[cqua77]

One from last year with the K-1 and 21/2.8.


Did everyone notice yet another Makro Planar 2/50 ZK in the market place for sale? I think that's the third one this year which is more than normal.

Tas

Incredible shoot.

[skyer]

Yes, and speaking of the 2/50 I might take mine out shortly to see if I can do some more close focus work with it. Here's what I'm thinking of, this is the 2/100. The light and the rain drops are particularly enticing.
Tas

Yes, and there is definitely a "3D-pop" in this image. By the way, in what software did you convert this image? The colours look beautiful.
As for the 50/2 Makro, I think of it not as a macro lens but more as a general purpose lens. In this regard, it is much more useful than the 100/2 Makro.

[Fenwoodian]

.
Recently I mentioned that I had purchased a Zeiss ZF 100/1.4 Makro-Planar (Classic version) that had been damaged. The glass was good, but the aperture and focus were defective.

Initially, I was unsuccessful in my attempts to fix it myself. While I was able to slightly improve its' functionality, it was not fully functional after my feeble attempts. So I sent it in to Zeiss USA for them to repair.

I just now got their estimate - $1,076 US dollars ! That's clearly more than it's worth.

Lesson learned, don't buy any more used lenses that are seriously broken.

[Tas]

.
Recently I mentioned that I had purchased a Zeiss ZF 100/1.4 Makro-Planar (Classic version) that had been damaged. The glass was good, but the aperture and focus were defective.

Initially, I was unsuccessful in my attempts to fix it myself. While I was able to slightly improve its' functionality, it was not fully functional after my feeble attempts. So I sent it in to Zeiss USA for them to repair.

I just now got their estimate - $1,076 US dollars ! That's clearly more than it's worth.

Lesson learned, don't buy any more used lenses that are seriously broken.

Mate, sorry to hear about that, it is a lot of money for a lens on top of what you've already spent to buy it. Looking at 2/100 ZF on Ebay points to a range of prices that start below the repair cost and go all the way up to twice the repair cost, so it makes sense to try what you did even if it didn't work this time.

I must point out some silver lining stuff for you though. You've made some good calls and picked up a couple of winners for reasonable prices. Financially I think you're still ahead of the game despite this hiccup and if nothing else is going to work with that lens you can at least sell the lens hood. I'm onto my third Makro Planar hood (I'm actually careful with mine but they both fell and warped, once this happens they not longer mount to the lens) so I expect others will be looking for them too. Or it might be me again.

Tas

[teiki arii]

.
Recently I mentioned that I had purchased a Zeiss ZF 100/1.4 Makro-Planar (Classic version) that had been damaged. The glass was good, but the aperture and focus were defective.

Initially, I was unsuccessful in my attempts to fix it myself. While I was able to slightly improve its' functionality, it was not fully functional after my feeble attempts. So I sent it in to Zeiss USA for them to repair.

I just now got their estimate - $1,076 US dollars ! That's clearly more than it's worth.

.



That 's stupid, they should have repaired it for nothing! What a shame!!!!

[kgivens]

Hey guys, first post, hope I'm not in the wrong forum. I'd appreciate if some of you 100mm Makro-Planar users would comment on the following.

I've been digitizing my large collection of 35mm slides. Thus far the best results I've obtained were by photographing the slides using a full frame DSLR plus a macro lens set at 1:1 magnification. Initially I was doing this with Sony cameras and lenses (A99 plus the historic Minolta/Konica 1-3x zoom macro with dedicated slide copy accessory). I used focus stacking to insure that I got every last drop of information out of each slide, and also to overcome the fact that film is slightly curved. Typically I'd take 5-10 shots at different focal planes through each slide, using focus peaking as a guide.

This system worked pretty well--- better than my Epson Perfection V700 scanner, anyway--- but I still felt that I was not getting all the resolution the slides had to offer. I began to wonder if the Pentax K-1 pixel shift feature could improve my image captures. So I bought a used one, and to improve my odds, also picked up a Zeiss 100 f2 Makro Planar; it was originally a Nikon mount, but the owner had it professionally changed to a ZK (Pentax) mount. I also found 100mm Pentax-made extension tubes on eBay so I could push the lens to 1:1, which is necessary for slide duping. I mounted the K1, extension tubes and Zeiss lens on a Novoflex focusing rail with a dedicated slide copy attachment. Pixel shift was used as well as focus stacking, similar to what I described above.

I was disappointed to discover 1)the pixel shift did not improve on central sharpness; and 2) the bigger let down ---- at 1:1, the Zeiss lens produced very soft focus in all four corners. Not vignetting per se--- just poor focus/resolution. I expected more from this storied lens. Perhaps Zeiss never meant for it to be pushed to 1:1 on a mile-long extension tube. Has anyone here had similar experience?

