Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2 for Weddings & Portraits (+ vs. Canon 85mm f/1.2)

bloomphotog

Do you have any experience with the Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2.0 MP? I would love to get some feedback from pros who've used the Zeiss glass for wedding or natural light portrait applications. Also, any insight on the video application of the lens would be great.

The 85mm f/1.2 from Canon is needs no introduction, but how does it compare in terms of OOC microcontrast and color rendition? And perhaps most importantly, what are the unique bokeh characteristics of each lens?

Post your favorite Zeiss ZE f/2 100mm portraits below, and tell us why they rock(or don't)!

Please note: This comparison is specfic to the new ZE EOS Mount version of the Zeiss lens.

Stuart-M

bloomphotog wrote: »

Do you have any experience with the Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2.0 MP? I would love to get some feedback from pros who've used the Zeiss glass for wedding or natural light portrait applications. Also, any insight on the video application of the lens would be great.

The 85mm f/1.2 from Canon is needs no introduction, but how does it compare in terms of OOC microcontrast and color rendition? And perhaps most importantly, what are the unique bokeh characteristics of each lens?

Post your favorite Zeiss ZE f/2 100mm portraits below, and tell us why they rock(or don't)!

Please note: This comparison is specfic to the new ZE EOS Mount version of the Zeiss lens.

I couldn't imagine using a lens with no autofocus for weddings. The 85L is a legend, so I doubt you will be disappointed, the bokeh is fantastically smooth. Canon to a 100mm f/2 as well btw if that's what you're after, much cheaper then the 85L, but not as good.

ziggy53

Another lens to place on your comparison radar is the Canon EF 135mm, f2L USM. I haven't used either the Canon 85mm, f1.2L USM or the Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 100mm, f2 ZE Lens for Canon EF. I have used Zeiss Planar moderate telephoto lenses on the Hasselblad platform and I believe that I have some insight into the "Planar" experience.

To me the bokeh of the Canon 135f2L is very similar to a Planar formulation, but the color is truer and the global contrast is more moderate and pleasing for portraiture. A Planar is very crisp and contrasty, but the colors are a little "off" from natural, leading to a very pleasing rendition for nature and landscapes. By similar bokeh I mean that both these formulations roll off from the plane of sharpness quickly and the bokeh is very, very smooth behind and in front. OOF contrast is similarly subdued in both formulations, although the 135 is even smoother with a more normal contrast to begin with. The experience of both is similar but overall I do prefer the Canon 135f2L as the more versatile. In a perfect world I would want all three that are in discussion, but I'm truly happy to have the Canon 135f2L first.

If you need the close focus capability then the Zeiss wins because the Canon 135mmL is not so good at MFD and its magnification at MFD is not very good either. You can add a close focus adapter to the Canon lens but the Zeiss is more convenient and the quality at MFD looks to be very good too.

The Canon 135mmL is a very good performer in AF, good enough for sports like volleyball and basketball. If you need rapid and accurate AF the Canon 135f2L is the clear winner.

Stuart-M

I second Ziggy on the 135 f/2. It's a fantastic lens, and great value compared to the 85 f/1.2. I use it at weddings and much prefer it to the usual 70-200 that most people use.

The 85mm has shallower DoF though, and the bokeh on that lens is super smooth, probably the best lens available for portraits of women and children.

Qarik

bloomphotog wrote: »

Do you have any experience with the Zeiss ZE 100mm f/2.0 MP? I would love to get some feedback from pros who've used the Zeiss glass for wedding or natural light portrait applications. Also, any insight on the video application of the lens would be great.

The 85mm f/1.2 from Canon is needs no introduction, but how does it compare in terms of OOC microcontrast and color rendition? And perhaps most importantly, what are the unique bokeh characteristics of each lens?

Post your favorite Zeiss ZE f/2 100mm portraits below, and tell us why they rock(or don't)!

Please note: This comparison is specfic to the new ZE EOS Mount version of the Zeiss lens.

hey josh, noticed you were selling off the nikon stuff..just curious..why the switch?

TaDa

Been a while since I posted at my first photography forum .

Anyways, I have owned or own all three lenses being discussed.

I shot an event with the Zeiss 100 and it was a pretty rough time. I was always trying to get that perfect focus and was missing shots. Great IQ, but for event photography, I don't find it to be practical.

The 135 is an amazing lens. Great for candids and has lighting quick focus. I sold it though because of the incredible IQ of the 70-200 2.8L II.

My favorite of the three is definitely the 85L. Great micro-contrast, stunning colors and sharpness, and an overall amazing piece of glass. The drawbacks of the lens are that a) depth of field at 1.2 is very very narrow. You have to get used to shooting at 1.2. b) the lens doesn't focus as quickly as the 135L, but obviously has much better auto-focus than the Zeiss c) the 85L has pretty bad CA when shot wide open on high contrast subject.

Overall I've learned to deal with the flaws of the 85L and it has helped me produce absolutely stunning images.