Canon 100mm f2.8 IS "vs" Nikon 105 f2.8 VR ? is this the best Nikon will do

About diffraction, I'd suggest all to read this article:
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Diffraction/index.html

The use of f/16 aperture is not the best way to use a macro lens on APS-C or APS-H bodies.

KEVZPHOTOS said:

Even at f/16 all three lense are around 1700 MTF which is considered very good.

Click to expand...

MTF curves refer to INFINITY.

In close-ups, the Zeiss, being it sharper on the focus plane and showing less CA, performs better at all apertures and exhibits slightly higher DoF. We discussed this point in Nikongear forum few weeks ago:
http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=12148.msg94113#msg94113
http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=12148.msg165333#msg165333

Anyway I don't like to take close-ups at f/16. First, I do not want to kill the sharpness by closing the aperture. Then, some artistic effects can be obtained only at wide apertures and the Zeiss is a lens that performs well ALWAYS, at all apertures and distances . This is the added value of the Zeiss: no other macro lens performs this way (probably the Leica 100/2.8 and CV 125/2,5 Apo-Lanthar perform even better, but they don't work at f/2 ).

Member said:

Also note, on studying your pics closely, I detect virtually no difference between the 85 PC and the Zeiss at all apertures shown (only a touch at f/2.8). In the eye crop example, I actually think the 85 PC is the best.

Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that eye crop example shows the behavior at the max aperture . The 85 PC max aperture is f/2.8, Zeiss is f/2! It's not negligible to take pictures (i.e. portraits) at f/2 with the same IQ as 85 PC at f/2.8 ...

Member said:

I'm not concerned about the price of the newer version...

Click to expand...

Are you concerned about mechanical quality? If you are, check both the versions and then decide.

Moreover, you probably will prefer to have the lens set up with tilt and shift in parallel. This is fairly easy to achieve with the older (PC) lens (you need a screwdriver). I don't know if the modification is just as simple with the PC-E lens.

Riccardo Polini said:

About diffraction, I'd suggest all to read this article:
http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/free/Diffraction/index.html

Click to expand...

I think most of us here are well aware of the diffraction issues.

However, this article doesn't even touch on the fact that with todays pp sharpening capabilities...that WE can indeed compensate (to a degree) for this.

Obviously, if we compare un-processed/sharpened RAW images - we shall notice diffraction from about f/8 onwards.

However, IF we compare a RAW f/8 image and a pp f/16 image with the appropriate amount of sharpening/etc applied - then the diffraction issue between the two certainly won't be the same.

Now, I'm not saying that pp editing can solve the diffraction problem - because as we all know - one cannot create fine detail/line edge definition DATA that wasn't captured during the source take. But, we can adjust/improve the diffraction issue a certain amount in pp to the point whereby it becomes certainly 'acceptable' at the smaller apertures, such as f/16, etc.

Yes, technically, the Zeiss may be the 'sharper' lens - however, that doesn't mean that the 105VR cannot produce exellent end results also.

Are we simply quibbling 'technical prowess' here, and not something that truly matters from a human visual perspective?

That's the real question...

KEV

KEVZPHOTOS said:

we can adjust/improve the diffraction issue a certain amount in pp to the point whereby it becomes certainly 'acceptable' at the smaller apertures, such as f/16, etc.

Click to expand...

I do not agree. If you can't create data by PP, you can't re-create data destroyed/deleted by diffraction in any way.

Another important point is the amount of DoF. DoF depends on the CoC. All the issues start from a point that is not a (dimensionless) point on the focus plane. I'll try to elaborate.

DoF formulas assume that a nil-size point (i.e. a geometric point) becomes larger (i.e. with a finite size) once you move away from the focus plane. Right? OK. In reality, even the best lens does reproduce a ideally infinitesimal point as a "finite" point (i.e. with a not nil diameter). The size of this point on the focus plane depends on how sharp the lens is, i.e. on how well corrected its optical aberrations are. This finite-size point should be the "real" starting point when we discuss about DoF in real pictures. The size of this point increases as we move the focus plane: a point that is not at the focus distance will be larger than a point on the focus plane. Right? OK. The size of such point (at a distance from the focus plane) depends on how large it would be if it were exactly at the focusing distance. The larger the size of a point on the focal plane, the larger its size (i.e. more blurred) it will be in the out-of-focus- planes.

