I want a fast and tack sharp prime lens
 

I am about to order a Ziess 100mm F2 Makro-Planar... its expensive but I have seen some images with that lens and I was very impressed!

Anyone here ever used one?

No but I've shot with Leica optics for years and the sharpness of Leitz lenses is only equaled by Zeiss. A makro or macro lens is designed to be a flat field lens that is usually the sharpest type of lens in any manufacturers lens line up. I doubt you will be disappointed in your results.

you can get faster than f2

I've got a similar Canon prime, and LOVE it

not in a 100mm macro - at least any that I know of. You can get f1.2 50mm pretty easily, and go Noktor f0.95 50mm. But neither of those are macros.

What kind of body?

Leitz optics were always "warm", meaning they tweaked the optical formulas and coatings to be very high contrast, but not the highest resolution. High contrast fools the human eye and is perceived as "sharpness".

Zeiss optics were always very "cold", meaning they had low contrast by very high resolution. High resolution is perceived to the human eye as "sharpness" too.


Some of the Japanese optic makers went one way and some the other.

Pentax, Minolta and Canon went more of the Lietz way, Pentax being the "warmest".

Nikon, Olympus and Fuji, went the Zeiss way, with Olympus being the "coldest".

But high contrast also brings out colors. Nikon tried to have high levels of both. They are typically higher in pure resolution than Lietz and warmer than Zeiss. A fairly good compromise.

Before you pull the trigger, you might look at an Olympus OM-Zuiko 100mm f/2.0 (if you can find one). I had one years ago on a 35mm Oly rig and it was absolutely the best, sharpest lens I've ever used. It may as well have been welded to that body. Should have never sold it.

does he need macro?

what is this lens to be used for? I know you posted on a macro lens, but you will do better if you have a bunch of different arrows in your quiver - just like with skis... or cars...

It is a Nikon D5k body and I plan to use it for portraiture the most. The lens is worth like 3 ½ D5k’s but since I plan to upgrade to full frame at some point I am wanting to get some good glass for now.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1294966480.jpg


I shot this with my 50mm f1.4 Nikkor. I want something longer than 50mm though

AF NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4D IF from Nikon

faster. Also auto-focus if that matters.

Are you planning to shoot lots of shallow depth of field portraits? Is the lens manual focus or auto? Can you shoot a test with the lens before you purchase it?
What are your plans for your end product? 8X10's or billboard size? What is your down stream work flow.
Before you drop a lot of cash you should be really ask yourself what you need the lens for. All of the Ziess lens are spectacular. I have shot many features and commercials with their film lens and never had a single problem.
The Ziess 100 Macro is a great lens but I don't know if I would buy it for portrait work.
Steve Vernon csc

I have that one. IT IS a chunk o'glass. It might even be too sharp for portraits (unless you a cosmetic surgeon).

Think about it but also think about a Nikon DC lens.

agree, but not in a 100mm.

i have shot with german glass and the images are amazing. the stuff you can pull off with natural light is amazing.

IMO 100mm is a little long for portraits on a crop sensor body. Something closer to 85mm would be better although it is hard to go wrong with a nifty 50mm.

Is it possible to rent the lens before you buy one. There's quite a few online places that now rent - FedEx to your door and back. Maybe something to consider.

I've been thinking about buying a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM lens, as it's highly rated for motor sport photography, but I'll be renting it first for my new shoot, for about $50 for the weekend.

the classic portrait lens for 35mm film is 90mm.

i dont remember needing that fast of a lens in a studio environment. but it has been a long time.

Fast and tack sharp are slightly at odds. Most every sharp lens delivers max sharpness when stopped down a couple f-stops, which means it's not fast any more. Most of the time you want max fast because you're in low light with no flash, not typically the situation where you're looking for tack sharp. Then add macro to the list - I'm not sure how often you ever actually need max sharp + max fast + macro. I don't have the lens you're talking about so I may be totally ignorant. I have nikon 85 f1.4, 55 f1.2, 35 f1.4 and love them for shallow dof and low light, but when I want sharp they're set at f 8 or similar anyway.

I'd rather have auto focus for portraits. Personally, I'd go with the Sigma 85mm 1.4. A lot less money than the new Nikon 85mm and probably just as good. I've seen a lot of inexcusable QC issues with the Cosina-made Zeiss lenses. I think being able to go 1.4 is an advantage in portraits as well.

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 - FM Forums
Sigma 85 1.4 Pics for everyone - FM Forums

If you are doing portraits, an 85mm lens would be optimum if the camera had an FX format. Since it has a DX format, you want something shorter. A 50mm lens would be in the ball park.

Why do you want something longer?

JR