[Fenwoodian]

Hey guys, first post, hope I'm not in the wrong forum. I'd appreciate if some of you 100mm Makro-Planar users would comment on the following.

I've been digitizing my large collection of 35mm slides. Thus far the best results I've obtained were by photographing the slides using a full frame DSLR plus a macro lens set at 1:1 magnification. Initially I was doing this with Sony cameras and lenses (A99 plus the historic Minolta/Konica 1-3x zoom macro with dedicated slide copy accessory). I used focus stacking to insure that I got every last drop of information out of each slide, and also to overcome the fact that film is slightly curved. Typically I'd take 5-10 shots at different focal planes through each slide, using focus peaking as a guide.

This system worked pretty well--- better than my Epson Perfection V700 scanner, anyway--- but I still felt that I was not getting all the resolution the slides had to offer. I began to wonder if the Pentax K-1 pixel shift feature could improve my image captures. So I bought a used one, and to improve my odds, also picked up a Zeiss 100 f2 Makro Planar; it was originally a Nikon mount, but the owner had it professionally changed to a ZK (Pentax) mount. I also found 100mm Pentax-made extension tubes on eBay so I could push the lens to 1:1, which is necessary for slide duping. I mounted the K1, extension tubes and Zeiss lens on a Novoflex focusing rail with a dedicated slide copy attachment. Pixel shift was used as well as focus stacking, similar to what I described above.

I was disappointed to discover 1)the pixel shift did not improve on central sharpness; and 2) the bigger let down ---- at 1:1, the Zeiss lens produced very soft focus in all four corners. Not vignetting per se--- just poor focus/resolution. I expected more from this storied lens. Perhaps Zeiss never meant for it to be pushed to 1:1 on a mile-long extension tube. Has anyone here had similar experience?

All bets are off when using an extension tube. The Zeiss 100mm Makro Planer IS a terrific lens. The problem is it's not designed to perform on an extentsion tube. Can't blame the lens or Zeiss for poor performance on a tube.

[Tas]

Hey guys, first post, hope I'm not in the wrong forum. I'd appreciate if some of you 100mm Makro-Planar users would comment on the following.

I've been digitizing my large collection of 35mm slides. Thus far the best results I've obtained were by photographing the slides using a full frame DSLR plus a macro lens set at 1:1 magnification. Initially I was doing this with Sony cameras and lenses (A99 plus the historic Minolta/Konica 1-3x zoom macro with dedicated slide copy accessory). I used focus stacking to insure that I got every last drop of information out of each slide, and also to overcome the fact that film is slightly curved. Typically I'd take 5-10 shots at different focal planes through each slide, using focus peaking as a guide.

This system worked pretty well--- better than my Epson Perfection V700 scanner, anyway--- but I still felt that I was not getting all the resolution the slides had to offer. I began to wonder if the Pentax K-1 pixel shift feature could improve my image captures. So I bought a used one, and to improve my odds, also picked up a Zeiss 100 f2 Makro Planar; it was originally a Nikon mount, but the owner had it professionally changed to a ZK (Pentax) mount. I also found 100mm Pentax-made extension tubes on eBay so I could push the lens to 1:1, which is necessary for slide duping. I mounted the K1, extension tubes and Zeiss lens on a Novoflex focusing rail with a dedicated slide copy attachment. Pixel shift was used as well as focus stacking, similar to what I described above.

I was disappointed to discover 1)the pixel shift did not improve on central sharpness; and 2) the bigger let down ---- at 1:1, the Zeiss lens produced very soft focus in all four corners. Not vignetting per se--- just poor focus/resolution. I expected more from this storied lens. Perhaps Zeiss never meant for it to be pushed to 1:1 on a mile-long extension tube. Has anyone here had similar experience?

G'Day,

I've not tried to scan film so I cannot contribute anything there, but I am a big fan of this lens and know that it can achieve detailed sharp images on the K-1. Does your copy provide sharp images without the extension tube fitted? Did you use live view and the electronic shutter to focus with?

I have the 2/100 and a set of extension tubes (36mm/20mm/12mm) though I've not combined the two to test whether there's any changes to resolution when using this combination. I'll try and set up a test with and without extension tubes later today and post some examples. The max my extension tube combo will achieve is 50mm so it won't be a direct mirror of your set up. I have seen online reviews showing maximum resolution from this lens is at f5.6, though you will likely get a more even resolution across the frame at f8 with only a small drop in resolution. What aperture were you using?

