CANON / NIKON / ZEISS

[JohnKoerner]

I have read as many reviews as I could comparing the 100mm Canon macro lens capabilities with the 105mm Nikon equivalent. Both lenses have courted high marks from both amateur users and professional users alike, with perhaps a slight edge leaning toward Canon (especially when considering the price).

However, I would notice from time-to-time reference made by some reviewer that neither lens could in any way compare to the Zeiss 100mm equivalent. So I checked on the Zeiss equivalent and noted that it was 3x as expensive as the Canon and twice as expensive as the Nikon(!):


CANON: Telephoto EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro - $490
NIKON: AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED - $760
ZEISS: Macro 100mm f/2 ZF Makro-Planar T* MF - $1,582


Yet what I also noted was that every single reviewer, down to the last, heralded the Zeiss macro lens as "legendary," "unparalleled," etc.---and many of these were pros who claimed to have over 80 different lenses of various kinds. There was no dissention. Everybody seemed to be floored by the Zeiss 100mm macro lens compared to either Canon or Nikon's offerings (both of which are reputed to be good).

So I guess my question is, to anyone who has compared all 3 (or at least one or the other) to the Zeiss ... is the Zeiss really that good? Is it really worth 3x as much as the Canon and twice the Nikon?

Macro is what I truly enjoy, and so in this ever-changing body world, the lens is going to be my most important consideration. With that said, would those of you who have compared these lenses agree that the Zeiss is worth the money hands down, or is it really not all that much better (if at all)?

Thanks for any insight,

Jack




.

[Chris_Brown]

So I guess my question is, to anyone who has compared all 3 (or at least one or the other) to the Zeiss ... is the Zeiss really that good? Is it really worth 3x as much as the Canon and twice the Nikon?

John, we elect you to rent each lens here (or from another supplier if you so wish) and write up the full review.  

[NashvilleMike]

So I guess my question is, to anyone who has compared all 3 (or at least one or the other) to the Zeiss ... is the Zeiss really that good? Is it really worth 3x as much as the Canon and twice the Nikon?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It's one hell of a lens - absolutely no doubt.

I'm not typically a huge Zeiss fan - and there are a lot of serious Zeiss fanboys who get really snobby about Zeiss glass out there in web-land, but even I have to admit they knocked one out of the ballpark with the 100/2 Makro Planar. It still has some of the Zeiss-family rendering characteristics that keep me from calling it the best lens ever, but it is bloody sharp and seperates details out of similar tones like you haven't seen.The comparisons I've seen between it and the Nikon/Canon offerings indicate it's simply in a different league. The only way I could begin to describe it is like the difference between an exotic prime (say a 200/2) and the 200mm end of a really good pro 2.8 zoom - both are quite good, but the exotic prime simply has a magic about it that seperates itself from the pack and is the reason you pay all that money.

The best way to evaluate them yourself if you can't rent one (and they probably aren't easy to find for renting) is probably to pay up and purchase Lloyd Chambers Zeiss ZF review. Yea - it's a bit expensive (I think) and Lloyd is a very opinionated guy who does have a bit of Zeiss snobbery in his writings, but in that review he does provide full size samples and comparisons to the Nikon and Canon offerings, and let's face it - while he has a bias just like honestly most of us, also is one of the rare guys who shoots both systems (D3 and 1dsmk-III) and there's enough imagery at full size and comparisons between lenses in there for you to get a pretty good idea of how the lens performs, and then YOU can decide for yourself if it's your cup of tea or not instead of reading what's on the internet.

That's pretty much the route I took - I just needed to see some well done full size images from their entire line to make some decisions about the Zeiss lenses in general, and while I'm not likely to be interested in much of what Zeiss has, I have to say that 100/2 Makro Planar is on my "get someday" list, probably once we figure out in the states if the economy is going to stabilize or tank...

-m

[JohnKoerner]

John, we elect you to rent each lens here (or from another supplier if you so wish) and write up the full review. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I am not qualified to give a review, but even in your rental offering I noticed the following language about the Zeiss:

The Zeiss 100 Makro Planar has for many years been considered the sharpest prime lens made(!!!), and is now available in Nikon mount. Ridiculously expensive, and worth it, the 100 is frequently used as a long landscape and portrait lens, as well as a Macro lens.

