This topic is in the 2010 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2010Another useless comparison - 100mm
p.3 #1Another useless comparison - 100mm
1. reflection in the white highlight areas seems to be bigger than the rest
2. Medium format lens tend to flare more than 35mm due to larger size of glass
3. DOF seems to be a little different here as it looks like the focal length is slightly longer than the other two.
4. Just wild guess
carstenw wrote:
I am curious what you see which makes you guess a medium format lens?
2. Medium format lens tend to flare more than 35mm due to larger size of glass
3. DOF seems to be a little different here as it looks like the focal length is slightly longer than the other two.
4. Just wild guess
carstenw wrote:
I am curious what you see which makes you guess a medium format lens?
Oct 10, 2010 at 09:15 AM
p.3 #2Another useless comparison - 100mm
carstenw wrote:
If you read through various lens-centric threads around here, someone will post a shot by a famous lens, like the C/Y 35mm f/1.4, and everyone will ooh and aah and say how unique that signature is, how they recognized it right away. I used to get carried away in this too.
It's no news that people are biased.
If you read through various lens-centric threads around here, someone will post a shot by a famous lens, like the C/Y 35mm f/1.4, and everyone will ooh and aah and say how unique that signature is, how they recognized it right away. I used to get carried away in this too.
It's no news that people are biased.
Oct 10, 2010 at 09:21 AM
p.3 #3Another useless comparison - 100mm
Partly it is just fanboy talk, but there is often a grain of truth in such things. For example, again using the C/Y 35/1.4, it doesn't always give 3D, and not everyone can get 3D from it, but there have been far more successful 3D shots with this lens in this forum than from any other 35mm lens.
Oct 10, 2010 at 09:23 AM
p.3 #4Another useless comparison - 100mm
Why not give the answer already, this is now really dragging out?
Oct 10, 2010 at 09:26 AM
p.3 #5Another useless comparison - 100mm
The third lens ("c"?) shows a decentering effect. Radial/Sagital blurring shifts depending on where in the picture you look, and also the CA is severely "tilted" - green/magenta fringe "leans" in one direction. You can also see that the plane of best focus is slightly tilted with the top of the frame focusing slightly closer to the camera.
I actually wouldn't see those samples as something "representative" for the lens - I'd suspect a faulty VR (happens a lot more often than you'd like to think) or decentering and go look for another specimen...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the three lenses were:
a) 85/1.8D
b) 100/2.0ZF
c) ?? Too many unknowns
I actually wouldn't see those samples as something "representative" for the lens - I'd suspect a faulty VR (happens a lot more often than you'd like to think) or decentering and go look for another specimen...
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the three lenses were:
a) 85/1.8D
b) 100/2.0ZF
c) ?? Too many unknowns
Oct 10, 2010 at 09:29 AM
p.3 #6Another useless comparison - 100mm
carstenw wrote:
For example, again using the C/Y 35/1.4, it doesn't always give 3D, and not everyone can get 3D from it,
Exactly my point: if not everyone can get 3D from the same lens, then it's not the lens.
For example, again using the C/Y 35/1.4, it doesn't always give 3D, and not everyone can get 3D from it,
Exactly my point: if not everyone can get 3D from the same lens, then it's not the lens.
Oct 10, 2010 at 09:36 AM
p.3 #7Another useless comparison - 100mm
Carsten, your question was not to identify the lenses but to tell you which one we liked more. What I mean is that you can't form an informed opinion by a few web sized shots. I'm not even going to go into the whole thing about PP - like the fact that I have to use two different resize+sharpen scripts for Zeiss and Canon glass or it becomes crap. Not even all Zeiss lenses can be treated equally for optimal results - the 21 Distagon is for instance a special case.
