With f/2.0 you will have a very very shallow DOF, at f/22 the image will have some very sharp details. The range of this lens will allow it to be focused from under a foot to just over 10 feet (infinity is probably about 12 ft). I love to use this lens for its shallow DOF. If I want distance then I use a different lens. Perhaps your definition of a true macro is different from mine but I can photograph small details of a flower with this lens. As a Canon person, I also have the MP-E 65 which I would call a true macro and EF 100 f/2.8L IS USM which is close to this lens. If I want the ultimate control with that shallow DOF, I use the Zeiss. If I want "microscopic detail", I use the 65 (distance to subject is in inches) For walk around I use the Canon EF 100 or Sigma 180 (also a macro but I can be back further). The Zeiss is beautiful glass, have never been disappointed. Doubt I answered your question but I think its all in how you decide to think of 'macro'. Sorry.
Thank you for the info. For me DOF is paramount. On my Nikon D700 my tamron 90MM macro will give me F36, F40, and even F45 at about 8-9 inches. This is extraordinarily important for what I do. Too many people seem to be absorbed with the background and relegate the subject to second place. Both must work. Most Macro shots I see cause me to cringe. Still the zeiss sounds like a extraordinary lens and well worth the accolades it has received. Thanks again.