ALAN K : I currently shoot with a Nikon D800 and a Nikkor Macro 200mm ƒ4 lens.
I like the working distance of 200mm but the manual focus is terrible, incredibly un-forgiving, there is no "just a touch more focus" with the Nikkor. The Auto focus "hunts" so badly and is soooo very slow I never turn on! I manual focus and usually focus stack my 1:1 images. Just because the lens aperture gets as high as ƒ40, there is not much dof in close.
Finally, my question lol, would this make a better choice for Macro's on my D800 than the 200mm ƒ4 Nikkor?MICHAEL M : I shoot the Zeiss ZF.2 100mm f/2 macro planar on a D600. I pack it into the mountains for nature photos as the longest lens of a four lens set, and I have used its macro capability primarily on alpine flowers and tiny tundra flowers and on mushrooms. I am very pleased with its performance which is every bit as good as the rave reviews it receives on lens testings sites. For your work, however, you may find its reproduction limit of 1:2 to be a problem, and its smallest aperture of f/22 may also not suffice. You should probably consult the DOF tables in the data sheet on the Zeiss website to learn whether the lens can perform as you need it to. On the positive side, the lens focuses with a full 360° rotation of the focus collar, instead of the 240° rotation on the latest Nikon 200mm f/4 lens. That larger rotation angle would make manual focusing more precise.JOSEPH E : You would need to keep the following in mind:
1) The Zeiss 100mm is a 1:2 macro lens, so you would be getting roughly have the magnification (without extension tubes)
2) 100mm as a working distance is much shorter than 200mm at macro levels. Combined with the lens being 1:2 as mentioned above, you might be disappointed in the focal length and appearance of your shots, at least at first
3) The lens does extend quite a lot when focusing to 1:2
That said, the Zeiss is spectacularly sharp (though prone to LoCA at f/2 on contrasty subjects), and the manual focus is a genuine pleasure to use. For focus stacking and macro work manual focus is usually the recommended route, anyway - and the Zeiss has some of the best manual focusing you can get.Austin K : Hi Alan-
Like all of the ZF.2 lenses that I have used (I own three) this lens has really precise and fine manual control. On my D800E, the focus is right on, and I find that stopping it down gives me great results for portraiture and still life/product images. I do not do Micro photography however, so I can't say how it will perform at extreme close range.
This is definitely a special-purpose lens (you're not going to walk around with it) and not a cheap one, so I would make sure the focal length is what you need before purchasing. If you need a short telephoto with macro, the build and optical quality of this lens make it worth the price.
MICHAEL N : While this is a superb lens I have some doubts about its use as a macro lerns. With a res of 1:2 and only F22 that tells me that the depth of field is very shallow. Other than taking a "close up" of a vase of flowers it appears to really lack the capability of a true macro. Or does the zeiss glass have some inherent properties that compensate for this? Thank you!!DEBBIE P : 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.TERRY T : Mike,
I have used this lens for almost a year. Pix quality can only be described as fantastic... but the depth of filed with it is very shallow... which is why I got it in the first place.
If you want to take full size pix of ladybugs, get a lens that goes down another stop or two.JOHN D : There's no compensation for the 1:2 ratio within the lens; some folks wanting to use it for a very specific macro need have mentioned using a 52.5mm extension tube (Nikon PN-11), with absolutely no loss in image quality nor introduction of chromatic aberration. I've seen the images and would agree; just can't state that I've taken such images myself. Personally, I used it without extension tubes, and was most pleased.
The 100mm Makro is an unusual "hybrid" in that it's both an exquisite portrait lens, with characteristic color and rendering that I personally find to be it's most valuable aspect, and also a very satisfying macro...at least in my own applications, including insect closeups and the like. The bokeh is excellent.
I'd suggest firstly going to flickr and looking at the 4000+ images in the photo group there... it's a nice blend of true macro, portrait and general mid telephoto. If you're still uncertain, it is a pricey lens, and you might want to rent one for a weekend. That said, Adorama has an exceptional return policy, and if you try it for a week and don't like it, they'll take it back with no questions asked... tough to beat.
Hope that helps a little...JAMES L : Although technically not a macro, this lens excels in rendering image quality beyond most others at this focal length. Visit forums featuring this lens to see examples, such the Fred Miranda forums and POTN.
It very much depends on your objective uses of the lens.GEOFFREY K : Hi
This is limited as far as DOF because of the 1:2, not the f22. If you Just want the glass for macro there are better options. This is one of the sharpest lenses I own. It can be used for low light,portraits, and for lanscape. It has great bokeh. Look at the pictures under Zeiss 100 on fflickr. Color reproduction is better than any canon lens I own. MARK K : Mike,
I honestly can say the Zeiss 100mm is one of my favorite lenses for portraits and even some landscape work however I've never used it as a macro lens so sorry I cannot provide any information in that regard. With any lens I seldom stop all the way down to F22 to prevent diffraction.
Also, I'm shooting this with a Canon 5D3 and 1D4.
This is really one incredible lens. You won't be disappointed.
Best Regards,
Mark
Danville, CA. USA
Huan P : What type of focus method of this lens?Extending front or internal?CHARLES C : Huan, the focus is an extension of the front of the lens. I like the lens for macro work because I have better control of the depth of field.
CharlesHuan P : thanks you guyMICHAEL J : The whole front extends (from the split in the body at the distance marks) but the filter ring does not turnALAN B : Extending front. JAMES L : I almost always use the Live View feature on my Canon cameras to focus the 100mm MP. Very precise!
