The Zeiss 100mm f2 Planar

[Guest]

I've just aquired a 100/2 Planar AE made in West Germany. I've used the 85/1.4 before and was suitably impressed. How does the 100 compare?

I notice that, stopped down, the apeture blades are asymetrical. I've never noticed this before on a Zeiss lens, is normal? what effect might this have on bokeh?

 

[Guest]

> [I own both the 85/1.4 and 100/2 (both Japanese MM mount). Both are great lenses but if anything I think the 100/2 is the better performer. I think you will be very happy with the lens.

Jason]

 

[Guest]

Interested in any views on the 100mm f2 MM lens.
Is this a great lens optically.
I know it should be at the price.

 

[Guest]

The 100/2 is optically outstanding and if this is what you are after, then it is right for you. I have both the 85/1.4 and the 100/2 and besides the difference in focal length, which is not nelegible, they have a totally different character. The 85 is beautifully soft from 1.4-2.8, which also gives a DOF that is quite right for portraits. Stopped down however it is as sharp as it gets which together makese it a very versatile lens. The 100/2 however is much more clinical (read in the Zeiss datasheet what it was designed for), and sharp even wide open and stopped down it is even sharper than the 85/1.4. It's up to you to decide what fits your needs

 

[Guest]

> I'm not good for telling you much except that I really like this lens a lot. 85 was never tele enough for me so I lost a stop and went to the 100/2, not sorry I did. Lately I've shot a few bands and used it wide open. Looks good!

 

[Guest]

I have a 100mm F2 Planar. It is a splendid lens. If you have need of a lens in this focal length, I would expect that you will be delighted.

 

[Guest]

Has anyone noticed a problem with the zeiss lenses for contax that parts of the inner casing fabric fall onto the inner lens glass and stick to it as it gets older?

I have a 50mm 1.7MM that's now quite dirty with this, and it must eventually affect the optical quality. A couple of years ago I bought a 80-200mm MM zoom and was careful to check the glass was clean, but now, sure enough, a fleck of lens case material has now attached itself to the inner glass. Is this the same with other brands? Isn't it annoying in an expensive brand like contax? I've also got a couple of older AE lenses and on these the problem seems smaller.

 

[Guest]

Hey,

Has anyone noticed that you can't find the 100mm f/2 Planar talked about anywhere ? Can't find it in B&H's catalog. Calumet is out of stock etc. And it's not mentioned in the latest U.S. promotions anymore.

Has this fine lens been discontinued ?

Alan

 

[Guest]

Alan

If you need the 100 Macro Planar get Calumet to ship it from the U.K. they have them in stock as do many of the Contax Stockists in London.
How could a lens that is quite new be discontinued? I don't think the Dealers are supporting the brand from what you are saying.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Alan,

The 100/2 is certainly available -- Santa has clear instructions to bring me this lens. Otherwise, I eat his reindeer!

From B&H main page, search for "100 planar"

 

[Guest]

I have the pleasure of being the proud owner of one of the very few Planar's 100/2.0 that were made in West Germany, in the MM version (I don't know how many of these were manufactured before production was transferred to Japan, but I've never seen it anywhere else... all the other German Planars I've seen were AE, and all the MM were Japanese)

This being said, all I can say is that it is one impressive piece of glass. Amazingly sharp at all apertures, sometimes to the point that you have to be careful when doing portraits, the slighest imperfection in the skin will just jump at you! The lens is mercyless in its precision. The color balance is everything you expect from Contax, and its performance in low light is beautifull (why do you buy an F/2.0 for anyways?) It will faithfully reproduce the subtless shades. Use it with a good tripod though!

The only criticisms I have are: if you shoot a very bright subject in a very dark setting (such as a street light in a totally blacked-out neighborhood), then an inverted ghost image sometimes appears, which is probably an artefact of the Planar design. But to be honest I have had this problem only on 4-5 slides over a period of 10 years. The other problem is the weight: it's a hefty chunck of glass. Don't strap an RTS-III with a 100/2.0 over your shoulder for a day-long trek! Also of notice: if you use one of the older Contax bodies (ie. 159MM or RTS-II) you will need that white plastic ring which originally came with the cameras, but nobody knew what they were made for and threw away. That plastic ring is a spacer that you put between the camera base and the tripod, otherwise the lense's aperture ring will be stuck on the tripod base, at an unhealthy angle... If you lost that ring, you can still make a spacer with a thin piece of hardwood (about 3-4 mm thick). Take notice that the 85/1.4, the 35/1.4, the 135/2.0, the 300/4.0 and (I think) the 200/3.5 also need that spacer.

