Thank you sir. I don't really feel worthy of the praise just now tho. Maybe I'm getting the purpose of these threads all wrong or something but it just seems awfully dishonest to me. If it's all about actually showing the actual quality of the lens in the title I mean. If it's more about just an owner's club mutual appreciation for each other kinda thing then I'm out of place. Or maybe I'm just depressed.
If the title sent this whole thread into a tailspin, then I apologize.
I might have called it... Leica 100mm APO macro - totally makes me happy or
- best I have used or
- works for me
The idea was for the thread to be about the photos. If they were from that lens, great...many threads like that about different lenses with different shooters to give a feel for the output. Even if it were loaded up with shots from other lenses or cameras, still great. The extra 25mm on the Voit or the extra 50 on the Sigma (or 80 on the Canon L) can really throw the bkgrnd in to a lovely butter cream.
What it and several other threads over the last few months turned into was a verbal flagellation pontificating and comparing non-comparables and taking away from the idea that what we actually DO with these lenses and cameras is take pictures. The tone and approach of such posts rarely ask questions or seek information and instead appear rooted in planting flags and ranting about whether or not non-comparables are valid.
Groan.
If I sent some misplaced frustration your direction relating to this trend, again I apologize. Perhaps now my intent with the thread is more clear. It was certainly not meant to be a whose is bigger or bow to the WMD spin. That is not my style. However, rejoicing in the creativity of photography IS my style.
Let's see some pictures. Let's learn. Let's be creative.
OK, I get you. And I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about my head-scratching or seemed to be planting flags. Unlike some others in earlier pages It wasn't my intent to disrupt or cause anyone frustration either. I certainly apologize if that was the result! You say that one of the purposes of the this thread and threads like it is "to give a feel for the output" and that's what I was scratching my head over. For the flowers shots and any of the close focus shots I can't tell the difference between this high-dollar high-grade APO and a reasonably good P&S. And not to purposely sound contentious, combative, or rude but anyone who says they can I simply can not believe. So in that singular regard this thread and the umpteen others like it, fail. In the regard of just enjoying the photos from this lens and similar lenses however, it's a great success and I have enjoyed it very much. Thank you (and the other participants) for that! Anyway, that's all I was on about with my interjections about P&S cameras. In spite of the time I have spent as a lecturing professor in several different languages concerning the production and manipulation of images and animation, I remain an ineloquent and rather poor communicator I'm afraid. Apologies all around and I agree with your concluding sentiments:
"Let's see some pictures. Let's learn. Let's be creative."
And I humbly add, Let's see some 100% crop samples too.
Bifurcator; I don't mean to rain on your parade but the samples you posted are a bit on the dull side, technically. I would normally not expect to see "much of" a difference on web samples but your flower shots look a bit artefactsy and coarse as compared to most of the other shots in this thread which are smooth and sharp at the same time and with a more appealing and natural richness in color/luminosity.
It is like back in the analog days when people were shown A4 prints from medium format and small format/24x36. Some would see it and some would not - arguing that the small format was in all aspects equal in quality and that they were equally "sharp".
To me, all other things being equal, the medium format shot would look better. A friend who is not into photography could actually pick out which shots were done with my Hasselblad out of a series of wall hung photos, all same size and square crop 14"x14". He said you could immerse yourself in the seemingly infinite details even with the nose pressed up against the photo with the Hasselblad shots where as with the smaller format (full frame digital, Canon 5D) they were great, but not as great up close.
Your shots are a good example of why I - after several attempts - have given up on small sensor cameras. (Except I have a GF-1 for funzies...)
But I agree about the affects of sensor size. I was mostly talking about the attributes of the lens. I dunno, I can tell the difference anyway. I think attributes attributed primarily to sensor size REALLY show up in scenes with distant focus points like landscapes and such. Maybe like:
Click For Thread
Where when compared to even a 4/3 sensor the differences are glaring.
Not a great image from a composition/lighting standpoint, but the angle at which it was shot is conducive to looking at the sharpness of the lens and its smooth transition to blur with definition.
Shot was 1:2 magnification, hand held (so tripod and mirror lock would generally produce a yet sharper image).
100% crop, medium sharpening to entire image :
Note the rapid but smooth transition to OOF...this to me is where many other lenses - macro or otherwise - fall short...they go from fairly sharp to chuny, clunky OOF areas unless you have huge subject-background separation. This lens drops to butter <1mm from the focal plane and just smooths more thereafter. http://community.mpix.com/forumstorage/14/1060000/1064500/100p_med_sharpening.jpg
So, who sniped the 100mm APO 2.8 Leica Macro from KEH's site this morning?
I placed an e-mail alert on it a few days ago, merely out of curiosity, and PHOOM! It was "no longer available for sale" before the follow up of "is now in stock and available for sale" e-mail showed up.
Somebody had a really itchy "add to cart" finger... heh heh. Only things I've seen disappear that fast are Pentax 645 FA 35mm or FA 120mm Macros...and another item, that I cannot recall...
Grenache wrote:
Hardly a frog. As corrected as macro lenses are, there are no frogs. That and the Hassie 110 are the jewels of MF macro.
Jim
While the Zeiss 110mm f2.0 Planar for Hassie is indeed a jewel, it is not a Makro lens. The Hassie Macro was a Zeiss 120mm f4.0. which was pretty good, but the Zeiss 120mm f4.0 Makro for the Contax 645 was noticeably better.
Lotusm50 wrote:
While the Zeiss 110mm f2.0 Planar for Hassie is indeed a jewel, it is not a Makro lens. The Hassie Macro was a Zeiss 120mm f4.0. which was pretty good, but the Zeiss 120mm f4.0 Makro for the Contax 645 was noticeably better.
Doh. You are correct. 120 is the macro. I have not seen the Contax 645 version. Is it comparably heavy to the one for Hassie?
Grenache wrote:
Doh. You are correct. 120 is the macro. I have not seen the Contax 645 version. Is it comparably heavy to the one for Hassie?
The Contax 645 Makro is a little bigger and a little heavier (100g or so more) than the earlier Hassie Makro. It is also a more complex floating element design with 8 elements instead of 6. It is also APO where the Hassie lens isn't. It is the must have lens of the Contax 645 system, along with the 35mm Distagon.
cuonghuutran wrote:
It is a good portrait lens too
I like your portraits - and agree...Leica lenses render portraits very nicely.
There's been a lot of hub-bub on FM lately regarding '3D' images.
To my eye, Leica lenses render a hard to define 'naturalness' or 'realness' in an
understated way...that I personally prefer over any '3D' 'effect' when it comes to portraits.
Cheers,
Scott
I sold Canon 85mm 1.2L and Zeiss 100mm f2 macro after using this lens. Zeiss 100mm is so sharp and its 3D effect is alluring. But as a portrait lens, it's not complimentary. It's so sharp and contrasty that every pore shows. I still wish I can afford to keep it though. Canon 85mm 1.2L is another story. That's my favorite lens for a long time. However, I am more attracted to Leica glow, which is hard to describe. It's kind like you know it when you see it. YMV of course. My brother swears by 85mm 1.2L and does not like Leica look :-)
)