The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Zeiss 100mm
- Thread starter KurtKamka
- Start date
I got the loaner (brand new) ZF100 on Friday and the 13mm microprism brightscreen today.
So, I have been playing with the ZF100 in comparison to my Nikon 105 VR.
First the screen makes focussing much easier and does interfere with the Autofocus at all.
Both lenses are absolutely GREAT.
I did find the ZF to focus very smoothly but also it was very heavily weighted. This was fine for the fine adjustment at close focus, but was much heavier than my other ZF lenses.
Size advantage and construction go to the Zeiss.
Flare resistance seemed basically equal.
Ease of focusing would definitely go to the Nikon with its fast and accurate AF-S system.
Having VR on a 100 or 105 in Macro use handheld really does improve the usability of the lens.
A 1:1 ratio vs. the 1:2 ratio goes to the Nikon as it is really nice to get to full size.
Color seems very comparable.
IQ seems virtually identical at all apertures and distances.
Both of these were shot at 3.2 aperture and 1/60th of a second. Please look at them first before cheating and checking the exif information. The ZF exif will show 2.8 but was really 3.2 as manual lenses only show full f-stop numbers and not halves.
Give me your opinions on the difference.
So, I have been playing with the ZF100 in comparison to my Nikon 105 VR.
First the screen makes focussing much easier and does interfere with the Autofocus at all.
Both lenses are absolutely GREAT.
I did find the ZF to focus very smoothly but also it was very heavily weighted. This was fine for the fine adjustment at close focus, but was much heavier than my other ZF lenses.
Size advantage and construction go to the Zeiss.
Flare resistance seemed basically equal.
Ease of focusing would definitely go to the Nikon with its fast and accurate AF-S system.
Having VR on a 100 or 105 in Macro use handheld really does improve the usability of the lens.
A 1:1 ratio vs. the 1:2 ratio goes to the Nikon as it is really nice to get to full size.
Color seems very comparable.
IQ seems virtually identical at all apertures and distances.
Both of these were shot at 3.2 aperture and 1/60th of a second. Please look at them first before cheating and checking the exif information. The ZF exif will show 2.8 but was really 3.2 as manual lenses only show full f-stop numbers and not halves.
Give me your opinions on the difference.
Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
I think the top photo is sharper. I am looking at the dog's nose skin and the collar detail. Also, in the crop, there is a lash or hair in the eye that looks crisper in #1.
Guy is going to want that macro lens back.:ROTFL:
Guy is going to want that macro lens back.:ROTFL:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Zeiss is first without looking and only because the full image looks a little more 3D
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
There maybe a extremely small focus shift at play here but hard to tell . I think Cindy is right the top looks sharper on that hair but the bottom one looks sharper in the eye socket . Either way there so darn close it would come down to a coin flip. Try at 10 ft and lets see the bokeh.
I'm not going to look and cheat
I'm not going to look and cheatOk - Here are a couple at about 10ft.
They are in the same lens order as the previous ones. First is 2.8 followed by 5.6 for each lens. Unfortunately, I did these on "A" priority vs. manual so the top two are slightly more exposed than the last two which may account for the slightly darker greens of the last two shots.
Once again, these are very similiar.
Best,
Ray
They are in the same lens order as the previous ones. First is 2.8 followed by 5.6 for each lens. Unfortunately, I did these on "A" priority vs. manual so the top two are slightly more exposed than the last two which may account for the slightly darker greens of the last two shots.
Once again, these are very similiar.
Best,
Ray
Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
I'm still guessing macro top and zeiss bottom. This time my guess is based on the fact the the model is a little more 3-D in the bottom two. I can't judge sharpness on these and bokeh looks similar.
Cindy Flood
Super Moderator
deepdiver,
Very nice. These photos have the pop and nice bokeh, too.
Very nice. These photos have the pop and nice bokeh, too.
Steen
Senior Subscriber Member
Interesting test shots, Ray.
My first guess about the headshot was wrong !
Then I copied the 2 cropped headshots to my harddisk and swapped quickly between them.
At that point I realized that the focus plane of the Zeiss was behind the focus plane of the Nikkor in that image, putting different parts of the dogs face into sharp focus. (Try to swap quickly between the two cropped headshots to see what I mean).
Then I looked at the next two full dog images and I think I see the same factor in play to some extent.
In all the images the Zeiss focus plane seems to me to be behind the focus plane of the Nikkor.
This makes it a bit complicated to make a final judgement.
If I was to choose among them I think I would try to make an even more controlled test setup this time with a static subject and some more slowly changing lighting, if possible to find. And trying to hit exactly the same focus plane.
Or you could just relax and say they are so close that there's no reason to sell the one to get the other.
