I was pretty set on getting the 100MP as my next zeiss lens until reading Lloyd Chamber's review of the new Nikon 85G (zeiss-like colour) - he gives it a very high rating indeed! Any views from the guru's here? As an aside, I also have an offer for a 2nd hand Zeiss 85mm to complicate matters.
The lens I am thinking of getting is for travel and would be added to the following lenses that I am planning to bring on the trip (italy in Dec):
If you are going by Lloyd, read his 100 MP review. His review of the new 85G is very negative compared to it.
As for the 85 Planar I would not recommend it this early on. It's a lens you can get once you have all the must-have Zeiss glass. It has a bunch of limitations and is a bit of a special purpose lens. It can be really magnificent but it can also be down right ugly.
Anyway, from the examples I've seen the new 85G seems to be a very nice lens. It's optical performance is excellent and color rendering is definitely one of the best I've seen from Nikon glass. Not Zeiss though - not even close to Zeiss rendering. Micro contrast is typical Nikon - i.e not so prominent. Mind you, that's not necessarily a bad thing - there are many other pleasant drawing styles. I love my Rokkor 58/1.2 for instance although it's rendering is about as far from Zeiss that you can get.
Yes. The DOF calculator gives a very rough approximation for a very simplified model of a lens. In reality it seldom corresponds to what you get with the real thing. The Zeiss 100 MP has a non-linear DOF 'bubble' that gives a rapid sharpness-to-blur transition. So in theory you are correct that from the same distance a 85/1.4 and a 100 MP should give the same DOF. In practice however the 100 MP will produce a thinner DOF than the simplified model predicts.
The Zeiss 21 Distagon is another interesting example whose DOF @ f/2.8 equals something between f/5.6 and f/8 on a Canon 16-35 @ 21 mm.
I've found that DOF tables/calculators are relatively good with Canon glass, but alway way off with Zeiss glass.
Learn something new every day! I always thought DOF... was the same from brand to brand as long as comparing same focal length, subject distance and aperture. Very interesting.
Not to hijack a thread, but you mentioned "Must have Zeiss Glass" at the top of the post... what in your opinion.. are the basic Must have Zeiss lenses in ZF mount? Thanks for the explanation about DOF.
denoir wrote:
Yes. The DOF calculator gives a very rough approximation for a very simplified model of a lens. In reality it seldom corresponds to what you get with the real thing. The Zeiss 100 MP has a non-linear DOF 'bubble' that gives a rapid sharpness-to-blur transition. So in theory you are correct that from the same distance a 85/1.4 and a 100 MP should give the same DOF. In practice however the 100 MP will produce a thinner DOF than the simplified model predicts.
The Zeiss 21 Distagon is another interesting example whose DOF @ f/2.8 equals something between f/5.6 and f/8 on a Canon 16-35 @ 21 mm.
I've found that DOF tables/calculators are relatively good with Canon glass, but alway way off with Zeiss glass....Show more →
You're welcome. The Zeiss "superstars" are the 21/2.8 Distagon and 100/2 Makro Planar followed by the 35/2 Distagon and 50/2 Makro Planar.
A typical good Zeiss trio of lenses consist of the 21/2.8, 35/2 and 100/2. The situation is a bit more complicated now as Zeiss is about to release a 35/1.4 Distagon so the 35/2 isn't an obvious choice any more. A good Zeiss quartet would be the 21/2.8, 35/2, 50/2 and 100/2 - with the same reservations about the 35/2. What those four lenses have in common is that they excel at every aperture and at every distance.
After you have them covered the 50 and 85 Planars become interesting. Unlike the other lenses they have significant weak spots (primarily close ups wide open can be atrocious) but at the same time where they excel they really excel. They are definitely worth having, just not early on in a Zeiss collection.
Well, I have been thinking of grabbing the 100/2 Makro Planar for some time now. I miss having close focus ability of my old Tamron 90 Macro, but I don't need a dedicated 1:1.. the zeiss would be more than enough. I guess that is a good place to start. Now, I have a Nikon 105/2 DC that will need to find a new home.
I noticed that you shoot the ZE series.. I am still trying to find out what the difference is between version 1, and version 2 of the ZF lenses.. in regards to 1) do the designs differ.. 2) what if any functionality is lost by using version 1 instead of version 2 on a D700.
denoir wrote:
If you are going by Lloyd, read his 100 MP review. His review of the new 85G is very negative compared to it.
As for the 85 Planar I would not recommend it this early on. It's a lens you can get once you have all the must-have Zeiss glass. It has a bunch of limitations and is a bit of a special purpose lens. It can be really magnificent but it can also be down right ugly.
Anyway, from the examples I've seen the new 85G seems to be a very nice lens. It's optical performance is excellent and color rendering is definitely one of the best I've seen from Nikon glass. Not Zeiss though - not even close to Zeiss rendering. Micro contrast is typical Nikon - i.e not so prominent. Mind you, that's not necessarily a bad thing - there are many other pleasant drawing styles. I love my Rokkor 58/1.2 for instance although it's rendering is about as far from Zeiss that you can get....Show more →
It requires a subscription but is well worth the money. I'd recommend it to anyone considering buying Zeiss glass. The only down side is that you will probably end up with more lenses than you had intended to buy
Diglloyd is definitely well worth the money - in fact i signed up for "Making Sharp images" as well (also many excellent articles there). I am seeing many collectors of the whole family of lenses - seems that once you start, you gotta get them all.
Oct 06, 2010 at 08:07 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
It requires a subscription but is well worth the money. I'd recommend it to anyone considering buying Zeiss glass. The only down side is that you will probably end up with more lenses than you had intended to buy
I could always sell my 800 IS lens. That would give me money enough to buy every Zeiss Canon mount lens
Well, perhaps you better start with the 21/2.8 and 100 MP and see how you like them. For me going Zeiss has radically changed the way I take photos. I still have a bunch of Canon glass but it's just collecting dust these days.
I have to, as I have said before, admit that the 100 2.0 MP did not really ring my bells. It might be that my body does not have the resolution necessary to really gain something from the 100 2.0 MP (compared to for instance the 105 2.5 nikkor ai-s), or that the zeiss just did not fit my style. I'll most likely get either a 135 2.8 sonnar or a 50 1.4 planar, convert them with leitax and try again. I would like to like them after all.. :P
Oct 06, 2010 at 09:17 AM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
denoir wrote: Well, perhaps you better start with the 21/2.8 and 100 MP and see how you like them. For me going Zeiss has radically changed the way I take photos. I still have a bunch of Canon glass but it's just collecting dust these days.
It depends on what kind of photography you do. I do a lot of people photography. And shoot birds a lot also. With moving subjects you can't beat AF lenses. And you can't beat Canons long tele lens line-up either.
I'm going back to Bangkok after Christmas. And then I can try all the Zeiss lenses in the shop I normally buy from. They have them all in the shop. But first I'm buying the 24 TS-E
