bluetsunami wrote:
Interestingly the Nikkor 105/2.5 is nearly comparable to the ZE at mid distance and possibly Infinity. Great to see the Oly 100/2 in that group although it seems like its a rare bird.
The ZE 100/2. photos do look like they\'re exposed a smidge more brightly versus the Oly. But even then I was surprised at the detail the Oly picked up up close compared to the ZE. I personally prefer the cooler colors of the Zeiss.
Blue, I sold the Nikkor 105/2.5 (only yesterday as it happens). Are you referring to other tests or meaning the Tokina 100/2.8 here?
I do agree about being surprised about the smallness of the difference between the OM and ZE. As I said earlier, I\'d hoped the ZE would really stand out...that\'s why I saved these months and paid £1000 for it!
(Many more examples with the OM, but not the ZE, in PT 1)
I\'m wondering if the brighter appearance of the ZE is something to do with its cooler colouring, it seems to make it look \"cleaner\" but I\'ve re-checked the histograms and they hardly budge between the OM and the ZE.
The Tokina in that last series are a bit brighter annoyingly and I didn\'t shoot another set. I feel if I try to darken them in pp to equal the OM and ZE, I\'ll probably change other aspects of the appearance, so didn\'t try it. (?)
Sep 10, 2012 at 02:38 PM
Previous versions of timballic's message #10950267 « OM Zuiko 100mm F2 cf. Zeiss ZE Makro Planar 100mm F2 »
