Focusing with Zeiss lenses

argyle wrote in post #10504963
As a matter of fact, you can get a focus-confirm adapter and use it with any of the older fully manual lenses (no auto-aperture). The older lenses (some, not all) are less expensive than the newer lenses, but generally with the same or better IQ. For example, the Contax-Zeiss 28/2.8 is regarded more favorably than the new Zeiss ZE 28/2.8. For about $200 plus a relatively inexpensive adapter, you'll have a smoking lens.

Thanks for the tip about the adapter I will look into this if I can't rent a Zeiss lens.

You can rent them at http://www.lensrentals​.com for those that asked.

Bearmann wrote in post #10507594
You can rent them at http://www.lensrentals​.com for those asked.

I don't live in US so it wouldn't be possible with Lensrentals.com. Going on a trip next month so will see I find any stores here in Europe.

I have a question regarding the 100ZE MP.

I've read a few places that the majority of the focus throw on the ZE100 is for the macro range. But what about outside of that range?

To be more specific, from approx. 1m to infinity (what I will classify as non-macro range), how much rotation is required?

Thanks

Yeah, from 1:2 Macro to 1/2 meter is 1/4 turn, another 1/4 turn gets you to just over 2 meters, another 1/4 turn to 4 meters. The last 1/4 turn takes you to infinity. (The ring goes maybe 350°)

I use it for portraits and street isolation at a beautiful f2. MUCH better than the 135 f2, IMAO. Everything is just gorgeous. The focus throw makes it easy to focus fast. And, unlike Canon 100 Macros, infinity performance is as good as macro.

mcluckie wrote in post #10594537
Yeah, from 1:2 Macro to 1/2 meter is 1/4 turn, another 1/4 turn gets you to just over 2 meters, another 1/4 turn to 4 meters. The last 1/4 turn takes you to infinity. (The ring goes maybe 350°)

I use it for portraits and street isolation at a beautiful f2. MUCH better than the 135 f2, IMAO. Everything is just gorgeous. The focus throw makes it easy to focus fast. And, unlike Canon 100 Macros, infinity performance is as good as macro.

Thanks for the reply. That's just tempting me more to get the 100MP.

Do it. One day I will probably sell the 100L, but I don't think I will sell the Makro-Planar 100.

bkdc wrote in post #10604556
Do it. One day I will probably sell the 100L, but I don't think I will sell the Makro-Planar 100.

I'm thinking of consolidating my 85 1.8 and 135L into the 100MP, but I feel I would miss them (mainly the 135L). I guess I'll just wait for a while until I can afford the 100MP outright.

phigment wrote in post #10604650
I'm thinking of consolidating my 85 1.8 and 135L into the 100MP, but I feel I would miss them (mainly the 135L). I guess I'll just wait for a while until I can afford the 100MP outright.

Rent it or try it out and see how you like the manual focus. It takes a bit of getting used to, but the image quality from the Zeiss is breathtaking. I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that it's as close to optical perfection as a lens can get.

Don't wait, just sell them both. I used to live 35mm and 85mm around the middle, but never, ever loved the 135 focal length. If it works for you, great. The final straw for me was an event I shot for a friend that was dim as dim could be. I was forced to manual focus, which is fine. But the 85 seemed too distant (and nothing I couldn't have gotten without 2 steps forward with a 50), and the 135 was too long. I sold them both and find the 100 much more usable. And I get to add a macro to my bag.

The Zeiss 21, 35 and 100 are the undisputed champs of the ZE line. Luckily for some they're fairly evenly spaced in angle-of-coverage. I use to live 35mm FL, but now it bores me -- just not enough change of persepective -- kinda like a 50mm 2 steps back. So I'm priming at 21, 28, 50 (now ZE, soon 1.2L UY) and 100. Even the Canon 70-200 2.8II is a huge letdown after Zeiss primes.

I haven't had the Zeiss 21 for very long, and I was worried about the MF because I don't feel like I can trust my eyesight in the viewfinder to achieve proper focus. So the first thing I did was go through the microadjustment exercise with the lens. I used a couple of different focus test charts and methods, using Liveview at 10x to achieve the best possible focus at f2.8, and then I made sure that's when I'd get the focus confirmation light/beep. That gave me the confidence to rely on the focus confirmation when I'm shooting, and it hasn't failed me yet.

Yeah, I'll have to verify my focus screen (EG-s in my case) is aligned properly. A while back I noticed that when I used AF the pictures turned out in focus but looked blurry in the VF. When they were sharp in the VF they were out of focus in the actual RAW file.

After re-seating the focus screen things looked much better. But if I'm going to rely on MF all the time, I'll have to verify that it's shimmed to be 100% accurate.

The 100/2 is a thing of beauty; I think it is my best piece of glass.

Thats scary. I had the same issue -- shouldn't these things just FIT? Shims!? Since when is changing focus screens a job for a technician?

I have tried zeiss 25/2.8 while shooting nikon d700 with its 100% VF coverage my eyes still hurt. Now that I shoot with 7d and really love zeiss glass especially the 35 50mp 100mp. My eyes are bit weak is there any focusing screen for 7D that can really help with MF? Cant trust the focus confirmation either...I see that Katzeye have one for 7D. anyone has experience it?