Who did replace 85L + 100L with Zeiss 100 MP f/2 ?

I'm thinking about replacing my 85L and 100L with one Zeiss 100 MP f/2 for

- better micro contrast / rendering
- more sharpness
- as one solution for both purpose (macro + portrait)

I know, both does have AF system, but I notice myself that I don't use really the AF for portrait shooting. With MF I'm making better pictures than I trust the AF to focus the eyes for example.

For macro shooting I don't need AF.

And I'm lovely landscape photograph and I think, I'll get huge improvement with the Zeiss.

Am I right with my assumptions?

Thanks!
Fabian

Not sure how one of the best portrait lenses available is disappointing you?

are your clients coming to you with 85L images asking for them to be sharper and have more microcontrast?

Welcome to the forum. Glad to hear you can handle MF. You'll start a storm here if you mention selling the 85L and 100L. ZE 100 is great. However, I gold my copy when I got my Leica R 100/2.8 APO macro lens. In the running as the best macro lens ever made.

No, please don't get me wrong. I love both lenses, they are so great. 85L is so special and I like it. I just want to have only one lens for both purposes: macro AND portrait.

The Zeiss seems to be born for both purposes. Am I right that I will get additional improvements like image quality (sharpness, bokeh, color rendering, bokeh transition and micro contrast) with the Zeiss solution? Or do I expect too much?

Why not rent the ZE for a week and do your own side by side testing? ZE does have some CA. Leica APO none ever. But my best portrait lens is not the Leica macro.

Apfelbeisser wrote in post #16883271
And I'm lovely landscape photograph and I think, I'll get huge improvement with the Zeiss.

The zeiss will not be what will make your images "magical". The improvement will not be as huge as you make it sound.

Both 85 and 100 can make amazing images. Both are top of the line.
The 85 has the magical 1.2 and when handled correctly, can give stellar images even wide open. And the 100L's IS is amazing for shooting macro even hand held sometimes.

You want to trade two good tools for another which not necessarily make your images several steps better. And it does fall somewhat into user ability to bring the most out of his gear.

Apfelbeisser wrote in post #16883418
Or do I expect too much?

The zeiss is sharper, and it renders images a bit different (which is very subjective). For pure macro with MF, it will be superior to the 100L. I don't know if twice the price, but it will be. For portrait, I think its much more subjective. Personally, I have yet to see a lens produce as good out of focus as the 85L (But this is also somewhat subjective).

If you aren't using the 85 to its fullest, and you want the zeiss image rendering, than go for it if its the better tool for you. But don't expect your images to be twice or more better. This I think a more wishful thinking, and even if you do replace both for the zeiss, you will feel obliged to tell yourself its vastly better for the sake of thinking you did the right choice. But overall, I don't think its worth both the 85L and 100L. I would more consider replacing the 100L with the zeiss and than see if its a better tool than the 85 for portrait.

Personally, I would not want to lose the IS of the 100L for walk around. And I will not want to lose the quality of the 85 in terms of out of focus quality.

I sold my 85L and kept the Zeiss 100mm f/2 makro. As wonderful as the 85L was, I was much happier with the Zeiss lens. A few years later, I sold the Zeiss 100, but missed it dearly until I got the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO. The Zeiss 135 not only fits each of the three points that you mentioned, but also does not have the chromatic aberrations that are found in the Zeiss 100 makro. Possibly, the Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO is the lens you should be considering.

@Eyal: Did / do you own Zeiss 100mm MP? I know the strenghs of my 85L and 100L and I like it, no, I love it. But I always want to go with only one.

85L cannot macro. 100L has only f/2.8 and wide open it's not really sharp on full frame.

@t60p: Thank you for sharing your experience. 135mm is too much for me. My current lenses are: TS-E 24mm II, Sigma 35mm f/1.4 A, Canon 50mm f/1.2, 85L, 100L and 200L. I need something between 50mm and 200mm and the 100mm fits perfectly in the range IMHO ...

I love my 100L as both a macro lens and a portrait lens.
I have always thought my images were sharp. And since I adjust MFA last week they are even better.
I would say it is the sharpest lens I have, assuming I keep my Shutter Speed fast for handheld.
You stated that it is not sharp wide open on FF, perhaps it needs MFA.
Try using Liveview 10x and manually focusing, then AF and compare the images.
You have a nice collection of primes, I would only consider selling one FL lens for another not two.

Apfelbeisser wrote in post #16883754
I need something between 50mm and 200mm and the 100mm fits perfectly in the range IMHO ...

It sounds like you know exactly what you want and need. I do not think you will be disappointed by the Zeiss 100. When shot wide open, and up close, it truly has some amazing bokeh. At close distances, I felt the bokeh was much smoother and creamier than that of the 85L.

Some people even have mre than one lens per mm.

Apfelbeisser wrote in post #16883754
@Eyal: Did / do you own Zeiss 100mm MP? I know the strenghs of my 85L and 100L and I like it, no, I love it. But I always want to go with only one.

85L cannot macro. 100L has only f/2.8 and wide open it's not really sharp on full frame.

A college of mine owns it.

After playing with it for a couple of days considering replacing the 100L for it, I would say no. I prefer the IS and AF when not doing macro, and its more than sharp enough for macro (I rarely use F/2.8 for macro. Usually F/4-F/11) that its not worth the extra money for replacing it.

Compared to the 85L, it does has great sharpness in the corners compared to the 85L, but as I'm using the 85L for studio work, the colour rendering of the 85L feels a bit better in my eyes and easer to edit. Also the lack of AF, again, also weight on the decision.

Eyal wrote in post #16885174
A college of mine owns it.

After playing with it for a couple of days considering replacing the 100L for it, I would say no. I prefer the IS and AF when not doing macro, and its more than sharp enough for macro (I rarely use F/2.8 for macro. Usually F/4-F/11) that its not worth the extra money for replacing it.

Compared to the 85L, it does has great sharpness in the corners compared to the 85L, but as I'm using the 85L for studio work, the colour rendering of the 85L feels a bit better in my eyes and easer to edit. Also the lack of AF, again, also weight on the decision.

ehhhh the color thing is extremely subjective. On a calibrated monitor, my H25 capturing with a mamiya 110mm F2.8 returns fairly neutral upon capture. I am pretty sure that the H25 has at least a stop of dynamic range on any canon camera to date...

Its all in the processing!

I suppose both the 85L and the 100L have autofocus... I should try and find an autofocus camera again one of these days.

Just be aware that the Zeiss 100 is not 1:1 like the 100L, it only goes to half life size although that may not be too much of a concern.

Bob

Why I'm considering to buy Zeiss, two reasons:

1) Micro contrast

Look at this comparison:

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/91085​6/0

Zeiss looks for me much better than the Canon - especially the micro contrast. I love enjoying to see the details of the subject. I know, I'm talking about extreme high level image quality.

2)

I don't like the bokeh transition of Canon L at f/2.8 - f/4. It's looking somehow too hard.