I've not shot pixel shift in a while and found that the only way to see the benefit of them was in PDCU5. There are several forum members talking about Rawtherapee also doing pixel shift though I've no experience with that program. I have found little to no benefit in shooting pixel shift when images are viewed in programs not able to correctly display pixel shift images. This includes both On1 Photo RAW and LR6. What PP program are you viewing your images in?

Oh, and welcome to the forums.

Tas

[Tas]

Has anyone here had similar experience?

I'm not sure if you're returning so I'll just post two small size full images as opposed to the range of 100% crops I've prepared as feedback. If you want to see those and talk further on this matter just drop back and let me know.

To explain the two sample images below, these are two captures of one of the subjects I shot after your post. I took shots of three different subjects all up, each at minimum focusing distance. I used the 2/100, the 2/100 with 50mm of extension tubes (that's all I have) and then replicated that with the Tamron 90mm f2.8 which is a 1:1 macro lens.

The two images here are from the 2/100 with extension tubes, you will note significant vignetting with this lens which was problem replicated by the Tamron as well.





You can't see much with these two images at this size of course but I wanted to show the vignetting I was getting with the extension tubes. I was trying to focus on the 'Australia' around the rim on the right. The first image was captured using pixel shift. The difference is subtle but there is a slight improvement when you compare the two at higher magnifications. Interestingly the improvements between an image with PS and one without was more noticeable when captured using the Tamron

Of course I'm a layperson when it comes to testing to a sufficiently standardised level so some errors can be assumed in anything I can provide in the way of feedback on your query. My first thoughts are to wonder whether you'd be better off using a dedicated macro lens for this task? The magnification was not that much different to the 2/100 with 50mm of extension tubes.

Please let me know if you want to discuss further.

Tas

NOTE: No sharpening or any other PP was applied to these images, just an export as jpeg at 500px on the long side.

[kgivens]

Fenwoodian--- I suspect you are correct, the soft corners I'm seeing are probably a sign that this lens was not designed/optimized for 1:1 shooting on a 4" long extension tube. I could not overcome this problem by upping the aperture from my initial setting of 5.6 to f11. Surprising. My old Minolta MD 100mm macro did pretty well on similar extension tubes.

Tas--- Thanks for those sample images. I did use Live View (plus focus peaking) to focus. Before I got the Zeiss, I picked up the Pentax100mm macro and was using that for slide copying at 1:1. I think the lens could have better resolution overall, but somewhat amazingly, it had clearly better corners than this Zeiss stretched to 100mm. Again I would have expected better enginieering from Zeiss.

So if my Zeiss specimen can't deliver the goods--- what's left besides the too-rich-for-my blood Voiglander 125? Maybe there's some decent short lens that can be reversed on a short bellows? Thanks in advance for any recommendations---

[Tas]

I was wondering how long this would take, but now it's official: Cosina officially discontinues the Zeiss SLR Classic series of lenses | Photo Rumors

Tas

[Fenwoodian]

I was wondering how long this would take, but now it's official: Cosina officially discontinues the Zeiss SLR Classic series of lenses | Photo Rumors

Tas

Tas, thanks for the heads up and link on this...

These recently discontinued Zeiss ZF Classic lenses are much easier to Leitax convert to Pentax K mount then are the newer Zeiss ZF Milvus lenses. So, if you're wanting a new one of them to convert to K mount, might want to get it sooner than later...

[Tas]

Tas, thanks for the heads up and link on this...

These recently discontinued Zeiss ZF Classic lenses are much easier to Leitax convert to Pentax K mount then are the newer Zeiss ZF Milvus lenses. So, if you're wanting a new one of them to convert to K mount, might want to get it sooner than later...

No worries mate, I thought yourself and the others subscribed to this thread would be interested. The fact that the line was retained for so long after the release of the Milvus series was a good thing while it lasted. Do you know if the Milvus are made by Zeiss, Cosina, or another manufacturer under licence? Cosina seems to be pointing their Voigtlander lenses towards mirrorless and Leica M mount.

The discounts on the ZF2 lenses at the moment would have me tempted though it's not a good time for me to be spending on nice to haves. Still, there's some good discounts on the 15/2.8, the 25/2 and the 35/1.4 via B&H, though neither they or Adorama have the 135/2 in the classic. Indeed both outlets don't have a big range left in the classic series so I guess this was a belated announcement.

FYI, I've ordered an Es type screen for my K-1 from focusingscreen.com. I added one of these to my K5 and it was a huge benefit shooting with the Zeiss. I'll let you know how it turns out.

Tas

[Fenwoodian]

.
My Zeiss Milvus lenses all say "Made In Japan" on them. I assume they are made in the same Cosina factory that the Classic lenses were made in.