Anybody making a lens decision based on a a couple of artificial web sized tests, well, deserves what he/she gets. You cannot get a good overall picture by choosing three different lenses and using them the same way. It is a valid test for differences in a specific situation but not a good general guide. If you don't have the chance of trying a lens fully then sample pictures are a good start - and I mean hundreds of them. Like our Zeiss Z* image thread for instance. You'll have a big spread of people enough to eliminate the variations in PP etc
Now as for these lenses. To take your example - could I given a 35mm shot immediately every time know that it's a Zeiss 35/1.4. Of course not. I could however using that lens, as I know it intimately by now, produce an image like no other lens could produce. I have two Zeiss 35's now and I'll be very likely adding two more in the near future 35/2 Bigon and the new 35/1.4. My 35/2 and 35/1.4 Distagons are very different and I use them for different things. Setting both at f/4 and shooting some stationary object at a certain distance to compare them would be completely missing the point.
Alright, since you seem think I'm trying to worm out from making a statement about the lenses you used: First I'm making two assumptions. Blindly given all the 100mm lenses in the world I could definitely not pick out one specific. In many cases I can't tell my Canon 100L and Zeiss 100 MP apart - although the differences are significant. So I have to narrow the field and make some reasonable assumptions. I'm going to assume that one lens is a Zeiss (100 MP or 100/2 Planar) and that one is a 105mm Nikon.
First we can rule out C. That's definitely no Zeiss. It has its charm but the bokeh is completely different and the contrast is too low. Then we have the fact that A shows in these examples excellent micro contrast and flare resistance - which would point to it being the Zeiss. Both possible Zeisses are 97mm lenses actually so one should be able to tell a 105 from a 97 apart on FOV, but I have actually not been able to do so due to the variations in the shots. There are a couple of B shots that have a very nice 'pop' but that could be due to variation in lighting (the chessboard is a good example).
Alright, so assuming there is a Zeiss and at least one 105 Nikon, my prediction would be the following:
A) Zeiss 100 MP or C/Y 100/2 Planar
B) Some very good 105 Nikon
C) Some not all that good 100 or 105 Nikon
Anyway, here are the processed shots (open in separate tabs and flip between them):
19A
19B
19C
20A
20B
20C
Anybody making a lens decision based on a a couple of artificial web sized tests, well, deserves what he/she gets. You cannot get a good overall picture by choosing three different lenses and using them the same way. It is a valid test for differences in a specific situation but not a good general guide. If you don't have the chance of trying a lens fully then sample pictures are a good start - and I mean hundreds of them. Like our Zeiss Z* image thread for instance. You'll have a big spread of people enough to eliminate the variations in PP etc
Now as for these lenses. To take your example - could I given a 35mm shot immediately every time know that it's a Zeiss 35/1.4. Of course not. I could however using that lens, as I know it intimately by now, produce an image like no other lens could produce. I have two Zeiss 35's now and I'll be very likely adding two more in the near future 35/2 Bigon and the new 35/1.4. My 35/2 and 35/1.4 Distagons are very different and I use them for different things. Setting both at f/4 and shooting some stationary object at a certain distance to compare them would be completely missing the point.
Alright, since you seem think I'm trying to worm out from making a statement about the lenses you used: First I'm making two assumptions. Blindly given all the 100mm lenses in the world I could definitely not pick out one specific. In many cases I can't tell my Canon 100L and Zeiss 100 MP apart - although the differences are significant. So I have to narrow the field and make some reasonable assumptions. I'm going to assume that one lens is a Zeiss (100 MP or 100/2 Planar) and that one is a 105mm Nikon.
First we can rule out C. That's definitely no Zeiss. It has its charm but the bokeh is completely different and the contrast is too low. Then we have the fact that A shows in these examples excellent micro contrast and flare resistance - which would point to it being the Zeiss. Both possible Zeisses are 97mm lenses actually so one should be able to tell a 105 from a 97 apart on FOV, but I have actually not been able to do so due to the variations in the shots. There are a couple of B shots that have a very nice 'pop' but that could be due to variation in lighting (the chessboard is a good example).
Alright, so assuming there is a Zeiss and at least one 105 Nikon, my prediction would be the following:
A) Zeiss 100 MP or C/Y 100/2 Planar
B) Some very good 105 Nikon
C) Some not all that good 100 or 105 Nikon
Anyway, here are the processed shots (open in separate tabs and flip between them):
19A
19B
19C
20A
20B
20C
Oct 10, 2010 at 09:44 AM
p.3 #8Another useless comparison - 100mm
voka_gsw wrote:
Exactly my point: if not everyone can get 3D from the same lens, then it's not the lens.
