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
.