The zeiss seemed to stand out a bit more on the photozone.de tests,
it really put in some insane numbers there and none of the other macros could touch it.
the canon L does seem to score pretty well though and holds up better stopped down a bunch compared to some of the other macros (i wonder if at say f/18 some actually hold up better for a given DOF or whether or not the DOF and true aperture delivered vary from lens to lens a bit?)
the 100L looked better than the 100 non-L on the DPR
the zeiss has a steep price though almost double the already steep 100L and no AF or IS
I saw some real world test photos taken with zeiss 21mm and canon 24 1.4 II and I was surprised that the zeiss really did have something about it (but not all zeiss do since the contax 50 1.4 i tried honestly seemed no different than my canon 50 1.4)
The zeiss seemed to stand out a bit more on the photozone.de tests,
it really put in some insane numbers there and none of the other macros could touch it.
the canon L does seem to score pretty well though and holds up better stopped down a bunch compared to some of the other macros (i wonder if at say f/18 some actually hold up better for a given DOF or whether or not the DOF and true aperture delivered vary from lens to lens a bit?)
the 100L looked better than the 100 non-L on the DPR
the zeiss has a steep price though almost double the already steep 100L and no AF or IS
Jun 04, 2011 at 05:41 PM
Previous versions of skibum5's message #9647217 « Digital-Picture review ZE 100 MP lens »