Not everyone knows how to use the lens. The rendering style may depend to a large degree on focusing distance and aperture - not to mention light, subject, background etc It's a complex thing and why I mean that tests like this one are don't tell you much. It can take hundreds or thousands of shots before you fully master a lens and know its characteristics and how to use them.
carstenw wrote
For example, again using the C/Y 35/1.4, it doesn't always give 3D, and not everyone can get 3D from it,Not everyone knows how to use the lens. The rendering style may depend to a large degree on focusing distance and aperture - not to mention light, subject, background etc It's a complex thing and why I mean that tests like this one are don't tell you much. It can take hundreds or thousands of shots before you fully master a lens and know its characteristics and how to use them.
Oct 10, 2010 at 10:04 AM
p.3 #9Another useless comparison - 100mm
That is an excellent point. This could really tell us that test might not be meaningful if the tester is just a tester and not a lens user.
You really need to master a tool before getting the best out of it. Knowing the strong and the weak area is critical on lens choice.
It will not be he said she said contest anymore. This will really became a personal choice.
denoir wrote:
Not everyone knows how to use the lens. The rendering style may depend to a large degree on focusing distance and aperture - not to mention light, subject, background etc It's a complex thing and why I mean that tests like this one are don't tell you much. It can take hundreds or thousands of shots before you fully master a lens and know its characteristics and how to use them.
Edited on Oct 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM · View previous versions
You really need to master a tool before getting the best out of it. Knowing the strong and the weak area is critical on lens choice.
It will not be he said she said contest anymore. This will really became a personal choice.
denoir wrote:
Not everyone knows how to use the lens. The rendering style may depend to a large degree on focusing distance and aperture - not to mention light, subject, background etc It's a complex thing and why I mean that tests like this one are don't tell you much. It can take hundreds or thousands of shots before you fully master a lens and know its characteristics and how to use them.
Edited on Oct 10, 2010 at 10:14 AM · View previous versions
Oct 10, 2010 at 10:12 AM
p.3 #10Another useless comparison - 100mm
voka_gsw wrote:
Why not give the answer already, this is now really dragging out?
Well, I would like to, but in Todd's threads there were always people who came in late and regretted not being able to guess, because the answer was posted too quickly. I will post the answer later tonight, maybe 10pm German time or somewhere around there.
Why not give the answer already, this is now really dragging out?
Well, I would like to, but in Todd's threads there were always people who came in late and regretted not being able to guess, because the answer was posted too quickly. I will post the answer later tonight, maybe 10pm German time or somewhere around there.
Oct 10, 2010 at 10:13 AM
p.3 #12Another useless comparison - 100mm
denoir wrote:
Exactly my point: if not everyone can get 3D from the same lens, then it's not the lens.Not everyone knows how to use the lens. The rendering style may depend to a large degree on focusing distance and aperture - not to mention light, subject, background etc It's a complex thing and why I mean that tests like this one are don't tell you much. It can take hundreds or thousands of shots before you fully master a lens and know its characteristics and how to use them.
+1
it takes a long time to learn the strengths of any given lens. this is one of the commonly given reasons that some people prefer to use just one or two lenses, so they are intimately familiar with them.
i only gave guesses for what each lens was without saying which i liked best because i don't think i can decide between A and B from just these shots. i couldn't really be objective either since i think A is the nikkor 105/2.5 and B is the zeiss since i want to like the nikkor better.
voka_gsw wrote
carstenw wrote
For example, again using the C/Y 35/1.4, it doesn't always give 3D, and not everyone can get 3D from it,+1
it takes a long time to learn the strengths of any given lens. this is one of the commonly given reasons that some people prefer to use just one or two lenses, so they are intimately familiar with them.
i only gave guesses for what each lens was without saying which i liked best because i don't think i can decide between A and B from just these shots. i couldn't really be objective either since i think A is the nikkor 105/2.5 and B is the zeiss since i want to like the nikkor better.
