Jammy - one can say the same about folks who feel that because someone doesn\'t see the merit in paying $$$$$ for a lens they love vs another for a comparable $$. I owned the ZF100, 35/2 twice and the 50/2 ZF. All were nice, but neither macro \'did it\' for me vs comparable lenses I had.
Not all costly lens are what they are built up to be to all people and neither are all bargain lenses a \'bargain\' to everyone else. You may think my M645 80/1.9 is not bargain or you may also have thought my Leica 180/2 APO was over-priced. Such is life. Don\'t see anyone getting \'worked up\' YET (though it sadly does happen more times than not around here, maybe I\'m just getting desensitized to it); just offering differing opinions.
I\'ve also seen that \'reach out and touch it\' 3D in many lenses - some more spendy than your typical ZF/ZE lens and others far cheaper. It does happen more regularly with Zeiss glass, but it\'s not something unique to Zeiss.
OP wisely asked for input on spending an incremental roughly (US pricing) $1500++ not incl. VAT moving from one lens he loves to another he has no experience with. Given the $$/Euro increment, asking for input and getting VARYING input may help alleviate any buyers remorse. He\'s getting those opinions.
------
Matken - we\'ll agree to disagree, but not on all of your points. A lot of folks love the \'Zeiss look\' straight out of camera. Hell, it\'s almost become a cult around here over the last couple of years. Personally, it\'s not a preference of mine - not for all shots in any regard.
But if that look is what you\'re after out of camera, only Zeiss glass will give it to you. I guess, in short, if the 100/2 works you and is worth the $$ you spent, excellent. My not seeing the value for me vs comparable lenses doesn\'t make your opinion any less valid.
Jun 29, 2010 at 02:48 PM
Previous versions of Conner999's message #8614998 « Nikon 105 2.5 vs. Zeiss 100 2.0 »
