It seems that you're both making a case that's already been admitted: e.g., I said “
the Zeiss 135mm f/2 Apo Sonnar is a much sharper, much more color-corrected lens than the Zeiss 100mm Macro,” and, “
the Voigtländer 125 Apo Macro is better than the Zeiss Macro in pretty much every way (esp. in color-correctedness + the fact the Voigtländer is a true 1:1 macro whereas the Zeiss 100 is only 1:2).”
However, compared
to other macros the Zeiss 100 rates pretty high. The truth is,
most macro lenses are of very poor quality compared to telephotos (Oti, etc.). Therefore, I think the Zeiss Makro Planar achieved 'legendary status,' in comparison to
other macros (Canon's, Nikon's, Sigma's, Tamron's), but it certainly doesn't stand up to what a lens connoisseur needs. The figures above pretty much show the Zeiss Makro's weakness in the CA area (compared to the finest lenses). Sharpness and bokeh-wise, the Zeiss is superior to the standard macros. The Voigtländer Apo macro is essentially a Zeiss macro ... with better color-correction and even creamier bokeh ...
and it is a true 1:1.
I think Michael has gotten a little spoiled, since purchasing the Zeiss 135 and Oti lenses. I remember when,
in his eBook, Michael said of the Voigtländer:
- “I could write a book about this lens, but I will spare you. The CV-125 is, hands down, the best macro lens I own and I use it all the time, even though I have a shelf full of some of the best macro lenses in the world at the ready. It has no major negatives. It is very fast, very sharp, focuses close, reproduced to 1:1, has 9 blades (great bokeh) – the works. If I want to complain, it is on the heavy side, but I am always happy to carry this piece of glass in the field.
...
“Despite all the good qualities, probably the features that set this lens apart from other fine macro lenses are the fact that it is truly apochromatic (APO) and has such exceptional bokeh (lovely out-of-focus blur in the background). Of course, IMO, I would add that it has a 'magic' quality that words can’t express and a very-long focus throw that makes macros and stacked-photos so very easy. I find it very stable when it comes to handling various types of light in the same frame, like shade with rays of sunlight. This is a real workhorse and I have used mine day in and day out for years. It focuses to 1:1 and lets you get very close in on your subjects. A feature not often mentioned about this lens is that it is also very sharp at mid-range and even at landscape distances. This is the little lens that could and it does. If you ever find one, buy it. You will never be sorry.”
I 100% agree with Michael's assessment. Adding this lens has been
a huge bonus for me and my needs, especially when I bring 2 cameras with me.
I can't say anything remotely close to this about the Zeiss. In fact, I also agreed with Michael's assessment of the Zeiss lens, too, particularly where he says, “
It is perfect, but is not the easiest to use. It has a great focus-throw, but a not-so-great minimum close-focus distance of 2.62' (.80m), which is a ways back.” These facts were the deal-breakers.
My own findings were, while the Zeiss 135 was sharp, and is nicely-corrected, my Nikkor 300mm is
even sharper ... and it's
better-corrected. So what do I need the Zeiss for? Macro? Nope again. Doesn't do it here either. As a macro lens, the Zeiss 135mm is a crippled option compared to the
absolutely useful Voigtländer IMO. At best, in instances of 1:4 or greater, the Zeiss 135mm would produce
slightly-better images than my Voigtländer ... but not as good as my Nikon 300.
Sorry, but I am just not willing to carry an extra (fragile) 2lb barbell plate at my hip for a 1:4 to 1:8 magnification window, after which my 300mm blows it away.
For anything over 1:4, so does the CV 125. At 1:2 or 1:1, no 'crop' from the Zeiss 135mm is going to equal full-frame capture with the Voigtländer.
Beyond 1:4, I can get anything the Zeiss could get with my 300mm.
While the Zeiss 135 is a delightful lens,
its usefulness was very limited, given what I already have.
Now if I were only shooting flowers and plants in my studio, or in garden, and wasn't carrying a whole bunch of gear already, then maybe selecting the Zeiss 135 Apo would be a real treat, ideal actually.
Flowers and whole plants are actually the perfect subjects for this lens (as would portraits). But as an unnecessary extra for wildlife? Mmm, not so much.
My two existing lenses, the 300 mm and the 125 CV, form
a great team for
my purposes.
The Zeiss 135 was an added 2 lb of weight that didn't do a thing for me that I could do already.
And it was
not good enough to stand on its own right, taken on a hike by itself.
I can go out with my 300mm, by itself, and have a great, well-rounded day. (Would miss virtually nothing.)
I can go out with my 125mm macro, by itself, and do the same (Would miss birds, only).
Yet I would miss every bird with the 135 ... and I would
wish I had the CV 125, 8x out of 10, on virtually every macro opportunity.
This is not an indictment of the Zeiss' quality, but of
its usefulness as a field lens.
There is no 135mm on the planet that is as useful as the Voigtländer 125mm Apo macro, and that's precisely because of its ability to get up close and go 1:1.
Michael may have cooled down on Voigtländer, but I sure haven't.
As Michael admits, when he was leading field explorations, he wanted "all purpose" lenses.
I would bet a hundred dollars to a penny, that is Michael went on an all-day hike in the mountains, he would leave the Zeiss 135 at home, and would bring the CV 125
At the end of the day, no one is going to see a well-composed, well-taken shot from the Voigtländer 125 macro and not like it.
It does everything the Zeiss 135mm can do, and a whole helluva lot more that the Zeiss cannot do.
It doesn't have to be the best damned lens in the universe ... it just has to be damned good ... and the CV 125 most assuredly is that
Cheers.