I did not have the chance to compare it side-to-side with the 85/1.4, but from what I've heard, the 100/2.0 has more contrast at full aperture.

Hope this helps

 

[sktung]

I owned the West Germany 100mm f2 AE over 15 years. However I never took good picture while I mounted it on 139Q, 167MT and S2. Never sharp!

It is not the problem of the 100mm; it is because my shaking hand combined with the lighter weight camera bodies.

After I got the RTSIII, the weight is more balance between the 100mm and camera and hired my hand shaking problem. Now the photos are just beautiful. I use the 100mm much more than any other lens I owned. I always shot at f2 aperture with sharp image and dream like depth of field. The photos are welcome by all my female members in my family.

 

[swoolf]

> I owned the West Germany 100mm f2 AE over 15 years. However I never> took good picture while I mounted it on 139Q, 167MT and S2. Never > sharp!> It is not the problem of the 100mm; it is because my shaking hand> combined with the lighter weight camera bodies.

Mabe you should consider using a tripod or monopod more often ;-) Steve

 

[rico]

Guillaume, I also have the West German MM version of this fine lens. In the matter of the inverted ghost, the cause is your filter. Apparently, this occurs frequently with the Leica M 35/1.4 ASPH, which has a concave front element. Sounds like night-shooting with filters can similarly affect the P100, even though its front element is convex.

 

[davidfung]

Hi, just wondering if the shooters of the 100/2 can comment on edge distortions wide open? Is coma noticeable? Is chromatic abberations present? Thanks.

 

[rico]

David,

When I adopted Contax C/Y a year ago, my short list was the Distagon 21, Planar 50/1.4, and Planar 100 (in that order). I have other CZ lenses, but these three are the pillars of my system. At the cost of some center contrast and sharpness, the P100 is optimized for uniform performance across the field. It has better illumination and lower linear distortion than the Makro Planar 100! It's ideal for tele landscape and architecture. Never tested coma, but I expect none; CA is non-existent. The P100 loves to be shot at full aperture.

Be aware it's a significant chunk of glass - a bit much for bodies in the Aria weight class.

Zeiss World HQ is replete with MTF and other data for C/Y lenses:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Besides focal length needs, I use MTF charts to make purchasing decisions.

 

[chill]

So Rico...

I am impressed as well by the MTF charts of the 100/2.0. I was myself blown away by the magical depth of field when I tried one out at Sammy's.

But you gotta tell me how does it shoot ? How have your images turned out ?

Inquiring minds want to know ! Make me a believer !

Alan

 

[mikel]

Does anyone one what's the decent price for used Planar 100mm f/2.0 in mint condition these days in USA and Europe? I'm seriously considering getting one, but since I don't have limitless budget, I need to know what kind of money I should expect to spend?

Thanks in advance,
Mike.

 

[jgban]

Mike,
"Mint" is sometimes hard to agree upon...In the USA you can buy it right now for the following prices: new for US $1464, Demo for US$ 1099, used "Ex" for US $725 in reputable photo shops with web sites.
If you look in eBay (do a search for "completed items") you will see prices vary between 700 and 900. I don't know how "mint" these are.
In general, my impression is that prices of used C/Y lenses have been declining over the past year...The 100/2 does not show up so often, though.

Juan

 

[mikel]

Actually I was more interested in person-to-person deals. Ebay, keh, adorama, B&H are all good, but when you deal in person - you can usually get a lower price AND you get to know some history of a lens (e.g. how old, how extensively was used, first owner or not, etc).

So, variation of $700 to $900 is a pretty good indicator, but what is more important to know is what makes one lens go for $700 while another for $900. You know, makes little sense to "save" $200 if the $700 one is quite beat up.

Thus, the mint definition as I see it, is based upon what two individuals will consider mint. And usually it means - perfect glass, some minor wear/tear damage on exterior metal/plastic parts and bayonet. I don't think anyone of us will call a lens with scratch on any optical element or fungus inside "mint", right?


Mike.