Voigtlander 125 vs Zeiss 100 (6 pics)

tcom · 08-17-2008, 10:00 AM

So, after all these test shots with the Zeiss Makro-Planar 100/2 (see https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/34386-zeiss-ma...est-shots.html for the photos), it was time to compare it to the Voigtlander.

I moved the camera between the shots to get similar sized subjects. All the photos are converted under Silkypix with the same parameters, except for exposure, in order to get similar results

f/3.2
Voigtlander:

Zeiss:

f/4:
Voigtlander:

Zeiss:

f/5.6:
Voigtlander:

Zeiss

All the shots are in full resolution under Voigtlander 125/2.5 vs Zeiss 100/2 Photo Gallery by Dominique Schreckling at pbase.com.

I do not see a lot differences, apart from slightly different focus point. I think I would need a KatzEye splitscreen to focus these lenses manually correctly.

thePiRaTE!! · 08-17-2008, 11:49 AM

Thanks for posting, I had been interested to see this for a long time. I see something that I notice with my other Zeiss T*'s that the bokeh is dimmed slightly compared to other lenses. All in all though, I would have to say from these three images there really isn't much in it, both seem amazingly similar. I wonder about the advertised selective focus feature of the 100, if it actually made any difference or how?

K.

tcom · 08-17-2008, 12:10 PM

Thank you for your comments. At least on screen, there is not a big difference between the two. I will have some of these printed and maybe the prints give other results.

But I am surprised too how close these are. At least I now know there is an alternative to the not anymore available Voigtlander.

I suspect the "selective focus" come from the narrower DOF due to the larger aperture, that's all.

roentarre · 08-17-2008, 02:40 PM

Yes, Dominique. From your comparison, I found little difference and thanks for the test here.

Sometimes what we see on the test does not necessarily translate itself into real practice. I hate to say this at least, Zeiss 100 f2 macro is really tempting. Well, the difference would be not 1:1 macro. Hehe

creampuff · 08-17-2008, 06:53 PM

I would opt for the Voigtlander hands down. To me I'd prefer the advantage of having 25mm more in focal length and frankly, at f/2.5, the DOF is pretty narrow and already magical enough. As for the Zeiss, having f/2 is nice if you just want to want narrow DOF and bokeh only pictures but for a modern macro lens to go to only 1:2 magnification is frankly a big disappointment. And price is not even in the equation...

thePiRaTE!! · 08-18-2008, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

I would opt for the Voigtlander hands down. To me I'd prefer the advantage of having 25mm more in focal length and frankly, at f/2.5, the DOF is pretty narrow and already magical enough. As for the Zeiss, having f/2 is nice if you just want to want narrow DOF and bokeh only pictures but for a modern macro lens to go to only 1:2 magnification is frankly a big disappointment. And price is not even in the equation...

Its a good point, and one that would seem to dog the wider acceptance of the 100/2 (the 1:2 thing) but I might suggest that unless one specifically is requiring 1:1 then having a tele that can hit 1:2 and f2.0 while (apparently) equalling the VL125 optically is still a really desireable thing. Can't argue with price though - Voigtlanders are wonderfully priced when new and climb steadily from there. I wonder if Cosina intentionally foster a cult status in this way. I hope their involvement with Zeiss hasn't comprimised their intentions for continuing to produce generously priced and designed SLR optics on their own - not that I mind the Zeiss! Got my 85 finally... another story.

tcom · 08-18-2008, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by creampuff

I would opt for the Voigtlander hands down. To me I'd prefer the advantage of having 25mm more in focal length and frankly, at f/2.5, the DOF is pretty narrow and already magical enough. As for the Zeiss, having f/2 is nice if you just want to want narrow DOF and bokeh only pictures but for a modern macro lens to go to only 1:2 magnification is frankly a big disappointment. And price is not even in the equation...

All valid points, there is just one problem with the Voigtlander, it is not produced anymore and those which appear from time to time do have a rather high price now as well.

tcom · 08-18-2008, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by thePiRaTE!!

Its a good point, and one that would seem to dog the wider acceptance of the 100/2 (the 1:2 thing) but I might suggest that unless one specifically is requiring 1:1 then having a tele that can hit 1:2 and f2.0 while (apparently) equalling the VL125 optically is still a really desireable thing. Can't argue with price though - Voigtlanders are wonderfully priced when new and climb steadily from there. I wonder if Cosina intentionally foster a cult status in this way. I hope their involvement with Zeiss hasn't comprimised their intentions for continuing to produce generously priced and designed SLR optics on their own - not that I mind the Zeiss! Got my 85 finally... another story.

At least Voigtlander released the 40mm and 55mm in Pentax mount, but at the moment they do still not want to re-release the 125.

I do seldom have to go below 1:2, so this limitation on the Zeiss is not so important for me.

How is your 85 perform?

