[Kenn100D]

Ever since i bought my CZ 50mm 1.4 it been my favorite lens. Like the style and sharpness.

[mawz]

No comment on this part



Regarding #1: For someone simply trying to fill the gap between 77mm and 135mm, you may be correct about the f2 part. However, from a macro standpoint, you lose speed at the close focus distance and given this is a 1:2 native reproduction ratio, that makes this a fast portrait tele. As far as #2, goes, I haven't seen in formal lens tests comparing the ZK next to the D FA WR side by side. #3 is an opinion, especially in regards to the build quality of the D-FA WR. Its aperture blades are very unique in the Pentax lineup and it is built more like a limit lens than in other current lens in the Pentax lineup plus WR. I doubt you have held one based on that statement.

I've seen comparisons of the D-FA against the Sigma 105 and Tamron 90. I've also seen comparisons of the ZK Makro-Planar against those lenses. The D-FA compares well against the Sigma and Tamron, but doesn't stand out (unsurprising, these are all superb lenses already and in the same price bracket). The Makro-Planar however outperforms both the Sigma and Tamron, quite noticeably at wider apertures (f4 and wider), less so stopped down.

The WR's are extremely well built for their cost. They aren't in the same class as the ZK's, which are extraordinarily well built lenses. I've held both, as well as the Limiteds. Neither the D-FA WR or a Limited lens is as well built as a ZK. Of course neither costs as much either. A case of you get what you pay for.

:koolaid: No one is arguing that they aren't excellent or well made. But for the prices, they damn well better be.



Why did yo slop the out of production APO-Lanthar in and the Pentax 200/4 lenses in here? This thread has been about the current production ZK and focal length counter parts. You low mouth the WR for being f2.8 and then offer up an f2.5 and f4 as an alternative for native 1:1 lenses.

Because these are the two closest equivalents in optical performance to the ZK Makro-Planar in terms of native K mount Macros, the D-FA 100 is not in the same class as these three lenses. In fact the APO-Lanthar is better (true APO design with essentially no CA) than the Makro-Planar.

The D-FA 100/2.8 is a very good lens itself but it doesn't compete with APO or near-APO designs like the Makro-Planar or APO-Lanthar. As macro's go, the D-FA 100 is very good but not exceptional.

All of these lenses in this post are the top guns and what it comes down to is the end use of the user and personal preference. It essentially comes down to that and what one is willing to pay for them. None of these lenses are cheap per se. Some times people need to remember that there are differences in fact and opinion. Factor in personal preference and art and it isn't so cut and dry.

My perspective in this particular lens is from a macro perspective. f2 at 1:1 and ~12" would be a seriously thin DOF. If I were using it at a short tele, I'd just go with my FA 77.

If you want the best performance for Macro work, the Makro-Planar is probably not your best choice, an APO-Lanthar or Leitax'd 100/2.8 APO-Macro-Elmarit will be better (those being the two best Macro lenses in this focal length range, both of which are usable on K mount) given their APO performance and 1:1 capability (of course the Leica requires an adapter for 1:1, but even with the adapter it's arguably the best 100mm macro ever made). The Makro-Planar offers a superb portrait tele and a world-class Macro in the same package, which is a fairly unique offering, for a price which compares well to its closest competition (the APO-Macro-Elmarit runs $2000+ used, the APO-Lanthar is $1000-1400 depending on mount)

[mawz]

One also needs to mention the Vivitar Series 1 105mm f/2.5. No-one beats the focus control of that lens. And f/2.5 is much the same as f/2. (Not that I am often using a macro lens wide open.)

It doesn't cost a grand or two either.

Great lens. That said it's 1/2 stop slower and a lot weaker in CA control than the Makro-Planar.

It's not hard to find an excellent ~100mm macro in K mount. My personal choice would be the Tamron 90/2.5 or the Lester Dine/Kiron 105/2.8 as the best combination of performance and cost. I don't kid myself that they're competitive with the exotic APO or near-APO designs though.

[mawz]

Well...

-pic of A* 135/1.8-

(just kidding)

One thing I never understood was why Pentax made that and the A* 85, but no 100/2 or 105/2. There's only one fast 90-105mm lens in K mount and that's the ZK Makro-Planar at its somewhat ridiculous cost.

As much as I like the Makro-Planar (and I've shot with one), if I had ~$1800 to spend on a fast mid-tele, the A* 135 would get my dollars.

[mawz]

Ever since i bought my CZ 50mm 1.4 it been my favorite lens. Like the style and sharpness.

Had the C/Y version, it's brilliant and I miss it. I'll probably get the ZK at some point but I've got the FA50/1.4 and a limited budget for now.

[Asahiflex]

First, I have the 125mm Macro Apo-Lanthar and I actually researched the ZK 100/2 macro before I went searching for the Voigtländer.

I immediately turned down the ZK when I saw this sample which resembled closely the type of shots I was planning to make with a ~100mm macro lens. At its price point, the ZK better be perfect but for my type of photography it's unusable.

