f2 or so ~100mm macros

[redisburning]

Im looking for comments on the relative merits of fast short tele macros. As far as I know this is basically between the OM 90mm and the Zeiss 100mm at f2 but I may be missing some.

Slower is not in the cards, I already have a 90/2.5. Ill consider anything reasonably adaptable to Canon that can get to 1:2 or closer and doesnt cost more than 2k USD.

Purchasing both is out of the question and I have no desire to go through several high end tele macros before March or so when Ill need said lens.

 

[mfogiel]

What would you like to know? I have the MP 100/2, and the basic thought I have about it, is that it is HUGE compared to, say OM 100/2.8. I remember that Lloyd Chambers had a good full review of it for digital cameras on his site. In practice, you have some difference in contrast between f 2.0 and 2.8, then everything is the same till diffraction kicks in.

This was shot at f4.0


DONNA CON CANE by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[tbhv55]

Im looking for comments on the relative merits of fast short tele macros. As far as I know this is basically between the OM 90mm and the Zeiss 100mm at f2 but I may be missing some.

Slower is not in the cards, I already have a 90/2.5. Ill consider anything reasonably adaptable to Canon that can get to 1:2 or closer and doesnt cost more than 2k USD.

Purchasing both is out of the question and I have no desire to go through several high end tele macros before March or so when Ill need said lens.

Here's a slightly left-field suggestion... a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 (an excellent portrait lens) and a set of extension tubes (12mm+20mm+36mm) will get you to 0.93x (i.e. approximately 1:1). You'd have the fast aperture that you want for general use, but of course, the extension tubes would lose some light when working in a macro situation. At UK prices, this set-up would cost around £450.

 

[redisburning]

What would you like to know? I have the MP 100/2, and the basic thought I have about it, is that it is HUGE compared to, say OM 100/2.8. I remember that Lloyd Chambers had a good full review of it for digital cameras on his site. In practice, you have some difference in contrast between f 2.0 and 2.8, then everything is the same till diffraction kicks in.

This was shot at f4.0

Well it's very difficult to find information comparing the OM to the ZF. From what I've gathered, the OM appears to be 2/3rds of the Price of the ZF, smaller, lighter, etc. and certainly weaker at infinity but perhaps not at 1:10.

OoF from flickr samples seems to go to the OM for close ups but for the 100MP at anything else.

I have no idea if that's how it actually is or not, not having seen direct comparisons and not having owned them myself.

Im willing to pay the size and weight and price penalty for F2.

Here's a slightly left-field suggestion... a Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 (an excellent portrait lens) and a set of extension tubes (12mm+20mm+36mm) will get you to 0.93x (i.e. approximately 1:1). You'd have the fast aperture that you want for general use, but of course, the extension tubes would lose some light when working in a macro situation. At UK prices, this set-up would cost around £450.

I appreciate the suggestion but I don't think this setup is really where I want to be. I don't like autofocus and I certainly don't like the manual focus rings of autofocus lenses. Also, I don't believe that the EF 85 has close range correction, right? Which means a lot of fooling around with extension ring combos to keep it focused near it's infinity mark.

I think my best option here is a lens that goes to 1:2 by itself. That meets my magnification needs without requiring add ons.

 

[tbhv55]

I don't like autofocus and I certainly don't like the manual focus rings of autofocus lenses.

Fair enough. The manual focus ring on the EF 85mm is mechanical (i.e. not fly-by-wire), but evidently still not what you want.

Also, I don't believe that the EF 85 has close range correction, right?

That's correct. The EF 100mm f/2.8 macro does have this, but of course, that lens doesn't meet your f/2.0 requirement.

 

[mfogiel]

I only have experience with film, and then, I do not shoot macro all that often. The obvious point is, that you want to shoot it wide open, else, you would simply use a slower lens, which is easier to correct. When I bought the MP100, I actually did not realize, that excessive sharpness could be a problem with portraiture, so I ended up using other lenses more for this kind of work, and the MP has become a preferred tool for occasional close up or landscape. Zeiss states, that beyond the floating elements, this lens is also using some technology borrowed from their Master Prime cine lenses.
What I can say, is that the bokeh is very pleasant and of "Gaussian" type, there is no flare to speak about ( I always use the hood) and sharpness is excellent across all apertures. Perhaps you would be well advised to borrow one for a weekend, and see if you like what it delivers against the bulk, weight and cost.


DONNA CON CANE # 3 by mfogiel, on Flickr

 

[redisburning]

Marek,

thanks for info. Perhaps rental is the way to go. Unfortunately that's not an option for the Olympus.

the market to move Zeiss is a lot larger so that may sway my final decision, as might the infinity performance of the Zeiss. I know it's big, but this is for a tripod, for something specific, and the body it's going on is going to be full frame digital so it is what it is. Weight has never been an issue.

 

[Gregoyle]

You could always buy the Olympus, rent the Zeiss, and compare them for your purposes (then sell the OM if you choose the Zeiss). You could also buy both from a good retailer and return the one you decide against.

-Greg

 

[GarageBoy]

For macros, DOF gets real thin, real fast wide open
Just to toss into the mix, there's also the Kinoptik 100 T2.5 (F2) in Macro mount, frequently converted by the Japanese and HK-ers for common SLR mounts

 

[redisburning]

For macros, DOF gets real thin, real fast wide open

that's the point & why Im willing to spend 4 figures even though I already have a Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5