Nik 105/1.8 and Nik 105/4 combo vs Zeiss makro-planar 100/2

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

Weekend will see me thinking over the shots I took with these three lenses.
My possible future lens purchase is based on economization and not purely on GAS hit. My friend showed me Zeiss Makro-Planar 100/2 ZF which he would let me have for $390 and let me testing it for couple of days. I have Niks 105/4 for makro and 1.8 for portraits and wondered if I could cover both these things by single Zeiss. I still didn´t decide and find this decision quite difficult. From economization point of view only it´s no brainer, but I do love my Niks, especially that 1.8.

I have found that Zeiss´s contrast and color is nice, can say it´s punchy. You basically don´t even need any post-process. On the other hand that light dreamyness of fully open 1.8 is also charming. Overal sharpness after closing aperture down is great in both lenses. I do not have any comment/complaints agains bokeh either. 

I will post some shots here tomorrow. I told my friend that I will decide whether I take the Zeiss or not during the weekend. (Would have to sell those two Niks at first anyway)
Emotional connection to that 1.8 makes deciding not easy for me.  :-)

[Michael Erlewine]

On the Zeiss Makro_Planars, 50mm ands 100mm... I had both and used them for years...but have sold them because:

Built like a tank, sharp, and all that, but I sold them because they are NOT well-enough corrected, and the the various aberrations killed those lenses for my work. IMO, and people vary, they are too 'contrasty" for me, what you called, I believe, 'punchy'. I like to add my own punch in the editing. 

[Dane]

I understand your point Michael, there is quite some CA in the 100/2 Zeiss, however, the question here, I would have to answer as YES, GO FOR IT!
Why? I think the 105mm 1.8 is not perfectly corrected as well, and the 100 will outresolve the 105/4 by a lot. The price is really, really fair (in EU often > 500 EUR)

HOWEVER, I had the ZF 100 some months ago and compared it to my Voigtländer SL II 90mm 3.5 APO LANTHAR, which I commonly use as my "walkaround tele and sometimes close-up flowers etc".
While the ZF 100 is really good, my winner was the Voigtländer, simply because its WAY more compact, eases life a lot, as it was a lot easier to achieve focus.

[Michael Erlewine]

I understand your point Michael, there is quite some CA in the 100/2 Zeiss, however, the question here, I would have to answer as YES, GO FOR IT!
Why? I think the 105mm 1.8 is not perfectly corrected as well, and the 100 will out resolve the 105/4 by a lot. The price is really, really fair (in EU often > 500 EUR)

HOWEVER, I had the ZF 100 some months ago and compared it to my Voigtlander SL II 90mm 3.5 APO LANTHAR, which I commonly use as my "walkaround tele and sometimes close-up flowers etc".
While the ZF 100 is really good, my winner was the Voigtlander, simply because its WAY more compact, eases life a lot, as it was a lot easier to achieve focus.

Yes, I have maybe a dozen Voigtlander, including several versions of the 90mm APO Lanthar. I like most all of them. I have had five copies of the Voigtlander 125mm APO Lanthar, and am down to two at the moment. Aside from the 90s, I like the 180mm Voigtlander as well. When it comes to lenses, that's where photographers differ and find their differences. I have very low tolerances for CA for close up stacking work.  IMO, a good deal on a lens with faults is not a deal. It's like tripods, get at least one good (and probably expensive) tripod and get rid of the closet full of cheap tripods that you bought trying for a deal.

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

Thank you for the input.

Yes, I was also thinking about adding contrast by myself, but now I’m inclined to Zeiss actually - it’s not so overwhelming I feel. And the comment about resolving power also seems to fit my findings. So far so good.
But I realised one thing which you have mentioned, Michael. I was taking a portrait of my SL66 camera and stacked the shots - and the result image had some strange shining on the glossy edges and I had to adjust it manually. Maybe that’s the problem you are referring to?

I’m here with some headshots.
I’ll post it in couples - two fully open, two 2.8 and two 4. I usually don’t close the aperture when shooting portraits so these would be my most used settings.

First from the couple always Nik followed by Zeiss

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

2.8

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

4

[Dane]

Contrast (especially micro contrast), sharpness and resolution go to Zeiss (imho)
On top, I guess due to the micro contrast, the picture „pops“ more, while the Nikkor seems „flat“

[Michael Erlewine]

Too many variables for me. Sorry. My comment was about contrast and CA, and that's what I found after extensive use of the two Zeiss Macro. Other people may well differ, of course.

[Frank Fremerey]

My take is: Zeiss 2/100 as replacement for Nikkor 1.8/105. Keep the 4/105, very useful multi purpose lens and cheap

[Dogman]

The Zeiss definitely has more contrast and "pop".  However, it's also relentless.  I wouldn't use it for portraits without softening in post or with a softening filter.  Love the softer look from the Nikon--seems pretty perfect for this type of picture. 

I would immediately buy the Zeiss for $390 if it's in good shape and working properly.  Looks great as a short tele for general use but hang onto the Nikkor for portraits.  Just my opinion of course.

[Frank Fremerey]

Absolutely 390€ is a very good deal for the lens in good shape. One Camera Magazine in Germany rated the lens 100/100 which they did to no other lens ever

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

Thank you guys for all the replies.
It seems that I’ll need to take more time to weight the things than I thought.
Unfortunately I won’t be able to get Zeiss to have it besides Nikkors. It’s either this or those.

Some other shots - now from different distance (but not soo much different though).
Again - Nikkor first, Zeiss follows.
Fully open

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

2.8

[Petr sheepeck Jůza]

4