Oct 10, 2010 at 10:20 AM
p.3 #13Another useless comparison - 100mm
denoir wrote:
Carsten, your question was not to identify the lenses but to tell you which one we liked more. What I mean is that you can't form an informed opinion by a few web sized shots.
Yes, I asked for people's preferred lens, not to name them, but people started naming them anyway, as they are wont to do
You cannot form an informed opinion about all aspects of a lens from a few web shots, but that doesn't stop people from saying that they can every day. You *can* form an opinion of those posted photos, however.
If you don't have the chance of trying a lens fully then sample pictures are a good start - and I mean hundreds of them. Like our Zeiss Z* image thread for instance. You'll have a big spread of people enough to eliminate the variations in PP etc
I agree that more photos is better, but I am only human here I don't think the dedicated threads necessarily show a lens's character fairly. These threads tend to be dominated (if not in number, then in mindshare) by a few talented individuals, and who knows what these individuals could produce from other lenses? We all have our favorites, and rarely stray far from them...
First I'm making two assumptions. Blindly given all the 100mm lenses in the world I could definitely not pick out one specific. In many cases I can't tell my Canon 100L and Zeiss 100 MP apart - although the differences are significant. So I have to narrow the field and make some reasonable assumptions. I'm going to assume that one lens is a Zeiss (100 MP or 100/2 Planar) and that one is a 105mm Nikon.
First we can rule out C. That's definitely no Zeiss. It has its charm but the bokeh is completely different and the contrast is too low....Show more →
Interesting and enlightening analysis. Answers and reply later tonight.
Anyway, here are the processed shots (open in separate tabs and flip between them):
Interesting, and again, somewhat unexpected. From the tap shots, I find that A has most 3D, and from the chess shot, B.
Carsten, your question was not to identify the lenses but to tell you which one we liked more. What I mean is that you can't form an informed opinion by a few web sized shots.
Yes, I asked for people's preferred lens, not to name them, but people started naming them anyway, as they are wont to do
You cannot form an informed opinion about all aspects of a lens from a few web shots, but that doesn't stop people from saying that they can every day. You *can* form an opinion of those posted photos, however.If you don't have the chance of trying a lens fully then sample pictures are a good start - and I mean hundreds of them. Like our Zeiss Z* image thread for instance. You'll have a big spread of people enough to eliminate the variations in PP etc
I agree that more photos is better, but I am only human here
I don't think the dedicated threads necessarily show a lens's character fairly. These threads tend to be dominated (if not in number, then in mindshare) by a few talented individuals, and who knows what these individuals could produce from other lenses? We all have our favorites, and rarely stray far from them...First I'm making two assumptions. Blindly given all the 100mm lenses in the world I could definitely not pick out one specific. In many cases I can't tell my Canon 100L and Zeiss 100 MP apart - although the differences are significant. So I have to narrow the field and make some reasonable assumptions. I'm going to assume that one lens is a Zeiss (100 MP or 100/2 Planar) and that one is a 105mm Nikon.
First we can rule out C. That's definitely no Zeiss. It has its charm but the bokeh is completely different and the contrast is too low....Show more →
Interesting and enlightening analysis. Answers and reply later tonight.
Anyway, here are the processed shots (open in separate tabs and flip between them):
Interesting, and again, somewhat unexpected. From the tap shots, I find that A has most 3D, and from the chess shot, B.
Oct 10, 2010 at 11:36 AM
p.3 #14Another useless comparison - 100mm
theSuede wrote:
The third lens ("c"?) shows a decentering effect. Radial/Sagital blurring shifts depending on where in the picture you look, and also the CA is severely "tilted" - green/magenta fringe "leans" in one direction. You can also see that the plane of best focus is slightly tilted with the top of the frame focusing slightly closer to the camera.
I actually wouldn't see those samples as something "representative" for the lens - I'd suspect a faulty VR (happens a lot more often than you'd like to think) or decentering and go look for another specimen...
Since I own lens C, I am naturally interested to find out if you could be right. I have not seen any evidence of these in my use of it so far, but I will have to defer discussion until after I post the lens names, a little later tonight.