So even though you didn't really answer my question, in a way you most definitely did

So thank you for that link

It's one hell of a lens - absolutely no doubt.

I'm not typically a huge Zeiss fan - and there are a lot of serious Zeiss fanboys who get really snobby about Zeiss glass out there in web-land, but even I have to admit they knocked one out of the ballpark with the 100/2 Makro Planar. It still has some of the Zeiss-family rendering characteristics that keep me from calling it the best lens ever, but it is bloody sharp and seperates details out of similar tones like you haven't seen.The comparisons I've seen between it and the Nikon/Canon offerings indicate it's simply in a different league. The only way I could begin to describe it is like the difference between an exotic prime (say a 200/2) and the 200mm end of a really good pro 2.8 zoom - both are quite good, but the exotic prime simply has a magic about it that seperates itself from the pack and is the reason you pay all that money.

The best way to evaluate them yourself if you can't rent one (and they probably aren't easy to find for renting) is probably to pay up and purchase Lloyd Chambers Zeiss ZF review. Yea - it's a bit expensive (I think) and Lloyd is a very opinionated guy who does have a bit of Zeiss snobbery in his writings, but in that review he does provide full size samples and comparisons to the Nikon and Canon offerings, and let's face it - while he has a bias just like honestly most of us, also is one of the rare guys who shoots both systems (D3 and 1dsmk-III) and there's enough imagery at full size and comparisons between lenses in there for you to get a pretty good idea of how the lens performs, and then YOU can decide for yourself if it's your cup of tea or not instead of reading what's on the internet.

That's pretty much the route I took - I just needed to see some well done full size images from their entire line to make some decisions about the Zeiss lenses in general, and while I'm not likely to be interested in much of what Zeiss has, I have to say that 100/2 Makro Planar is on my "get someday" list, probably once we figure out in the states if the economy is going to stabilize or tank...

-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you for your thoughtful post Mike!

Jack



.

[stever]

lensrentals.com now has Nikon - Canon adapters available as well as the Zeiss 100

Lloyd's comparison of the Zeiss to Canon is not as definitive as i'd like as he discovered after the test that the Canon was off a bit

[Chris_Brown]

So even though you didn't really answer my question, in a way you most definitely did.
So thank you for that link.

Although I was being tongue-in-cheek with my post, the reality of using places like LensRentals.com is that you can stop wondering about almost any lens and rent one. The process of discovery, trial & error, along with a healthy quantity of files will give you more insight than any review, especially with regards to your personal shooting style.

For about $200 you can rent all three lenses for a week and get yourself a definitive answer.

[tetsuo77]

Look at "inhouse".

Surprise, surprise:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml

By Mike Johnston.

Eventually, the milestone reference for Popphoto when doing the MTF tests has been, for quite some time, the FA 43/1.9 ltd. The aim of this lens is resolution no matter what.

MTF: 2422/2244 [photozone.de, though, you can not cross compare resolution results between diferent systems].


Which is a very, very remarkable performance [it is not a macro, though, and suffers from resolution falloff at wide apertures].


As far as I know, the previos FA100 Macro works pretty well [a metal tank], though is not as extremely sharp as the 43.

Cosina also does the "oh-so-hard-to-get" Voigtlander branded macros [though not as fast], very highly regarded as well.

Thing is: take the one that suits you best, [Cosina Zeiss is a Manual Focus lens] rather than the sharpest one.

And dig yourself deeper in LL archives.

[tony Rosca]

[Hi Jack,
I used The Zeiss and the Canon lenses and I didn't saw to big of a difference there in close ups shots. If you'll try a portrait or landscape shot Zeiss reigns. But at max magnification it is not to much of a difference. Also I saw some images done with a Tokina macro lens ( i believe 90mm macro) which were very impressive and the same quality. I read that at high magnification all the lenses are very sharp
You should try Canon MP-E 65 mm f2.8 1-5x Macro and you'll be hooked. It is expensive -800$  but it is more fun than other ones.

[JohnKoerner]

Thanks for the replies.

Tony, that is one reason why I am adverse from leaving the Canon family: nobody else has an answer the Canon MP-E 65 mm ...



.