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

Leica M3 (1964) and Leica DR Summicron 50mm F 2.0 (1963)... Shot on film by me at a wedding about 4 weeks ago.

You want fast glass? Noctilux F 1.0 or Summilux F 1.4

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1295015253.jpg

There's no one right focal length for portraits. Different lenses have different feels. A fast 85mm will have a narrower depth of field, which can be very desirable with a portrait. Also, an 85mm will allow you to be further back from your subject, which can make it more comfortable for them.

you cant do portraits in a studio with a fisheye :)

What kind of camera system/mount are you intending to use the lens with?

I have a bunch of Nikon F-mount glass plus a smaller collection of other stuff. In fact just got a Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar to use as a 100mm-equiv on my E-P2 (with adapter) plus as a 'normal' on M-mount. I have not even tried it out yet but will this weekend.

Did a portrait shoot of my daughter last weekend with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8, a fabulous lens but IMO a bit short for FF 35mm. Even doing full/upper body shots you are surprisingly close to the subject even at 70mm. I usually prefer the 70-105 kinda range but we were in tight quarters. The 85 f/1.4 rocks as does the 105 f/2.8 macro and of COURSE the 70-200 f/2.8 is stellar and also more versatile (but bulky).

Peter, that picture is outstanding.

I just read the earlier posts better -- I agree that on a crop body I would personally lean towards something autofocus and in the 50-60mm range (75-90 "effective"). When my D200 was my main body I made many of my favorite shots with the humble little $120 50mm f/1.8! The newer 50mm f/1.4G AF-S lens is supposed to be very nice although I don't have that one.

It really comes down to personal preference, shooting style/location, and budget of course.

I just rented it for a week to see how I lke it.

good luck finding a Noctilux !

They're around... But the 6k asking price has always put me off.

Another vote for the Nikon 85/f1.4, but rather get the newer G-AFS version than the D.

This was taken with my 50/f1.4 Nikon:
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1295173890.jpg

55mm f1.2 Nikon, HP5+ pushed 2 stop, 1/30 @ f1.2. Body is Nikon F.
It was a very dark night w/ no streetlights, the only light is a single dim porch light about 40 ft away.
The Count is mad because his Nikon D60 won't focus or meter (too dark).

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1295190172.jpg

Many people seem to find the Voigtlander 50mm f/1.1 Nokton a serious contender to the Noctilux at around 1/8th if not 1/10th the price. For me a relatively big heavy lens is undesirable on a small rangefinder or micro 4/3rds format body...I try to stick to the full DSLR for big glass and stay compact on the smaller formats.

Years ago I was using Nikon while my Father persisted with his old Leica's.

Went to the camera store one day with him and silly me, I asked the salesman why I should ever upgrade my nice modern Nikon's to a Leica. Asked if I had a little time, we then played.

He gave me a new Nikon and long lens and told me to go outside and take a pic of something a long ways away. Then did the same thing with a Leica. He then told me to come back in a day or three while he developed the film.

Returned and he showed me the first print, which was a long shot of an elevator several blocks away. Both were very sharp, clear and nice prints. He then showed me one blown up several times using both the Nikon and Leica. The Nikon was very nice and something that anyone would be proud of. The Leica on the other hand when enlarged showed the numbers on the buttons for the elevator... which you could not see with the Nikon.

Couple of months later I sent one of my Nikon bodies in to be reconditioned. The post office dropped the package so hard that it deformed the body, totaling it. Sent the second one in and they did it again. Saw this as an omen that it was a good time to switch to Leica's. Never looked back... its hard to beat their quality.

the real question is how much enlargement will be done - will you be pulling large prints?

I got to try out the Zeiss 100 f2 tonight. I like it! its a sweet lens. Manual focus slowed me down but other than that I am impressed. I will rent the 85/1.4 before I make a purchase.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1295409459.jpg