The third lens ("c"?) shows a decentering effect. Radial/Sagital blurring shifts depending on where in the picture you look, and also the CA is severely "tilted" - green/magenta fringe "leans" in one direction. You can also see that the plane of best focus is slightly tilted with the top of the frame focusing slightly closer to the camera.
I actually wouldn't see those samples as something "representative" for the lens - I'd suspect a faulty VR (happens a lot more often than you'd like to think) or decentering and go look for another specimen...
Since I own lens C, I am naturally interested to find out if you could be right. I have not seen any evidence of these in my use of it so far, but I will have to defer discussion until after I post the lens names, a little later tonight.
Oct 10, 2010 at 11:39 AM
p.3 #15Another useless comparison - 100mm
carstenw wrote:
I agree that more photos is better, but I am only human here I don't think the dedicated threads necessarily show a lens's character fairly. These threads tend to be dominated (if not in number, then in mindshare) by a few talented individuals, and who knows what these individuals could produce from other lenses? We all have our favorites, and rarely stray far from them...
It's true that the perception of a lens can be changed by good or bad photographers using the lens. However the people that produce good images with a lens usually know it. The good examples show what you can do with it if you invest some time and learn the lens.
Then there is the personal experience of people that have owned a lens for a longer time. One has to tread carefully because people have an obvious bias towards their lenses. They don't want to appear as if they have spent their money on something inferior. There is however the special case where a person owns multiple similar lenses and where the bias towards one specific lens is smaller.
Consider these three lenses that I own: The Canon 100/2.8 Macro, the Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar and the Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar. I could take some shots with the Canon and after some PP adjustments I could post it in the Zeiss thread and nobody would notice a thing. At the same time I could take shots with the 100 MP where nobody could ever mistake it for the Canon 100. It really does have a unique signature in certain situations. The Canon 100L could for instance never create bokeh like this:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-249.jpg
I own both lenses so there is no ego involved - the decision to buy them were mine and I have no reason to prefer one over the other.
Or do I? One could claim for instance that I have become an uncritical Zeiss fanboy. That is a fair point but I can argue against that quite easily - I don't like all Zeiss glass equally. I by far prefer my 35/1.4 to my 35/2 for instance. I also prefer my Rokkor 58/1.2 to several Zeiss lenses. Or if we go into the subject of '3D' I can state that I with the 100 MP can get proper 3D at small apertures while I have much more difficulties in getting there with the 50 MP and so on.
Could I have come to these conclusions after a couple of days of owning them? Definitely not. It took me quite a while to learn them. The 100 MP in particular is a very complex lens that alters its rendering style at different focusing distances and apertures. Of course it's better to try a lens even for a short while before buying but if you are going to take somebody else's advice on a lens it's good if that person has a long experience with it and is relatively free of bias. My trigger for getting a new lens is usually seeing photos with a certain look that attracts me - reviews be damned
Interesting, and again, somewhat unexpected. From the tap shots, I find that A has most 3D, and from the chess shot, B.
Agreed.
I agree that more photos is better, but I am only human here
I don't think the dedicated threads necessarily show a lens's character fairly. These threads tend to be dominated (if not in number, then in mindshare) by a few talented individuals, and who knows what these individuals could produce from other lenses? We all have our favorites, and rarely stray far from them...It's true that the perception of a lens can be changed by good or bad photographers using the lens. However the people that produce good images with a lens usually know it. The good examples show what you can do with it if you invest some time and learn the lens.
Then there is the personal experience of people that have owned a lens for a longer time. One has to tread carefully because people have an obvious bias towards their lenses. They don't want to appear as if they have spent their money on something inferior. There is however the special case where a person owns multiple similar lenses and where the bias towards one specific lens is smaller.
Consider these three lenses that I own: The Canon 100/2.8 Macro, the Zeiss 100/2 Makro Planar and the Zeiss 50/2 Makro Planar. I could take some shots with the Canon and after some PP adjustments I could post it in the Zeiss thread and nobody would notice a thing. At the same time I could take shots with the 100 MP where nobody could ever mistake it for the Canon 100. It really does have a unique signature in certain situations. The Canon 100L could for instance never create bokeh like this:
http://peltarion.eu/img/zeiss/zeiss100-249.jpg
I own both lenses so there is no ego involved - the decision to buy them were mine and I have no reason to prefer one over the other.