Besides the Nikkor has the advantages that it is 1:1 and has VR which comes in handy at some situations.
I think I might just keep the Nikkor which obviously is tack sharp and performs very, very well too.
Thanks for posting the test, Ray. Very informative, and good food for some more thoughts.
~ Steen
My first guess about the headshot was wrong !
Then I copied the 2 cropped headshots to my harddisk and swapped quickly between them.
At that point I realized that the focus plane of the Zeiss was behind the focus plane of the Nikkor in that image, putting different parts of the dogs face into sharp focus. (Try to swap quickly between the two cropped headshots to see what I mean).
Then I looked at the next two full dog images and I think I see the same factor in play to some extent.
In all the images the Zeiss focus plane seems to me to be behind the focus plane of the Nikkor.
This makes it a bit complicated to make a final judgement.
If I was to choose among them I think I would try to make an even more controlled test setup this time with a static subject and some more slowly changing lighting, if possible to find. And trying to hit exactly the same focus plane.
Or you could just relax and say they are so close that there's no reason to sell the one to get the other.
Besides the Nikkor has the advantages that it is 1:1 and has VR which comes in handy at some situations.
I think I might just keep the Nikkor which obviously is tack sharp and performs very, very well too.
Thanks for posting the test, Ray. Very informative, and good food for some more thoughts.
~ Steen
Ray,
I noticed you didn't shoot any comparison shots at f/2.
The Nikkor may do 1:1, but the ZF has a one stop advantage.
Worth considering....
David
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I still have the Zeiss as the top image
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
I think you gave away the fact that the Zeiss are the top images. This test shows just how close the renderings have become with the best lenses. The higher contrast of the Zeiss shows up in the highlight in the dogs eye where it improves the picture. However in the full body shots the shadows are blocking up on the Zeiss. My question ....how close could you make these pictures if you tried to process them to a common "best" rendering. When I compare the Nikkor images to Leica glass...I tend to add additional contrast to the Nikon files. These are close without adjustments ..how close could they be with some expert conversions?
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
Folks, on the stiffness q. re. the 100/2 macro, there are variations in samples. Mine is perfect, but (was it robsteve?) sent his back for replacement.
I believe that Zeiss and Leica have four grades of lens grease, with viscosities from light to heavy. My tech guy has set up some of thes lenses with what he calls the "fingernail" grease—this is for sports shooters here using Leica teles: they rest only the tip of one finger on the collar, with the nail in the groove, and follow focus that way. That's light.
I am keeping mine as it is; slightly tighter than the 50/2 macro, but fine for me. cheers, kl
I believe that Zeiss and Leica have four grades of lens grease, with viscosities from light to heavy. My tech guy has set up some of thes lenses with what he calls the "fingernail" grease—this is for sports shooters here using Leica teles: they rest only the tip of one finger on the collar, with the nail in the groove, and follow focus that way. That's light.
I am keeping mine as it is; slightly tighter than the 50/2 macro, but fine for me. cheers, kl
Kit- was moi. I actually returned my 'stick in concrete' ZF sample. Had I been able to try before buying in a shop, I'd still have one.
As an FYI - saw a test like preceding (can't recall where) with lots of shots n' crops comparing the ZF vs. the old 105/2.5 AiS for non-macro work.
You'd be hard pressed, if able, to tell them apart in terms of resolution. Can't recall on bokeh or CA. The 105/2.5 AiS went on my short list immediately after I saw the review.
As an FYI - saw a test like preceding (can't recall where) with lots of shots n' crops comparing the ZF vs. the old 105/2.5 AiS for non-macro work.
You'd be hard pressed, if able, to tell them apart in terms of resolution. Can't recall on bokeh or CA. The 105/2.5 AiS went on my short list immediately after I saw the review.
Guys,
The top shots in both sets are from the Nikon. Yes, I also noticed that the Zeiss was also very slightly rearward of the Nikon in focus plane everytime. However, that does not happen with my ZF 28/2 or my ZF 50/2. This lens may need a slight adjustment, as I believe my camera to be on.
As David mentioned the ZF has a one stop advantage. However, The Nikon goes 1:1, has great AF, and VR. For the very minor if any real difference in IQ and at half the price, I'm going to keep the Nikon.
Best,
Ray
The top shots in both sets are from the Nikon. Yes, I also noticed that the Zeiss was also very slightly rearward of the Nikon in focus plane everytime. However, that does not happen with my ZF 28/2 or my ZF 50/2. This lens may need a slight adjustment, as I believe my camera to be on.
As David mentioned the ZF has a one stop advantage. However, The Nikon goes 1:1, has great AF, and VR. For the very minor if any real difference in IQ and at half the price, I'm going to keep the Nikon.
Best,
Ray
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Damn you stumped me:thumbs: