Not a quality lens

[Zeissophile]

Just got this lens. I usually shoot with Zeiss glass, but Zeiss does not offer a long macro, so had to settle for something else.

As to be expected, focus ring is not tight, but has some play, as all AF lenses have. Lens hood is made of hardish plastic, and I wonder how long it will survive field usage. The bayonet lock for the hood is difficult to engage, no comparison to the Zeiss 100 mm Makroplanar ZE. The f/32 depth of field markings on the lens are pure fantasy, by far too narrow as even the most casual experimentation will reveal. The infinity focus is about 1.5 mm past marked infinity, and the lens focuses further into hyper infinity by another 2 mm. Precision production looks different.

Once Zeiss comes out with a long macro, I will immediately sell this, but in the meantime it will have to do.

I intend it for herpetology shots where I previously used a Canon 300 mm f/2.8 IS, occasionally with extension ring to get closer.

This is just an out of the box first impression. Will have to shoot a bit with it. So far at best ho-hum.

 

[Howard S]

Well you enjoyed not liking it, hard to believe that someone posts a review without actually taking some photos

 

[Abu Mahendra]

You should have bought the Sigma 180 f/2.8 APO Macro instead.

 

[canuck dave]

"This is just an out of the box first impression. Will have to shoot a bit with it. So far at best ho-hum."...........

Yes, another absurd 'review'.

 

[borno]

Don't look now, but your other AF lenses go past infinity mark also. They are made that way on purpose.

 

[Gearóid Ó Laoi Garry Lee]

1. Thinks that metal is of necessity better than plastic.

2. Thinks that photographs are an outré product of a lens.

3. Doesn't use lenses, but rather glass.

4. Will exchange him for a proper reviewer as soon as I can.

... The end.

Zero Étoiles..

 

[Zeissophile]

Don't look now, but your other AF lenses go past infinity mark also. They are made that way on purpose.

And what is the purpose of this? I call that poor manufacturing, and see no reason why this should be necessary for AF lenses. Please note, I usually use Zeiss MF lenses, where infinity is at infinity. Period.

 

[NancyP]

Color and contrast are quite good. Resolution is excellent. Up to a hypothetical long macro by Zeiss? Who knows, there isn't one to test. I prefer plastic lens hoods, myself. Plastic is more likely to deform or shatter and thus dissipate energy, likely better for lens than direct transmission through metal lens hood. Yes, metal hoods are durable and look nice. I would still like a cheapo plastic hood. As for the focus mechanism when used in manual mode, it does the job. The autofocus is slow as molasses, naturally. I don't pay much attention to DOF marks on lens, I just look through finder or on live view.

It is a good lens. That being said, I don't know how it compares optically with the newer 180mm macro offerings, eg Tamron and Sigma, with useful-at-midrange feature of stabilization. People may want to shoot non-macro subjects occasionally.

My own Canon 180 has been taken on herp trips, along with a 1.4x TCII. It works well.

 

[borno]

Don't look now, but your other AF lenses go past infinity mark also. They are made that way on purpose.

And what is the purpose of this? I call that poor manufacturing, and see no reason why this should be necessary for AF lenses. Please note, I usually use Zeiss MF lenses, where infinity is at infinity. Period.

Closed loop needs overshoot

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Don't look now, but your other AF lenses go past infinity mark also. They are made that way on purpose.

And what is the purpose of this? I call that poor manufacturing, and see no reason why this should be necessary for AF lenses.

And this considered judgment of yours is born of your extensive knowledge of auto focus mechanisms, is it?

Please note, I usually use Zeiss MF lenses,

Right, so you have no idea of what you're talking about when it comes to auto focus lenses. But don't let your complete ignorance hold you back from giving us all the benefit of your opinion. After all, why bother to learn something, when you can instead spout utter and complete nonsense. Good for you!

where infinity is at infinity. Period.

 

[Abu Mahendra]

Closed loop autofocus needs overshoot. Plus I wager it also has something to do with being able to operate at sub-freezing temperatures. Take that Zeiss lens of yours to -20C, and I bet infinity won't be at infinity while the Canon lens will still be within the infinity range. Now, which one is better engineered?

 

[nedelcho]

Try taking off that slippery metal hood of Zeiss lenses when you are shooting outside in -20 degrees with your bare hands or with gloves. Plastic lens hood is so much better. Try it out first, make some pictures and then give ratings. You will be surprised when you see the optical quality and more so when you realize that this lens goes to 1:1, contrary to your 100mm Zeiss (which is 1:2) and the optical quality is mostly equal.