Therefore, the lower the "intrinsic" sharpness of a lens (PP has nothing to do with optics), the lower the DoF is (being constant all other well-known parameters affecting DoF).

The Zeiss 100/2 ZF is sharper than 105 VR (and 85 PC, at the same f/ value). This implies that it exhibits more DoF (being constant the aperture, magnification, size of sensor, etc. etc.) and we don't need to close the aperture too much to get the same "clarity". So we can avoid to enter the diffraction limit and we'll get more pleasing "real" pictures.

If you take macro pictures with a diffraction limited lens as expensive as 105 VR, you're throwing money out the window. And PP will never allow you recovering this money

Member said:

Are we simply quibbling 'technical prowess' here, and not something that truly matters from a human visual perspective?
That's the real question...

Click to expand...

When you'll compare "prints" you'll understand the real question ...

Of course, if you compare small jpegs on monitor or 4x6 in. prints, you'll see very little differences. But we don't need 12+ Mpix DSLR cameras to produce such images. Right?

Therefore, the choice of a tool depends on the final use of what that tool can produce. If one aims to shoot close-ups in the diffraction limited region, well every lens is good (I'd say "bad"). If somebody aims to use a lens differently, to take close-ups or portraits at wide apertures & with an excellent IQ, or landscapes with a very high level of detail (the performance of the Zeiss at infinity & f/2 is impressive!) and no aberrations (like those shown by 105 VR in my test) etc. etc. well the Zeiss is the lens to choose. And I have not spoken about color rendition ... in fact, the 105 VR has the tendency to a slight magenta cast, the Zeiss has a more pleasant (I'd say "real") color: if you do not want to spend time in front of your PC to correct the color cast of the Nikon, the Zeiss allows saving time.

Last point: a faster macro lens allows a more clear vision through the viewfinder and, consequently, a more precise MF (if one cannot use live-view).

Riccardo Polini said:

Lilgish44 said:

Riccardo, I found your reviews comparing these lenses on Nikonlinks in italian language. Is there any chance you will make them available in English? I think they are very well done by comparing the pictures but I would like to be able to read them and I think many others will be interested too.

Click to expand...

Hi Lilgish,

my test is not complete. I would like to show similar comparisons (crops) using a FX body too and to discuss flare/ghosts behavior of each lens.
Therefore, first I would like to acquire more data.
Then I'll consider to translate and to publish the text also in English.

I'll inform Nikonlinks (i.e. Edwin) about the English version, if and when it will be available.

Thank you for your interest in my tests.

Best,

Riccardo

Click to expand...

Thank you. I am looking forward to your translated reviews.

Regards
Lilgish

Riccardo Polini said:

Riccardo Polini wrote:

If one aims to shoot close-ups in the diffraction limited region, well every lens is good (I'd say "bad").

Click to expand...

Yes, but YOU are not the world's leading authority on macro

Lot's of serious macro shooters use the f/16-f/22 range for a greater DOF. They are willing to compromise a little sharpness for the extra depth of field.

Riccardo Polini said:

The Zeiss has a more pleasant (I'd say "real") color: if you do not want to spend time in front of your PC to correct the color cast of the Nikon, the Zeiss allows saving time.

Click to expand...

Once again - the world does not operate according to Riccardo. This is merely YOUR subjective position - nothing more. Colour cast/tone is "percieved" differently by every single human being. The Zeiss looks better to YOU, to many others it won't.

KEV

tests refered to in first post, (slrgear.com)
are not comparable between camera systems,
if its the lenses that is of interest to test and not the cameras,
also think that 105/2,8 VR is built for FF,
test is with D200,
that also is famous for its strong AA filter...
would test lens sharpness with D200...

http://www.maxmax.com/nikon_d200hr.htm

some very interesting analysis on both sides. i recently purchased the 105VR and, to be honest, am finding a bit more CA than i expected. easily fixed, but more than i would've thought.

