US dollars
