I think that in comparison of #1 vs. #3 ... and #2 vs. #1 ... with #3 vs #2, the only obvious conclusion any rationale person could possibly come to is ...
My eyes aren't THAT good ... somebody's gonna have to tell me the answers.
Samuli ... Waiting for the reveal ... thanks for the effort.
I like the #1 and I hope it is the ZE 100MP. I guess the second is the 100L. If that's the case, one of the lenses is IF and other is not. In such a close focus they could have different focusing distance due to different design and therefore different DOF.
The sharper ones with more 3D are definitely Zeiss .
Joking aside, I think it would be a lot more productive if these tests were put in poll format. Thanks for doing the tests though.
Other than being with Kent (Rusty) on his assessment, that any of these are withing a fraction of each other. I'll say my preference goes in 1, 3, 2 order based on the coloring of the letters.
But I had to stare hard and other than a little bit of color difference in the full shots, there's really nothing there to notably call them different. I'd take whichever of the 3 offers more functionality (AF, Auto-aperture, IS) or lowest price, depending on the difference.
RustyBug wrote:
I think that in comparison of #1 vs. #3 ... and #2 vs. #1 ... with #3 vs #2, the only obvious conclusion any rationale person could possibly come to is ...
My eyes aren't THAT good ... somebody's gonna have to tell me the answers.
Samuli ... Waiting for the reveal ... thanks for the effort.
Agreed. They all look like the same image to me. I could at least see some variation in the original set, but this one... nada.
Lenses which were used:
1. Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE
2. Canon EF100mm f/2.8 L IS USM
3. Contax Sonnar T* 3.5/100 with tube
When taking the shots I took first one with CZ, then I had to move camera towards target about 8cm (3") to get same magnification with Canon, and move back about 10 cm (4") for getting same magnification with Contax. When shooting from 10 meter distance CZ is much wider than Canon, which is slightly wider than Contax. So this could/should also explain partially DOF differences, and many people in addition refer Contax/Zeiss having extended DOF due to nature how transition from DOF to bokeh happens. All were focused to top edge of larger/lower blue wheel with 10x live view.
Other than DOF it's clear that Canon has more warm/red coloured image while Zeiss/Contax were more towards cool/blue. Best visible on top of the leveler on part made of cork. Very typical to the manufacturers.
On sharpness Zeiss and Canon are about same. However Canon has slightly less micro contrast so it may not appear as sharp but both of them do outresolve 5DmkII sensor (in 100% crop - any of this cannot be seen from scaled down full image). Contax is not far behind, large micro contrast may even make it look like sharper (to some viewers) than Canon. Very typical to the manufacturers, again.
On bokeh Zeiss and Contax are very similar and have more defined/edgier/less buttery/what-ever-wording-you-want-to-use. Canon has smoother bokeh. Also the different DOF and DOF -> bokeh transition can be seen from out of highlights, which are larger on Canon. (Or this is because Canon was closer since it cannot maintain it's field of view when focused close). Again I would say this is typical to manufacturers.
As overall conclusion I would say is that when comparing top quality lenses against other top quality lenses in conditions, for which the lenses are designed/optimized for, big differences should not be found.
What I really would see is Canon 85LmkII, Carl Zeiss 85ZE and Samyang 85 compared on close range (about 1.2m/4 feet or so), middle range (about 5m/15feet) and landscape. But I doubt nobody has all of these. Samyang is so cheap that that I could buy just for this test, but I sold my 85LmkII and will not like to buy it for testing...
PS. Toothwalker: thanks! This "test" would have been pretty boring without sonnar, which I included only because of your comment. I have to admit that I have not seen any other lens before performing as well with tubes, but I have not used much tubes since I have always had makro lenses available.
thanks for the test. I think the choice of subject was not ideal. The car in the previous test was much better, because you can see CA at the wheels. I just couldn't see much in the pictures you posted, except for a small change in focus (blurness?) and the fact that the white light reflected on metal in crop had less details on the second picture.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
What I really would see is Canon 85LmkII, Carl Zeiss 85ZE and Samyang 85 compared on close range (about 1.2m/4 feet or so), middle range (about 5m/15feet) and landscape. But I doubt nobody has all of these. Samyang is so cheap that that I could buy just for this test, but I sold my 85LmkII and will not like to buy it for testing...
Trajan, if I would like to see CA I can reshoot this with lens having CA-problems. The blue metal wheel will have CA if there is any, I'm sorry I didn't have any bad lenses available at the time of this "test". I could try Leica 90/2.8 but if I remember correctly it's adapter prevents use of tubes (will not fit).
The white light reflected metal in #2 (=Canon) crop does have less detail due to narrower depth of field (shot was not focused on this part of image), and the detail remaining is not as visible since there is less micro contrast and recording detail on dark end of histogram to sensor is highly dependant on the micro contrast lens provides.
Samuli Vahonen wrote:
PS. Toothwalker: thanks! This "test" would have been pretty boring without sonnar, which I included only because of your comment. I have to admit that I have not seen any other lens before performing as well with tubes, but I have not used much tubes since I have always had makro lenses available.
Bare hyggelig. It's always a pleasure to see a Sonnar on tubes.
Jman13 wrote:
Oh god! I've never seen ANYTHING like those crops come out of my 100L. From what I've seen, following the 100L threads on POTN and here, bad copies are pretty rare...very odd he got three. Wonder if something is wrong with his camera.
I cannot comment on the 100L, but I had an EF 50mm F/1.4 USM that behaved like the five samples at http://www.slrgear.com/articles/variation_canon50f14/canon50f14.htm
I.e., unsharp at one side of the frame. One can argue that there is actually not much sample variation here, but that is of little comfort when all samples misbehave.
Compared to the high percentage of bad samples of the 100IS and the ZF 21 Digiloyd has tested, this test was done with lenses from a postal rental company.
The question is whether the lens were assembled this way or whether they became this way because of shippment. Build quality is of course where I expect Zeiss to be better in general, also because they keep the design simple.
... somebody's gonna have to tell me the answers.