more to the point...the zeiss may have a slight or measureable advantage but one absolute truth remains: kevin's photos are better than any i've seen with the zeiss. web-sized or not, they demonstrate better colour, contrast, micro-contrast and sharpness than any of the very mediocre samples i've seen from zeiss users. proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and in this case i'll repeat what i've always said: magic is in the photographer's eye and ability and, in this case, any measureable advantage the zeiss has is more than made up for by kevin's experience and talent. i have no doubts that the zeiss is a superlative lens but so far, none of the results have backed this up. there is a lot of truly excellent glass out these days in the form of oem and 3rd party lenses and all of them will perform similarly in skilled hands. so far most 100/2 users seem to content to take test shots and post them...i want the real world!

as far as the colour issue...in this day of RAW and post processing, do we really need to talk about this? i can get the colours i want out of most lenses in about 30 seconds in photoshop...or even better, in the field...this is one of the things that my studio mate has found intelligent preview on his a900 to be great for.

i've enjoyed this debate...now lets getting shooting! i challenge ricardo and kev to get out there and take their best shots for a week and post the results...may the best man 'win', though i have the feeling it will be us observers that truly win.

or, if you'd like ricardo, you can send me the zeiss and i can do my own real-world comparison i tried this same trick with a pal of mine who is a dedicated zeiss user but he wouldn't bite...

--
dave

Hawaii-geek said:

This post is not to trash the Nikon 105VR, I have never used it.
Only looking at the data. and the compair with the Canon 100 VR macro.
It seems Nikon "could" have done better, with there FF macro VR.

Click to expand...

again, in use this lens is superlative. as far as online tests go, on photozone the nikon tests as sharper or sharper than the canon, though its tough to make a comparison (dx/fx). lenstip has them both as setting or close to record lp/mm for their platform.

Hawaii-geek said:

I have seen files on a wedding shoot, with the 105 macro ... nice portrait.

But, from what I remember of the files , and what I am shooting now with the 70-200 VR II ... the VR II , at least "seems" a lot sharper wide open.

Click to expand...

i've heard that the 70-200VR II is a very sharp lens...i'd love to see some of your results. you have some great shots on your website...care to treat us to some of that gorgeous scenery with the 70-200VR II?

--
dave

I have this lens for a couple of years now and I think it is one of Nikon's finest as far as sharpness and contrast go and the background blur is pretty good considering it is a macro lens. Have about 30 other lenses and this one is one of a few that is sharp wide open. I don't do macro but bought the lens for street type portraiture and as a walkabout under other than noon light. The VR works wonderful when the shutter speeds drop bellow 1/125s+ it is good at distances compared to my AFD 60 macro which wasn't. I do not find the VR effective if closer than 2m...might be my technique though.

The not so good, the lens with the shade is huge for a 105mm...I ditched the lens hood that came with it and use a old HN-24 metal hood, i think it was from a older AFD 70-200 but works fine on DX, don't use a hood when shooting FX. It is a fat lens like a can of Fosters beer.

Mine has some CA at times but nothing to worry about, my 85f1.4/135f2DC both have more.

The lens will hunt under low light but you have the instant MF override which helps and so does the limit swich. I use the lens a lot at events on FX.

A very good lens if you can't get sharp photos with this one it is probably the technique not the lens.
Boris

wide open (f3 at this distance)



wide open



wide open



a macro attempt at f5.6



f14



f4



wide open



100% Kitty crop with VR 1/80s,,,VR is amazing
f5



--

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

you've got some really nice shots there that demonstrate the abilities of the 105. sharp and nice bokeh...i quite like the baby shot...as well as the older gents in the photo...nice contrast between the pefect and imperfect skin of the subjects. coulda done without the cat photo

as for the VR...i'm getting about 2 - 3 stops at 1:3, which is about 0.5m. my hit ratio is about 75% at 1/10 right now. either i'm a handholding god or the VR is effective!
--
dave

Very kind of you Dave, thank you.
Sorry about the cat picture but allow me one more.

Yes the VR is amazing at times, like this one at 1/5s wide open messing around when I first acquired the 105VR...I think it was a 3 or 4 shot burst and this one was good.
Boris





--

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

rinsephotographic said:

more to the point...the zeiss may have a slight or measureable advantage but one absolute truth remains: kevin's photos are better than any i've seen with the zeiss. web-sized or not, they demonstrate better colour, contrast, micro-contrast and sharpness than any of the very mediocre samples i've seen from zeiss users. proof, as they say, is in the pudding, and in this case i'll repeat what i've always said: magic is in the photographer's eye and ability and, in this case, any measureable advantage the zeiss has is more than made up for by kevin's experience and talent.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words Dave, one Canuk to another

I think we have to be careful not to let the "technical" side of photography take over the entire show here. Yes, of course we would like the best possible image IQ...BUT, when I walk into a local photography gallery exhibition, or pick up a large coffee table style book on flowers at the store - I don't say to myself:

"oh, those picks weren't taken with a Zeiss - so they can't be that great"

No, the first thing that commands my immediate attention is the composition, colours, and the photographer's artistic angle, etc. Only IF these first critera are actually met...do I then take a much closer look or linger longer to study the photograph is greater detail, etc.