Or do I? One could claim for instance that I have become an uncritical Zeiss fanboy. That is a fair point but I can argue against that quite easily - I don't like all Zeiss glass equally. I by far prefer my 35/1.4 to my 35/2 for instance. I also prefer my Rokkor 58/1.2 to several Zeiss lenses. Or if we go into the subject of '3D' I can state that I with the 100 MP can get proper 3D at small apertures while I have much more difficulties in getting there with the 50 MP and so on.
Could I have come to these conclusions after a couple of days of owning them? Definitely not. It took me quite a while to learn them. The 100 MP in particular is a very complex lens that alters its rendering style at different focusing distances and apertures. Of course it's better to try a lens even for a short while before buying but if you are going to take somebody else's advice on a lens it's good if that person has a long experience with it and is relatively free of bias. My trigger for getting a new lens is usually seeing photos with a certain look that attracts me - reviews be damned
Interesting, and again, somewhat unexpected. From the tap shots, I find that A has most 3D, and from the chess shot, B.
Agreed.
Oct 10, 2010 at 12:52 PM
p.3 #16Another useless comparison - 100mm
But remember when you say "The Canon 100L could for instance never create bokeh like this"
The Canon lens is a f/2,8 lens but the others are f/2 lenses
The Canon lens is a f/2,8 lens but the others are f/2 lenses
Oct 10, 2010 at 01:38 PM
p.3 #17Another useless comparison - 100mm
Okay, it is 9 o'clock, not 10, but I am getting keen to move on in the discussion here, so I will post the answers now.
Anyone who doesn't want to read the answers, don't read the bit in the middle of the dots. Just squint, move past it, and continue reading below (although I am guessing there may be more spoilers there).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF.2
B: Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI-S
C: Hasselblad (Zeiss) 110mm f/2
I have seen some negative comments about the Hasselblad, and I have a couple of comments about that. First of all, this is the medium format version of the C/Y 100/2, and is a very similar formulation. It may be optimised for portraits rather than sharpness. In general, because of the small negative (these were designed in film days), 135 lenses were optimized for sharpness and contrast, at the loss of some other factors, whereas medium format lenses were more often designed for the overall beauty of the rendering, sharpness being left to the large negative to take care of.
I have found the Hasselblad quite sharp (although not exceptionally so) in my use, and its rendering is sublime. After a bit of experimentation, I have determined that these properties don't really come across well on my D3, so I will keep it for medium format, or maybe the occasional portrait on the D3, for variety. After theSuede's comment that the lens might be decentered, I might send it away to give it a tuneup. It is old enough and I like it enough that this is a worthwhile decision anyway. It also has the best hood of the lot, square and easy to use, and much better lens caps than the 100MP (like every other bloody lens cap in the world, what is Zeiss thinking, keeping the design unchanged for so long
). I used a Fotodiox Pro adapter, by the way.
The 100MP belongs to Bernhard, but he is considering a sale, and I would buy it. It is much closer to *my* focal length than his. From the first moment I put this on the camera, I really loved it. After seeing how hard a fight my 105 AI-S put up (what an amazing lens), I hesitate, but the 100MP still has some very strong features to make it worth the high price: 1:2 macro, better micro-contrast, a better hood, nicer focusing, much easier to focus than Nikkor and Hasselblad (more contrast in viewfinder), better balance on the bulky D3, auto aperture. The near focusing limit on the 105 AI-S is also a fairly large 1m or so, which already previously annoyed me. The 105 is great though, and I think that rather than selling it, like I was planning, I will keep it for the odd occasion when the 100MP is too large or heavy.
The "twist" I referred to earlier was that for the tap shot, I was pi$$sed off with always shooting the two great Zeiss lenses at f/2.4, and switched to wide open.
Some answers to previous questions:
s23chang: I prefer the 100MP, although the AI-S is astoundingly good for its price and age, and the Hasselblad is charming in its rendering. No loser here.