Other than the cost, I for one am not lamenting the discontinuation of the Classic line. Every Milvus lens I've owned or tried was better than its' Classic version. Possible exceptions being:

1. The 135mm Classic lens because most everyone rated that one as being of Otus quality and IQ.
2. The Classic 35mm f/1.4 has the best bokeh at wide apertures of any lens I have ever owned (including Leica). While I have never used the Milvus 35mm f/1.4, I can tell you now without ever seeing one that I would not trade my Classic 35/1.4 for the Milvus 35/1.4 if offered in an even up trade.
3. Of course there is no Milvus version of the Classic 28mm f/2 lens. Many photographers love it's unique signature and consider it one of their favorite lenses.
..

[Tas]

Fenwoodian--- I suspect you are correct, the soft corners I'm seeing are probably a sign that this lens was not designed/optimized for 1:1 shooting on a 4" long extension tube. I could not overcome this problem by upping the aperture from my initial setting of 5.6 to f11. Surprising. My old Minolta MD 100mm macro did pretty well on similar extension tubes.

Tas--- Thanks for those sample images. I did use Live View (plus focus peaking) to focus. Before I got the Zeiss, I picked up the Pentax100mm macro and was using that for slide copying at 1:1. I think the lens could have better resolution overall, but somewhat amazingly, it had clearly better corners than this Zeiss stretched to 100mm. Again I would have expected better enginieering from Zeiss.

So if my Zeiss specimen can't deliver the goods--- what's left besides the too-rich-for-my blood Voiglander 125? Maybe there's some decent short lens that can be reversed on a short bellows? Thanks in advance for any recommendations---

G'day again mate, my apologies for the delay in finally posting these images for you. Can I say mum wouldn't let me out of the basement to get on the internet?

Anyhoo, last week I captured three series of images and I was honestly not happy with any of the three. I've not been on the camera much of late and I think it shows but excuses aside: my point earlier about a lack of consistency is going to be present in the following image posts. Despite this hopefully it will be useful feedback for you to move forward with your planned activities, though having said this I assume you already have.

In this post I will provide examples of two subjects, including crops of the subject previously posted, with a twist, and crops from a different subject captured using the two lenses previously mentioned; the Zeiss 2/100 of course and the Tamron 90mm macro 2.8.

The first image was captured using the 2/100 at f5.6 with the 50mm of Extension Tubes. The second is the same set up but includes pixel shift. The focal point, set using LV magnified is on the rigging on the ship at the top of frame. (NOTE: Nil PP applied to any of the next four images)


Now, using the same subject but changing to the Tamron 90mm macro at f8 and with the 50mm of Extension Tubes. The second image is again the same set up but with pixel shift, Same focal point as above.


I must declare a lack of 'expertise' at getting the most out of pixel shift, but I do know that when the right subject is captured correctly there is a noticeable difference. I don't think the above examples show much difference but when zooming into the two original files I can see where PS does provide extra resolution. But. With the last two images above, the first is actually the PS image however to me it looks like it's a bit soft compared to the non-PS second image. This could be pointing to the same issues you've experienced or it might be that I just messed up the focal points and with a DoF so narrow any errors will be magnified. According to my mum the last option is the most likely. She can be a bit harsh my mum.

To close out this post I will provide two more 100% crops, but this time they were taken with the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro alone, at minimum focusing distance. Both images were shot at f8 and for me this example has the biggest improvement in detail when you compare the standard shot versus the pixel shift image. The difference is still quite subtle so I think that PS improvements in resolution are also very much dependent upon the subject as well.

Tamron 90mm macro at f8 with PS, then same set up but no PS. (NOTE: This subject was suspended and would move whilst being captured hence I went with a different subject above) Focal point was on the lettering and scratches to the left of the lettering. Some minor PP applied to these two images working on tones and sharpness only.


The Tamron 90mm macro is a good lens but what I see in each shot I captured using it is a bigger improvement between the non-PS images and images captured with PS. It could be just me, but putting all my errors to one side for a minute I'd like to draw your attention back to Fenwoodian's comments about the design of the 2/100 not suiting the extension tubes.

For me the best course of action if minimum focusing distance is a part of your workflow then a 1:1 macro is preferable to the Zeiss 2/100 1:2 lens. Of course I'm only a numpty at this so I'd post queries to the 'Film Processing, Scanning and Darkroom' forum here: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom - PentaxForums.com and if macro is going to pop, look up the macro forum and forum member 'Nass'. He's the likely go to person on all things macro and here's why: Extreme Macro Photography

Well the novel is over and being a fan of what the Zeiss lenses can achieve I'd hope you choose to hang onto your 2/100 and share some images with us from time to time. It's the best way to stop me writing about my mum.

Tas