IF I grab a Conde Nest magazine at the travel bookstore - do I really care IF the pics were taken with a Zeiss, Nikon or Canon? - No, in reality I can't tell the difference and neither can anyone else in that viewing situation. IF there is any technical advantage it's simply lost in the printing, etc, etc...and besides, most baby boomers my age wear progressive lenses and can't see $hit anyways - so who flippin' cares!!!

I personally love technical detail, but (as you point out) I think it's a mistake to allow it to push aside the other equally important elements.

As with anything in life, the correct 'balance' often creates the most optimal result.

IF we put extreme emphasis in one area - we ultimately loose something from another.

I agree with you...I am yet to see any photograph posted here on this forum (large or small) taken with the Zeiss that clearly demonstrates a significant superiority over the Nikon 105VR.

I would like to see one.

Cheers

KEV

Boris, just one quick question...

Why didn't you use selective spot lighting in pp to bring up the left eye to the same colour/brightness as the right eye?

Just curious...

KEV

KEVZPHOTOS said:

Yes, but YOU are not the world's leading authority on macro

Lot's of serious macro shooters use the f/16-f/22 range for a greater DOF. They are willing to compromise a little sharpness for the extra depth of field.

Click to expand...

Member said:

Once again - the world does not operate according to Riccardo. This is merely YOUR subjective position - nothing more. Colour cast/tone is "percieved" differently by every single human being. The Zeiss looks better to YOU, to many others it won't.

KEV

Click to expand...

Kev.
your post demonstrates that you have no valid arguments to reply.

It's OBVIOUS that my arguments are my arguments. You always stress "subjectivity" of my arguments. However you show low-res small jpegs to "demonstrate" the "objective" high quality of 105 VR (that I own and use since I think it's a good lens).
You have a strange relationship with "logic".

Best wishes for the New Year!

Riccardo

Hi Kevin

The cat picture is not what I would consider a good photo, just one that shows the possibility with VR. Plus my PP skill is very weak.
Boris
--

http://public.fotki.com/borysd/

Riccardo Polini said:

Kev.
your post demonstrates that you have no valid arguments to reply.

Click to expand...

No, not every web response requires a scientific based analogy - sometimes simple human semantics will suffice

Riccardo Polini said:

However you show low-res small jpegs to "demonstrate" the "objective" high quality of 105 VR

Click to expand...

Riccardo, I appreciate your scientific background, expertise, etc...and do not contend your presented data. I fully accept your established findings and that the Zeiss iindeed has technically better optics than the 105VR.

However, sometimes we need to step away from the scientific premise (which we both know exists outside the human realm) and also consider the more "intangible" elements that makes up the entire equation.

The compositional/artistic and human based psycho-social perceptual components ALSO play a major role in HOW the final result is actually "percieved" within the visual system. Not to mention the fact that our human eye is also "diffraction limited" and therefore presents with a completely unique experience for every single individual. Your previous lens "CoC" inclusion is of course valid, but then we also have to weigh in the these same "CoC" dynamics that apply to the receiving "eye" optics and it's related influences upon the final end result within the visual cortex.

Whilst image output DATA can remain constant (from an objective stance) - the variants between different observers cannot...so this factor alone...means that our collective viewing experiences can never BE exactly the same.

There are so many ingredients that effect the final mix, some that can be tested by scientific means (such as you have illustrated)...however, the other...far more intangible elements simply cannot (at present) - but their overall influence on the psyche is just as important.

At the end of the day, it is the total sum of these parts which creates our visual reality, and no one single part can be deemed above another.

Riccardo Polini said:

You have a strange relationship with "logic".

Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't possess the required contextual-anylitical reasoning skills to understand it (?)