Oleg Afonin: yes, the 100MP has a strange depth of field thing going. It is almost as if it has an expanded sharp area around the focus distance, followed by a sudden drop to unsharp, but still with a tight blur, and then keeps this tight blur for quite a while. In the chess crop, you can see that the 105 AI-S has more depth of field around the queen's head, but that the blur on the background piece is still greater than on the 100MP. Weird and fascinating. This is the "interesting" observation I alluded to later.
abhijeeth: yes, you recognized your lens
hiepphotog: I guess you are a fan of a more classical rendering, i.e. a softer look (but not unsharp; the Hasselblad is not unsharp, it just has less contrast; look at the leaf crop!).
Lars Johnsson: I still don't know why you want me to throw away my Nikkor Great performance for such a cheap, old little lens. Btw, your girlfriend got 2/3 lenses. You know what Meat Loaf says about that
gpop: posting crops from each lens at minimum distance would have revealed two of the lenses immediately, the 100MP and the Nikkor. Too easy.
Jman13: your favorite lens is the cheapest, and a great one. Go get it
AhamB: Yes, the 100MP really pulled away from the crowd in the faucet shot. Although it was shot at f/2, the depth of field at the point of focus was sufficient for it to be sharper in a greater region than the 105. I wouldn't have thought it possible. Physics is wonderful. (this is again the "interesting" comment.)
wickerprints: all these lenses can be used on a Canon system, if that is what you have, the 100MP natively. I also don't agree that the 105 is the sharpest, but it did do really well considering its age.
pmcmanis: I guess you weren't thinking of the Hasselblad 110/2 when you said that It is a different lens, and few people know it.
s23chang again: Some interesting justification for thinking that I was using a medium format lens. I think I didn't quite get the logic on all four though. I also think you probably saw my comment in another thread or looked in my profile
theSuede: I would love to hear what might be wrong with my 110/2. I think I will look for a service centre. I like the lens enough to get a tuneup, even if there is nothing wrong.
denoir: a very classy post, and you pretty much nailed it, except the 110/2, which was tricky, I admit, especially for someone doesn't know it, nor the C/Y 100/2.
s23chang yet again: I am not far enough south in Germany to benefit from Oktoberfest Bayern, really (Bavaria).
sebboh: Yes, it takes longer to really know a lens. These shots were unprocessed. I guess in the hands of denoir, the 100MP would have become more obvious (apart from his script's weakness with 12MP cameras
) Still, I hope you could see *something* of the character of the lenses in these shots. I could. I think.
denoir again: I was surprised that the 105 clearly out-3D'ed the 100MP on the chess shot. Wacky world.
denoir again again: I would call you a Zeiss fanboy, but not an uncritical one. You need to see what Leica lenses can do in your hands, and I guess you would then be a dual fanboy The 100MP is definitely complex. Its DoF behaviour is unlike anything else I have seen.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Anyone who doesn't want to read the answers, don't read the bit in the middle of the dots. Just squint, move past it, and continue reading below (although I am guessing there may be more spoilers there).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A: Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF.2
B: Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI-S
C: Hasselblad (Zeiss) 110mm f/2
I have seen some negative comments about the Hasselblad, and I have a couple of comments about that. First of all, this is the medium format version of the C/Y 100/2, and is a very similar formulation. It may be optimised for portraits rather than sharpness. In general, because of the small negative (these were designed in film days), 135 lenses were optimized for sharpness and contrast, at the loss of some other factors, whereas medium format lenses were more often designed for the overall beauty of the rendering, sharpness being left to the large negative to take care of.
