Zeiss ZF 100mm makro planar

[frank_bunnik]

Last monday, October 1, I ordered my Zeiss ZF 100mm makro planar from

Popflash.com in California. It was in used, like new condition. It arrived at

my home in the Netherlands on friday, October 5 in pristine condition. It did

not look as if it ever left the box.

 

Now that the US dollar is so cheap, I saved hundreds of euros by buying in the

USA.

 

I tested the lens today a little bit and this is by far the best macro lens I

have ever used. Period. I have used the sigma 105 2.8 , the sigma 150 2.8 ,

the nikon 4.0 200 autofocus ED , the nikon 2,8 55 and the Leica apo macro 2.8

100. This Zeiss beats each of them optically. Mechanically only the Leica was

on par with the nikon 200mm behind that one. I have never seen such luminance

and brilliance. The bokeh is superb. I have just posted a testphoto I made

today on www.flickr.com/photos/asialover

it is not my best ever photo but it serves just as an illustration of my point

(though admittedly 1 photo does not prove that much).

[mike_earussi1]

You should post a direct link to the photo, as your site link is too general.

[ronald_moravec1]

Tony Rose does seem to find marvelous used lenses doesn`t he?

[vivek iyer]

<i>Now that the US dollar is so cheap, I saved hundreds of euros by buying in the USA.</i>

<p>

How much did you spend on the shipping and the customs/vat duties? ;)

[walterh]

Frank keep us posted this lens sounds really attractive, even more than the 50mm macro. If you could take a fly head say a regular hovering fly you find locally and shoot it with the whole range of f-stops. The (ommatidia of the) eye makes for a nice resolution target.

[frank_bunnik]

Here are the links to the 2 photos I have yet published:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover/1500226080/

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/asialover/1499154613/

 

I paid about 1,030.00 euro for the lens including shipping. Shipping was about 51 US dollar and customs did not pick my parcel out so I did not have to pay custom duties. Even when I had paid duties I would still have saved a lot of money however.

[oskar_ojala]

Doesn't look too bad...I've been testing my Hasselblad lenses on my Nikon and found some qualities that I find better in the Zeiss lenses. It would be interesting to see a comprehensive review of this lens, maybe they could send Bjørn one and ask him politely to review it :-)

 

Customs and VAT are quite high (and I don't understand why we should pay customs on older Zeiss lenses that were manufactured in Europe in the first place), but the weak dollar still offsets this. My camera budget is spent for now, but if I would do a work trip to the US, I'd be very tempted in bringing back a significant amount of gear. OTOH, some items are a bit expensive in the US due to demand.

[vivek iyer]

Frank, Those two examples do not seem any different than the other images you have on flickr. What is so special about this 1,000 Euro manual focus lens?

 

You are very lucky that you did not get that lens intercepted/taxed by customs. Perhaps, I should get my gear shipped to your address! :)

[harvey_edelstein1]

Its expensive because its Zeiss and an F2.0 which is fast for a Makro/macro lens.

[vivek iyer]

There was a 90mm f/2 Olympus macro lens.

[jwhite3.0]

KEH has the Zuiko 90mm f/2 for around $800.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

I have spent the last seven years buying & selling Canon FD, Nikkor F, Minolta MD, OM Zuiko and Contax Zeiss lenses as a hobby to fund my photography. In that time I have had probably about 120 Zuiko's and have come to the conclusion they have the worst build quality of all the aforementioned lenses.

 

Ths Zuiko's simply do not stand the test of time as well as any of the other manual focus lenses. They may have great optical quality and 'cutesy' charm and are hard to resist, but I gave up on them for my own use because I could not see the point in buying 'high end' lenses with inferior build, when others were available.

 

cheers Steve.

[frank_bunnik]

I have posted another one at www.flickr.com/photos/asialover. It is the picture called "beautiful eyes".

 

I find the Zeiss photos I have taken so far to have a certain brilliance I have not seen in other lenses. Not even in the Zeiss lenses I used for the Contax slr or G systems.

[harvey_edelstein1]

The way things are going where iso 3200 looks almost noise free as on the D3, lenses one stop faster will not be worth their size and weight penalty or their added cost.

 

For macro usage I would pick up an Tamron 90mm or a Lester Dines 105mm Kiron and save money for a D3.

[vivek iyer]

Harvey, Even if there is fantastic performance at 30,000ISO, there is no replacing a good fast lens.

 

I am pretty sure that the S5's performance is the limiting factor in Frank's pictures.

 

The last picture he points to has all the indications to that effect.

[frank_bunnik]

The S5 delivers all I need so I won't be saving money for a D3. Better buy some excellent lenses. I posted another picture of the child at my flickr page. In both photos the noise reduction in the camera was off and no noise reduction was applied afterwards.

[harvey_edelstein1]

A full frame or 5:4 (30mm x 24mm) sensor version of the sensor in the S5 would be a wonderful evolution of the Fuji line, especially if it were based on an F6 body. It would be around 9mp for a 5:4 and 13mp for a FF.

[oskar_ojala]

<i>The way things are going where iso 3200 looks almost noise free as on the D3, lenses one stop faster will not be worth their size and weight penalty or their added cost.</i>

 

<p>This misses a few basics about photography:

<ol>

<li>Higher sensitivity doesn't make DOF more shallow

<li>Higher sensitivity doesn't make focusing any easier, in particular with macro, life-size with extension will lose 2 stops of light, so having a bright focusing image is very useful. This also applies to low-light shooting.

<li>High sensitivity quality looks great in D3 samples, but it is obviously not as good as low sensitivity quality. Thus, there will still be times when one wants to have a lower sensitivity

<li>Many fast lenses are optimized for large apertures, hence better image quality even when slightly stopped down compared to slower ones.

<li>There will always be more dimly lit places where one needs more speed...

</ol>

 

<p>If the build quality of the Zeiss is anything like that for Hasselblad lenses, then it should really be a long term investment. I hear the Tamron is excellent, but no one has been too thrilled with its build quality. We're talking different animals here.

[feli]

The ZF 100mm is apparently based on a prime lens that Zeiss makes for the movie business.

 

It is an astonishingly sharp and good piece of glass. You really don't want to know how much the movie version of this lens costs.

 

Feli

[walterh]

Oskar nice and clear outline :-)

 

I sold my Nikkor 105mm AFD f2.8 once I got the Tamron because it was not difficult to see that the Tamron was better optically. Nevertheless if built quality is concerned the Nikkor was clearly better. It depends what and how you shoot. If you shoot f16 most of the time the better optical performance of the Tamron is irrelevant because you are diffraction limited anyway. If you want it all - the best optics and best mechanics you have to pay "a little" more. For professional use I could not care less for what the Zeiss will cost more because I need the best available tool. For private use I bought the Tamron and did spend a long time to find a Kiron. At work I can not spend that much time searching the internet I need my time for more productive things. Professionally I rely on Zeiss. In three decades I never experienced any time that Zeiss did not deliver what they promised - even though sometimes it took a bit of convincing. Zeiss can sometimes be a bit arrogant^^.