This was one of the most unhelpful kind of reviews I've seen lately.

--
My gallery:
http://4coolpics.com/author_pics.php?aut=21355

 

[jayrandomer]

Just got this lens. I usually shoot with Zeiss glass, but Zeiss does not offer a long macro, so had to settle for something else.

As to be expected, focus ring is not tight, but has some play, as all AF lenses have. Lens hood is made of hardish plastic, and I wonder how long it will survive field usage. The bayonet lock for the hood is difficult to engage, no comparison to the Zeiss 100 mm Makroplanar ZE. The f/32 depth of field markings on the lens are pure fantasy, by far too narrow as even the most casual experimentation will reveal. The infinity focus is about 1.5 mm past marked infinity, and the lens focuses further into hyper infinity by another 2 mm. Precision production looks different.

Once Zeiss comes out with a long macro, I will immediately sell this, but in the meantime it will have to do.

I intend it for herpetology shots where I previously used a Canon 300 mm f/2.8 IS, occasionally with extension ring to get closer.

This is just an out of the box first impression. Will have to shoot a bit with it. So far at best ho-hum.

The stereotypical Zeiss user is someone who would gladly spend thousands to get have the best built lens but may or may not be that interested in actually taking pictures. I've searched through the Zeiss Flickr lens pools and know that Zeiss lenses are capable of taking amazing photographs, so I know that is more a funny stereotype than something that's actually true.

It does seem like parody, though, when someone called 'Zeissophile' gives a middling review for a lens without actually having taken pictures with it. It would be like someone writing a glowing review of the style and craftsmanship of their Jaguar but then admitting at the end to never having driven it because it's always been in the shop.

 

[ed rader]

//

 

[Mike921]

So, this is one of those unboxing things, right? Is it on YouTube yet?

 

[tonyjr]

Have you returned it yet ?

I don't really look at the lens markings . When the shot is what I want , I snap - sometimes to soon .

Infinity is where? 1 mile , 100 miles , the moon , maybe Mars ?

I would suggest reading the manual . Learning to use the lens . The 180 macro is not a Point and shoot lens .

Btw = I will not use a metal hood - plastic and rubber ones only .

 

[Mystery Gardener]

I have dropped mine twice (about a 5 foot fall) and had my tripod tip over once with the weight of my 1 series Canon smashing down on top of it. Still works perfectly [not recommending my experiences as a good test method ;-)]. Still loving this lens. Cheers

 

[Rick Knepper]

Infinity is where? 1 mile , 100 miles , the moon , maybe Mars ?

Hyperfocal is 1054 ft. When you are shooting landscapes at the Grand Canyon these distances will come into play.

Not trying to speak for the OP but he may have mentioned infinity because the Zeiss Makro lenses are well known for excellent IQ at macro distances as well as at infinity making them excellent lenses for a variety of subject matter. I do not have the Zeiss 100mm Makro but I am underwhelmed with Canon's 100L for normal shooting beyond macro distances in outdoors conditions (maybe its better in studio conditions). I'd rather use my 70-200 for this FL. I kept the Zeiss 50mm Makro and I got rid of all of my other 50mm primes as another example.

For those of us who do a lot of manual focusing at infinity, a hard stop at infinity is a time saver. Zeiss lenses are well-calibrated and a turn to the infinity mark can be trusted to be in focus when pointed at infinity. It is rare that a Zeiss lens doesn't achieve infinity focus at the infinity mark whereas a cynical person might be easily led to the conspiracy theory that this whole Canon infinity compensation thing is a cover for less than accurate calibration especially those cynical persons who have tried to focus any of Canon's AF lenses manually - in normal temperatures - at the infinity mark.

 

[Abu Mahendra]

Sorry,I myself cannot take Seriously a person who casts doubts on the 100L's IQ beyond macro distances. Right.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

Sorry,I myself cannot take Seriously a person who casts doubts on the 100L's IQ beyond macro distances. Right.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. The 100L is an all-around superb lens. And this ridiculous fuss about infinity focusing is also very silly. As others have pointed out, auto focus lenses don't have a hard stop at infinity. That's just the nature of the beast. If you really need that hard stop, then use a manual focus lens. Don't whine about the tiny cost of the huge benefit of auto focus.