I have found the Hasselblad quite sharp (although not exceptionally so) in my use, and its rendering is sublime. After a bit of experimentation, I have determined that these properties don't really come across well on my D3, so I will keep it for medium format, or maybe the occasional portrait on the D3, for variety. After theSuede's comment that the lens might be decentered, I might send it away to give it a tuneup. It is old enough and I like it enough that this is a worthwhile decision anyway. It also has the best hood of the lot, square and easy to use, and much better lens caps than the 100MP (like every other bloody lens cap in the world, what is Zeiss thinking, keeping the design unchanged for so long
). I used a Fotodiox Pro adapter, by the way.The 100MP belongs to Bernhard, but he is considering a sale, and I would buy it. It is much closer to *my* focal length than his. From the first moment I put this on the camera, I really loved it. After seeing how hard a fight my 105 AI-S put up (what an amazing lens), I hesitate, but the 100MP still has some very strong features to make it worth the high price: 1:2 macro, better micro-contrast, a better hood, nicer focusing, much easier to focus than Nikkor and Hasselblad (more contrast in viewfinder), better balance on the bulky D3, auto aperture. The near focusing limit on the 105 AI-S is also a fairly large 1m or so, which already previously annoyed me. The 105 is great though, and I think that rather than selling it, like I was planning, I will keep it for the odd occasion when the 100MP is too large or heavy.
The "twist" I referred to earlier was that for the tap shot, I was pi$$sed off with always shooting the two great Zeiss lenses at f/2.4, and switched to wide open.
Some answers to previous questions:
s23chang: I prefer the 100MP, although the AI-S is astoundingly good for its price and age, and the Hasselblad is charming in its rendering. No loser here.
Oleg Afonin: yes, the 100MP has a strange depth of field thing going. It is almost as if it has an expanded sharp area around the focus distance, followed by a sudden drop to unsharp, but still with a tight blur, and then keeps this tight blur for quite a while. In the chess crop, you can see that the 105 AI-S has more depth of field around the queen's head, but that the blur on the background piece is still greater than on the 100MP. Weird and fascinating. This is the "interesting" observation I alluded to later.
abhijeeth: yes, you recognized your lens
hiepphotog: I guess you are a fan of a more classical rendering, i.e. a softer look (but not unsharp; the Hasselblad is not unsharp, it just has less contrast; look at the leaf crop!).
Lars Johnsson: I still don't know why you want me to throw away my Nikkor
Great performance for such a cheap, old little lens. Btw, your girlfriend got 2/3 lenses. You know what Meat Loaf says about that gpop: posting crops from each lens at minimum distance would have revealed two of the lenses immediately, the 100MP and the Nikkor. Too easy.
Jman13: your favorite lens is the cheapest, and a great one. Go get it
AhamB: Yes, the 100MP really pulled away from the crowd in the faucet shot. Although it was shot at f/2, the depth of field at the point of focus was sufficient for it to be sharper in a greater region than the 105. I wouldn't have thought it possible. Physics is wonderful. (this is again the "interesting" comment.)
wickerprints: all these lenses can be used on a Canon system, if that is what you have, the 100MP natively. I also don't agree that the 105 is the sharpest, but it did do really well considering its age.
pmcmanis: I guess you weren't thinking of the Hasselblad 110/2 when you said that
It is a different lens, and few people know it.s23chang again: Some interesting justification for thinking that I was using a medium format lens. I think I didn't quite get the logic on all four though. I also think you probably saw my comment in another thread or looked in my profile
theSuede: I would love to hear what might be wrong with my 110/2. I think I will look for a service centre. I like the lens enough to get a tuneup, even if there is nothing wrong.
denoir: a very classy post, and you pretty much nailed it, except the 110/2, which was tricky, I admit, especially for someone doesn't know it, nor the C/Y 100/2.
s23chang yet again: I am not far enough south in Germany to benefit from Oktoberfest
Bayern, really (Bavaria).sebboh: Yes, it takes longer to really know a lens. These shots were unprocessed. I guess in the hands of denoir, the 100MP would have become more obvious (apart from his script's weakness with 12MP cameras
) Still, I hope you could see *something* of the character of the lenses in these shots. I could. I think.denoir again: I was surprised that the 105 clearly out-3D'ed the 100MP on the chess shot. Wacky world.
denoir again again: I would call you a Zeiss fanboy, but not an uncritical one. You need to see what Leica lenses can do in your hands, and I guess you would then be a dual fanboy
The 100MP is definitely complex. Its DoF behaviour is unlike anything else I have seen..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oct 10, 2010 at 01:39 PM
p.3 #18Another useless comparison - 100mm
Yes I told you to throw away your B lens
Oct 10, 2010 at 01:42 PM