[Kenn100D]

I bought this one as gift for myself on my birthday. Now i'm saving up for the wideangle 35 mm. =)

[Termik]

Well, I normally do not engage in pro- con- discussions about gear, but since I have become a Zeissaholic recently I thought I should relay my thoughts on Zeiss:

- It is very expensive!
- It may very well, in a strictly analytical sense, not be worth it
- If you can afford it and you buy it, you feel it was worth it..
- It renders in a way I have never seen before.. vivid colours (Zeiss colours!), high contrast, 3D
- After a while you can point out a picture taken with a Zeiss in a blind test... it has a unique rendering
- This is what you buy, the rendering primarily.. The amazing.."it will last forever" quality is a bonus
- You suddenly degrade your camera house to a digital back to a Zeiss lens (I still used a K10D)
- It is the lens that gives you all the goodness, and the sensor suddenly becomes secondary..
- It is FF and works beatifully on aps-c!
- I do not have to care about back-focus/front-focus/SDM/Screwdrive... I focus manually
- I can use the same lenses on my Pentax LX!!! Yipiii.. Love film!

I do not care about MTF-curves and so on... These lenses have soul... and I will never sell them!

I respect that people think they are overpriced underachieving hyped glass, but I just love'em..

For some Zeiss-goodness look here: ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) - FM Forums
.. and no.. I get similar results without any PP... Just jpeg straight out of the cam..

Cheers

[Blue]

Well, I normally do not engage in pro- con- discussions about gear, but since I have become a Zeissaholic recently I thought I should relay my thoughts on Zeiss:

- It is very expensive!
- It may very well, in a strictly analytical sense, not be worth it
- If you can afford it and you buy it, you feel it was worth it..
- It renders in a way I have never seen before.. vivid colours (Zeiss colours!), high contrast, 3D
- After a while you can point out a picture taken with a Zeiss in a blind test... it has a unique rendering
- This is what you buy, the rendering primarily.. The amazing.."it will last forever" quality is a bonus
- You suddenly degrade your camera house to a digital back to a Zeiss lens (I still used a K10D)
- It is the lens that gives you all the goodness, and the sensor suddenly becomes secondary..
- It is FF and works beatifully on aps-c!
- I do not have to care about back-focus/front-focus/SDM/Screwdrive... I focus manually
- I can use the same lenses on my Pentax LX!!! Yipiii.. Love film!

I do not care about MTF-curves and so on... These lenses have soul... and I will never sell them!

I respect that people think they are overpriced underachieving hyped glass, but I just love'em..

For some Zeiss-goodness look here: ZE/ZF/ZM Images (Official Thread!) - FM Forums
.. and no.. I get similar results without any PP... Just jpeg straight out of the cam..

Cheers

That is a very sensible perspective! If I ever do get a Zeiss ZK, the 1st one will likely be the 28/2.

[rparmar]

You suddenly degrade your camera house to a digital back to a Zeiss lens

Great list, this one especially!

[falconeye]

I immediately turned down the ZK when I saw this sample which resembled closely the type of shots I was planning to make with a ~100mm macro lens. At its price point, the ZK better be perfect but for my type of photography it's unusable.

This is Bokeh Fringing. Not (longitudinal or transversal) CA. Every lens has it due to the finite dispersion of any glass.

The effect is proportional to the aperture used and you normally won't shot macro at wide apertures.

It is possible to reduce the effect somewhat by using extra low dispersion glass (ED). But prime lenses w/o ED should all be similiar in this regard and the effect is unavoidable anyway. E.g., the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Macro (9/8 elements) and the Pentax DFA 100mm f/2.8 Macro (9/8 elements too) should be very similiar in the regard, i.e. they both don't use ED elements. The Zeiss has floating elements and may have better performance at portrait distances and/or wide open. It may have tighter production tolerances too. The Pentax is more lightweight, with WR and AF. The Zeiss is 2.8x as expensive as the Pentax.

[blende8]

About two years ago Frank207be showed the performance of the Nikon 200/2 on the Nikoncafe forum.
I have saved the image on my harddisk, cannot find it in the forum atm.
This lens has ED glas and is very expensive.
Here is the image, showing the background bokeh:

[falconeye]

About two years ago Frank207be showed the performance of the Nikon 200/2 on the Nikoncafe forum.
I have saved the image on my harddisk, cannot find it in the forum atm.
This lens has ED glas and is very expensive.
Here is the image, showing the background bokeh:

Thanks for the sample photos.

Is this in reply to my post? In agreement or disagreement?

Anyway, the Nikon 200/2 is obviously outstanding when it comes to Bokeh fringing (almost unnoticeable). Like I said in my post, the effect can be minimized by using ED glass and AF-S NIKKOR 200 mm 1:2G ED VR makes heavy use of it. On the other hand, this Nikkor 200/2 is exactly 5x as expensive as the Pentax 200/2.8 ... Primes with ED glass are the exception rather than the rule. Nikon even speaks about "Super ED" glass for this lens...

[blende8]

What I wanted to show is that it is possible to reduce the effect so much that it isn't noticeable anymore. The example is extreme, of course. But, lens design can take this into account. Pentax does not seem to be interested in these color fringes. All DA lenses I owned have shown this effect strongly. On the other hand, the Voigtlander APO lenses do not show this. At least I never really noticed it. The 90/3.5 is using ED glass.
Zeiss does not note that they use ED glass. Does anybody know anything about that?

[Asahiflex]

This is Bokeh Fringing. Not (longitudinal or transversal) CA. Every lens has it due to the finite dispersion of any glass.

The effect is proportional to the aperture used and you normally won't shot macro at wide apertures.

Thanks for pointing that out but of course I know this very well. I specifically chose the 125mm Apo-Lanthar because my photography involves a lot of (near) wide-open photography. So I would often encounter this type of bokeh fringing. I understand that Zeiss made other choices while designing the ZK 100/2, but for certain types of photography the Zeiss is not usable.