08-17-2008, 10:00 AM	#1
tcom Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,293	Voigtlander 125 vs Zeiss 100 (6 pics) So, after all these test shots with the Zeiss Makro-Planar 100/2 (see https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/34386-zeiss-ma...est-shots.html for the photos), it was time to compare it to the Voigtlander. I moved the camera between the shots to get similar sized subjects. All the photos are converted under Silkypix with the same parameters, except for exposure, in order to get similar results f/3.2 Voigtlander: Zeiss: f/4: Voigtlander: Zeiss: f/5.6: Voigtlander: Zeiss All the shots are in full resolution under Voigtlander 125/2.5 vs Zeiss 100/2 Photo Gallery by Dominique Schreckling at pbase.com. I do not see a lot differences, apart from slightly different focus point. I think I would need a KatzEye splitscreen to focus these lenses manually correctly.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Narcissus radiiflorus with Voigtlander 125 (6 shots)	tcom	Post Your Photos!	13	05-18-2009 10:28 AM
Voigtlander SL 125 PK testing!	shattuck	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	06-15-2008 03:45 AM
For Sale - Sold: Voigtlander 125/2.5	TomInJax	Sold Items	11	05-26-2008 10:57 AM

08-17-2008, 11:49 AM	#2
thePiRaTE!! Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Calgary, AB Photos: Gallery Posts: 942	Thanks for posting, I had been interested to see this for a long time. I see something that I notice with my other Zeiss T*'s that the bokeh is dimmed slightly compared to other lenses. All in all though, I would have to say from these three images there really isn't much in it, both seem amazingly similar. I wonder about the advertised selective focus feature of the 100, if it actually made any difference or how? K.

08-17-2008, 12:10 PM	#3
tcom Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,293 Original Poster	Thank you for your comments. At least on screen, there is not a big difference between the two. I will have some of these printed and maybe the prints give other results. But I am surprised too how close these are. At least I now know there is an alternative to the not anymore available Voigtlander. I suspect the "selective focus" come from the narrower DOF due to the larger aperture, that's all.

08-17-2008, 02:40 PM	#4
roentarre Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 11,783	Yes, Dominique. From your comparison, I found little difference and thanks for the test here. Sometimes what we see on the test does not necessarily translate itself into real practice. I hate to say this at least, Zeiss 100 f2 macro is really tempting. Well, the difference would be not 1:1 macro. Hehe

08-17-2008, 06:53 PM	#5
creampuff Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Singapore Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,953	I would opt for the Voigtlander hands down. To me I'd prefer the advantage of having 25mm more in focal length and frankly, at f/2.5, the DOF is pretty narrow and already magical enough. As for the Zeiss, having f/2 is nice if you just want to want narrow DOF and bokeh only pictures but for a modern macro lens to go to only 1:2 magnification is frankly a big disappointment. And price is not even in the equation...

08-18-2008, 01:23 AM	#6
thePiRaTE!! Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Calgary, AB Photos: Gallery Posts: 942	Originally posted by creampuff I would opt for the Voigtlander hands down. To me I'd prefer the advantage of having 25mm more in focal length and frankly, at f/2.5, the DOF is pretty narrow and already magical enough. As for the Zeiss, having f/2 is nice if you just want to want narrow DOF and bokeh only pictures but for a modern macro lens to go to only 1:2 magnification is frankly a big disappointment. And price is not even in the equation... Its a good point, and one that would seem to dog the wider acceptance of the 100/2 (the 1:2 thing) but I might suggest that unless one specifically is requiring 1:1 then having a tele that can hit 1:2 and f2.0 while (apparently) equalling the VL125 optically is still a really desireable thing. Can't argue with price though - Voigtlanders are wonderfully priced when new and climb steadily from there. I wonder if Cosina intentionally foster a cult status in this way. I hope their involvement with Zeiss hasn't comprimised their intentions for continuing to produce generously priced and designed SLR optics on their own - not that I mind the Zeiss! Got my 85 finally... another story.

08-18-2008, 02:39 AM	#7
tcom Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,293 Original Poster	Originally posted by creampuff I would opt for the Voigtlander hands down. To me I'd prefer the advantage of having 25mm more in focal length and frankly, at f/2.5, the DOF is pretty narrow and already magical enough. As for the Zeiss, having f/2 is nice if you just want to want narrow DOF and bokeh only pictures but for a modern macro lens to go to only 1:2 magnification is frankly a big disappointment. And price is not even in the equation... All valid points, there is just one problem with the Voigtlander, it is not produced anymore and those which appear from time to time do have a rather high price now as well.

08-18-2008, 02:42 AM	#8
tcom Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,293 Original Poster	Originally posted by thePiRaTE!! Its a good point, and one that would seem to dog the wider acceptance of the 100/2 (the 1:2 thing) but I might suggest that unless one specifically is requiring 1:1 then having a tele that can hit 1:2 and f2.0 while (apparently) equalling the VL125 optically is still a really desireable thing. Can't argue with price though - Voigtlanders are wonderfully priced when new and climb steadily from there. I wonder if Cosina intentionally foster a cult status in this way. I hope their involvement with Zeiss hasn't comprimised their intentions for continuing to produce generously priced and designed SLR optics on their own - not that I mind the Zeiss! Got my 85 finally... another story. At least Voigtlander released the 40mm and 55mm in Pentax mount, but at the moment they do still not want to re-release the 125. I do seldom have to go below 1:2, so this limitation on the Zeiss is not so important for me. How is your 85 perform?