Canon 100mm Macro IS

[JohnKoerner]

Thanks Jack a lot! but let you know I have just heard that with Zeiss, its difficult to focus near infinity because of small margin between 10m and infinity on the lens barrier. is it true? and is it also true that Zeiss color rendition is different as some claims that is far more beautiful(natural/neutral?)?

Sure thing, Ali, and I honestly don't know about the Zeiss infinity issue.

Regarding color rendition, the color rendition of the newer Canon f/2.8L is among the finest of any Canon lens made today; to quote one reference in this regard: "Color Reproduction: Canon lenses are not necessarily known for rendering the most contrasty images and many of the older lenses mute down colors to some extent, even shifting the palette a little bit (particularly reds). Canon has been improving the quality of its lenses steadily and Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro is probably the best effort the company has made so far."

Regarding resolution, the Canon 100mm L actually scored higher than the Zeiss across the board on APS-C cameras in one test comparison (SLR Lens Review), but fell a bit short when compared on FF cameras on another (Photozone). In the end, however, both lenses have consistently achieved resolution scores so high (on all tests done) that, to our naked eye, both have to be considered simply exceptional. Mention has to be made that Photozone said the Zeiss, in their test, broke their previous resolution record at f/4 ... but the Canon wasn't too far behind either.

Regarding bokeh, again both lenses were excellent, but all of tests favored the effects of the Canon, which produced noticeably smoother and more circular effects than the Zeiss, In fact, many reviewers have remarked that the Canon rendered the best bokeh seen of any lens tested.

All tests favor the Zeiss' build quality.

All tests fault the Zeiss for lack of true 1:1 and AF.

In the end, I think what choice is best boils down to the personal considerations outlined in the previous post I made. I know I am very happy with the colors (and almost everything else) I am getting with my Canon. But I also know that someday I am going to add the Zeiss to my arsenal, specifically for the superior MF.

However, that said, if I had to buy just "one" of the two lenses all over again it would be the Canon. It has too many advantages, at too good a price, to ignore ... while the Zeiss has too many limitations, at too high a price, to ignore. Again, at least for my purposes.

Take care,

Jack



.

[alifatemi]

very good round up Jack, thanks. I think I will stay with Canon then. the only reason I was about to buy the Zeiss was because I thought zeiss might have different color rendition that is specifically belongs to this company and different from Canon, maybe one can define it more natural or more alive or maybe sweeter! thanks anyhow...

[NigelC]

Sorry this not a direct reply to your question but a question of my own to those who will hopefully give you a useful response.

I had my brand new 100 macro IS stolen while on holiday; in the short time I had I noted one irritating characteristic which may have been a fault. When the AF was set on full focusing  range, if it autofocused on a very close object it then refused to focus at all on a distant object, until "helped" by a manual twist of the focusing ring. 

BTW it seemed very sharp - just noticeable better than my 70-200F4 IS at f4 and definitely better, I thought, than 50/2.5 macro.

[Canon Bob]

...... in the short time I had I noted one irritating characteristic which may have been a fault. When the AF was set on full focusing  range, if it autofocused on a very close object it then refused to focus at all on a distant object, until "helped" by a manual twist of the focusing ring. 

I've just tested this on mine (using a 1DMkIII body) and can see what you mean although it doesn't happen in all circumstances.
Focussed at MFD and then attempting to refocus on leaf covered trees about 100m away results in the focus search moving out to about 1m and then returning to MFD. If the focus ring was already around 1m then the trees snap into focus normally.
If I repeat the operation using a high contrast subject in the distance (to replace the leafy trees) then it works fine from either initial focus setting.

Bob

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

When the AF was set on full focusing  range, if it autofocused on a very close object it then refused to focus at all on a distant object, until "helped" by a manual twist of the focusing ring.

Hi Nigel,

I hadn't noticed it with my lens, maybe the local bugs are too slow making their escape. So I just tried on my 1Ds3, close/minimum focus distance and then infinity focus, full range AF (both single shot and AI). No problems, even when focusing on low contrast puffy clouds, although it takes approx. 1 second to cover that distance. Mind you, the 1Ds3 offers a number of AF related Custom Functions, so things may be different at other settings than mine.

Cheers,
Bart

[JohnKoerner]

Sorry this not a direct reply to your question but a question of my own to those who will hopefully give you a useful response.
I had my brand new 100 macro IS stolen while on holiday; in the short time I had I noted one irritating characteristic which may have been a fault. When the AF was set on full focusing  range, if it autofocused on a very close object it then refused to focus at all on a distant object, until "helped" by a manual twist of the focusing ring. 
BTW it seemed very sharp - just noticeable better than my 70-200F4 IS at f4 and definitely better, I thought, than 50/2.5 macro.

This has happened to me too, on occasion, almost invariably (for example) when in thick foliage ... where prominent branches/objects are layered in back of each other ... the camera sometimes can't "decide" what you're trying to focus on. I don't believe there is any AF system that can do this, really ... "decide" what to focus on if there are many clear-cut objects in a visual field at different depth levels. The camera simply has no way to know, which is why I seldom set mine to "full-focusing" range.

But when in situations like that, I either "help" the lens (as you suggest), but more often I simply use MF ... or else I re-compose the shot entirely to where the focus dots don't have so much "confusion" behind them ... which generally leads to a better shot anyway.

Jack

[NigelC]

Hi Nigel,

I hadn't noticed it with my lens, maybe the local bugs are too slow making their escape. So I just tried on my 1Ds3, close/minimum focus distance and then infinity focus, full range AF (both single shot and AI). No problems, even when focusing on low contrast puffy clouds, although it takes approx. 1 second to cover that distance. Mind you, the 1Ds3 offers a number of AF related Custom Functions, so things may be different at other settings than mine.

Cheers,
Bart

I hadn't thought of that -  maybe the characteristic I noticed doesn't occur so much with more sophisticated 1d/1Ds AF - however in real life its not a huge issue. Thought I would also mention that my now departed copy had a bit of red fringing in one part of an image (sharp corner in bright light) which didn't entirely disappear when stopped down (which the 70-200F4IS doesn't at 100mm, same subject, same aperture)

[larryg]

Just curious/confused   IS  is Image Stabilization    How would this aid in quicker focus?   I could mayb see IS for macro (hand held) at lower exposure speeds

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Just curious/confused   IS  is Image Stabilization    How would this aid in quicker focus?   I could mayb see IS for macro (hand held) at lower exposure speeds

When the projected image is moving, its contrast is usually lower (depends on the direction of movement versus the direction of the AF sensor row). Lower (phase) contrast will be harder to get a focus fix on.

Cheers,
Bart