Old Zeiss vs Canon EF 100mm f2.8 USM macro on 350D (pictures included)

<p>Welcome to my post that shows to me a very old used Zeiss is as good as one of Canons best macro lenses <strong>that cost over ten times the price.</strong></p>

<p>I have recently bought a brand new Canon 100mm USM f2.8 macro for my 350D / Rebel from Jacobs here in the UK. Uptill then I was working mainly with an old Zeiss 135mm lens I bought second hand for a bunch of five pound notes many years ago.</p>

<p>Now the macro is supposed to be one onf the best lenses out there but it doesn't seem to be that way in my opinion. <strong>I have limited digital experience so I'm hoping the experienced can tell me whats going on: either a stonking old Zeiss; or an absolute lemon of a new lens </strong>(the only new lens I've ever bought in my life too! ).</p>

<p>For your interest I have uploaded a Photoshop file with two layers exactly overlaid: one from the amazing new canon lens and one from the old Zeiss (all layers are 100% crops apart from the downsized Zeiss layer downsized because its longer focal length gave a tighter image when shot from same tripod position to get equvalent views).</p>

<p><strong>Am I right to question the image quality of the new Canon lens in light of these shots? If thats as good as it gets its a real let down to me anyway.</strong></p>

<p>Same file just another as a backup. A tad under 50mb.<br>

<a href="http://hotfile.com/dl/61006970/dda669a/old_zeiss_vs_new_ef100_macro_2.psd.html">http://hotfile.com/dl/61006970/dda669a/old_zeiss_vs_new_ef100_macro_2.psd.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.megaupload.com/?d=66H8RA5J">http://www.megaupload.com/?d=66H8RA5J</a></p>

<p>Oh and btw if anyone can tell me how I should proceed if they think this lens is a bad example. I spoke to Canon UK today and they didn't suggest anything other than callibration that I had phoned them up about. I got the lens in mid May and my scepticism has been growing ever since but with no experience to call this I've floundered. </p>

 

<p>Oh yes because the file is cropped (trying to keep small files) I should show you something to gauge the actual size of the full sensor image. These are from my My Computer folder. Small orange flower = Canon orange larger flower = Zeiss.</p>

<p><img src="http://img125.imagevenue.com/aAfkjfp01fo1i-19289/loc589/82651_frame_122_589lo.JPG" alt="" width="432" height="288" /></p>

<p>Hope someone can help me out.</p>

<p>50Mb file? Why not just post crops? And anyway, There are plenty of old MF lenses which perform just as good as new AF lenses. If you don't mind shooting without AF (and IS, in some lenses) you could save yourself a small fortune. Nothing new here.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p><em><strong>that cost over ten times the price.</strong></em></p>

<p>Cost and value are not the same.</p>

<p>Is the Zeiss lens a macro? As mentioned, there are older mf lenses that will equal or better current lenses at regular distance photography. The Canon is designed to be sharp throughout the focusing range and is one of the best.</p>

<p>If you have doubts about the lens, sending it to Canon to be checked out and calibrated would be a good idea. It is covered under the new lens warranty.</p>

<p>If your 100mm 2.8 is not blazing sharp it's either a lemon or there's something else going on, because it's a razor sharp lens. If you want the sharpest macro available according to Photozone that would be the Zeiss ZF (ZE) Makro-Planar T* 100mm f/2, which apparently exceeds the resolving power of a 21mp full frame sensor. But it's not a true macro at only 1:2 and it's $1800 instead of $500. The Canon is a brilliant lens by any standard.</p>

<p>They're both very good lenses, Brian, and they're both much better than you'll be able to tell with the camera you're using. I don't know why you would think the Zeiss lens would be a clunker, just because it's old.</p>

<p>FAIW, an old prime lens is not the same as an old zoom lens. Prime lenses have been universally excellent for eons now. Zoom lenses started out really awful and have evolved from there. Now the best zoom lenses are approximately on par with the primes. So if you compare an old zoom with a new zoom, the new zoom will probably put the old zoom to shame. If you compare a new prime and an old prime, the new prime might handle flare a bit better (if the old one is a monocoat lens), but that's going to be about the only difference you'll see. (Assuming similar quality, aperture, etc.)</p>

<p>Brian, I've used Canon 100mm and it was not a bad lens so I think it either user error or a bad lens. But recently I've acquired Voigtlander 125mm APO Lanthar and I can tell you that no other macro lens I've used can come even close to it. It's expensive but worth every penny.</p>

<p>Hi and thanks for all your responses. Ok seems you are put off by the 50Mb file so here are crops from the central point of focus f5.6:<br>

First is to show full sensor pic (ie tightness of crop), next is the 100mm EF macro, next is the 135mm Zeiss (not a macro) resized to that of the 100 macro and last is the Zeiss as it was.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.imagebam.com/image/6aaaf792414187" target="_blank"><img src="http://thumbnails31.imagebam.com/9242/6aaaf792414187.jpg" alt="imagebam.com" /></a> <a href="http://www.imagebam.com/image/9fac3692414190" target="_blank"><img src="http://thumbnails29.imagebam.com/9242/9fac3692414190.jpg" alt="imagebam.com" /></a> <a href="http://www.imagebam.com/image/026ffc92414194" target="_blank"><img src="http://thumbnails25.imagebam.com/9242/026ffc92414194.jpg" alt="imagebam.com" /></a> <a href="http://www.imagebam.com/image/758b8692414198" target="_blank"><img src="http://thumbnails33.imagebam.com/9242/758b8692414198.jpg" alt="imagebam.com" /></a></p>

<p>Hope these stick around longer than the previous pic (isn't showing for me).<br>

I didn't realise old glass could be on par with really old primes but still I'd like a call on the quality of the 100mm macro. <em>(Using this shot because its the only one I doubled up with and am on different PC and UL these from a USB stick I luckily had them on..was going to go this route but thought the PS layers was a better idea :-\ )</em></p>

<p>Hi</p>

<p>Just in case anyone is watching I'd hoped for a bit of a conclusive update. I've been to Jacobs and Calumet in Manchester (UK) and it has been suggested that perhaps my 350D body is to blame.</p>

<p>Thinking back over its history I've had lenses that forward/back focussed. So maybe there is something wrong with the body and not the lens (just put it down to it being my first DSLR and being clueless about what I could expect).</p>

<p>I was hoping by now to have a 550D. The live view will help with back focussing / front focussing lenses if they continue to do so on this new body, but getting one is not so easy with most places sold out. A very popular camera.</p>