I've got a Nikkor 105 2.5 Ai-S, I like it a lot, it is sharp, small, light and has nice bokeh.. But I'm considering getting a more close focusing lens, I tried the sigma 105 2.8 today, and at 2.8 it is not sharper than the nikon is at 2.5.. so the only benefit there would be the closer focus (and af), so how about the zeiss 100 2.0? I get more speed, and i get more weight .. i get more close focus.. but how is it sharpness/bokeh/contrast-wise compared to the nikon?
The zeiss is indeed a macro lens, but I'm wondering if the close focus capability and the half stop more of light is the only advantages, or if it is better optically in general too. I would love a bit more close focus on some portraits and also to have a macro lens in general for nature shots.
It's probably worth subscribing to diglloyd.com and reading his review of the 100/2. Not to take the suspense away, but at one point he comments, " this lens should be at the top your list if you savor the very finest optical results".
Ulrik, I have both. I dig the 105 2.5 AIS. I think it is tremendous value. But all the things you list should point you to the Zeiss. It has the typical Zeiss look (obviously), and bokeh, sharpness and contrast is great, to say the least. I don't think you'll regret getting it. Edit: I second subscribing to diglloyd.com. Lots of useful and throughout information about all Zeiss lenses, and lots of other stuff too. IMO great value.
it's a very new design, and considered to be, by all accounts, to one of the ten top ten 35mm slr lenses. if a 100mm mf lens suits you and you can afford it i don't think you can go wrong. the images from it are stunning. i uses to have a 105 2.5 and preferred my 85 1.4 af-D, but that's just me.
I own the 105/2.5 (multiple copies, in fact... it's my favorite lens ever!), and I have a Zeiss 100/2 Macro in Nikon F mount at work that we use for video production. I've used both side by side a few times when I've had opportunity to borrow the office lens.
At portrait distances, I like the Nikon lens better. Both are equally sharp at f/2.5, and performance at f/2 isn't that much different from f/2.5, except for the CA on the zeiss lens.
Up close is another story altogether. The Nikon lens plays nicely with extension tubes, but it's just not that sharp at its minimum focus distance. The Zeiss is just as sharp in the macro range as it is at moderate to long distances away.
If you're getting close or going macro, get the zeiss, but keep the Nikon 105/2.5. You'll miss it if you sell it
I had both and here's what I found. On my D700 they seem identical for sharpness. I only tested 2.8 and 4. But I did close ups and distance shots and the nikon was sharper at distances. The zeiss has a 3D look and there is no denying it when looking at two pictures taken side by side. I asked several people to compare the pictures and everyone thought it had a 3d feel to it. It also seems like the Zeiss had a shallower DOF than the Nikon when shot at the same aperture. Not sure it it's possible but it seemed like it.
Eric, you must have a less than perfect copy of the Zeiss or an extraordinary copy of the Nikon. I have had five 105 f/2.5 AI and AI-S lenses over the last thirty odd years and at present have probably the sharpest one of those, which is an AI version. No way does it even come close to the sharpness of the Zeiss, especially wide open.
I find that somewhat difficult to believe, if only because the 105/2.5 that I've used is viciously and ridiculously sharp. I would not want to do a portrait with it.
Isn't the Zeiss a Macro lens? Different intended uses?