Riccardo Polini said:

Best wishes for the New Year!

Click to expand...

the Same to YOU Riccardo...

Shalom,

KEV

I had the Nikon 105 and sold it for the Zeiss 100.
No regrets.

On the D3 they are worlds apart especially in color rendition, purple fringing, and bokeh.

--
PhotoGo

rinsephotographic said:

again, in use this lens is superlative. as far as online tests go, on photozone the nikon tests as sharper or sharper than the canon, though its tough to make a comparison (dx/fx). lenstip has them both as setting or close to record lp/mm for their platform.

Click to expand...

Dave,
Thank you ...

rinsephotographic said:

rinsephotographic said:

I have seen files on a wedding shoot, with the 105 macro ... nice portrait.

But, from what I remember of the files , and what I am shooting now with the 70-200 VR II ... the VR II , at least "seems" a lot sharper wide open.

Click to expand...

i've heard that the 70-200VR II is a very sharp lens...i'd love to see some of your results. you have some great shots on your website...care to treat us to some of that gorgeous scenery with the 70-200VR II?

Click to expand...

Dave, so far only have shoot Weddings with this lens. 70-200 VRII ... and I LOVE it!

• right now, I am trying to sort out what I will do for the Wedding detail stuff , and the Ring shot. I can hang with what I got now, so I am not in a rush ... but, I am looking ....

p.s.

When I get around to doing some personal stuff ... and feel a little more confortable with the gear ... I am sure to post some 70-200 VR II shots.
It's fast becoming my Favoite workhourse lens.
That's probably no surprise to most here.

HG

--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

Aloha KEV,

Thank you for the links and the samples. VERY Nice work!

Wow, you probably shoot more Flowers than I do ... and I live in Hawaii

Guess I have to work on that.
HG

KEVZPHOTOS said:

Here's a few recent pics that I have taken with the Nikon 105mm VR

Macro 1:1
http://kvincentphotography.ca/macro

non Macro (closeup)
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#h100fd94c
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#h836b7f5
http://kvincentphotography.ca/designerflorals/h100fd94c#hcec7da4

Regular Still-life Distance
http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h256b03ab#h256b03ab
http://kvincentphotography.ca/still-life/h256b03ab#h200870c2
http://kvincentphotography.ca/fooddrink/h242c1b1f#h242c1b1f

I think the colour rendition is very good, the optical clarity very decent and it's as sharp as you want it to be.

I know a guy in Toronto who also specializes in flower, macro, and microscopic photography using the Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro with stacked closeup lenses (ie: 250D, 5T/6T) and he gets really good results with that setup.

Overall, comparing our images I'd say IQ-wise they are pretty much the same.

I've never used the Canon macro myself...that's why I make this referrence.

Hope this helps,

KEV

Click to expand...

--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

Aloha Massimo,

Yes ! I have seen some Great images/Samples from this lens ... mostly Portrait.

Everything looks Great about the lens (and it is about the same price as the two I already have) ...

• BUT, it does not Auto-Focus.

I realize on a "true" macro Manual Focus is the way to go , or a set up portrait ... but, we are talking crazy fast weddings ... and Manual Focusing "just" does not "fly" in that situation, which is where I would be using this the most. (and when I say most, I mean , by FAR the most)

Thank you,
HG

masquar said:

Get the Zeiss Makro-Planar, you will see another world in terms of colors, bokeh and sharpness.

Ciao
Massimo

Hawaii-geek said:

Canon 100mm f2.8 IS Macro "vs" Nikon 105 f2.8 VR Macro ? is this the best Nikon will do this year? for a FF D700

Curious what more experianced Nikon shooters think?

Canon 100 f2.8 IS Macro
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_100_2p8_is_usm_c16/page4.asp
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1291/cat/10

Nikon 105 f2.8 VR Macro
not a test on FF ... but, you get the picture.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/351/cat/12

Still hunting for a Macro solution with VR and AF ... and wondering should I "just" go with a Canon 500D close-up filter on my 70-200 f2.8 VR II for now, and wait?

Thank you,
HG

--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

Click to expand...

--
Massimo Quarta
http://www.massimoquarta.com

Click to expand...

--

Eyes of Hawaii, Largest non-profit Photography club in Hawaii : http://www.eoh.smugmug.com/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'