Review of Short Tele Lenses
Introduction
My favourite focal length is short tele, from 85mm to 135mm (due to "standard" lens focal
lengths). I prefer these because focal length is long enough to create narrow depth of field.
Other hand is short enough to show effects of perspective, which are not completely flattened
by tele-effect of long focal length. Another reason why I tend to like short teles is that
by using depth of field properly it's possible to generate some sort of 3d look to the images.
With some lenses it's easier than with others.
My main usage for short teles is to photograph nature details and other details as well.
Naturally some of these short tele lenses are used for macro photography as well. I rarely
do real macro, more likely close-ups which magnification is somewhere between 1:5 to 1:2.
I also use short tele's quite a lot for landscapes and with proper planning it's possible
to get enough depth of field, but naturally diffraction and depth of field has to be
balanced. Sometimes I also take portraits but then I prefer to use Canon lenses due to
autofocus and automatic aperture (with flash the manual stop down is pain in the #ss).
In this review I try to compare the lenses on my normal usage situations. So you most
probably don't find any test scenarios which are set up just to test lenses. Most of the
test scenarios are comparisons between two lenses. Due to my main lens for short tele
pictures is Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF, most of the comparisons include it and
then some other lens against it.
|
|
When writing this (summer 2008) my most used short tele lens is
Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZF
(from this on CZ100ZF). This far CZ100ZF has been excellent on all areas except bokeh is
sometimes distracting.
Other condenters on this review are (in order of importance):
1. Canon EF85mm f/1.2 L USM Mark II (from
this on 85L) is a good lens and very sharp even wide open. Achilles' heel of this lens is the
CA (Chromatic Aberrations) in bokeh (example
- see how the brake handle is purple instead of being gray or white - in this photo
software has done it's best to remove CA already...). Some also claim 85L is heavy and bulky
but obviously they have not carried Canon
EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM around...agreed considering today's flight cabin luggage limitations
it's heavy.
2. Leica Elmarit-R 90 mm f/2.8 (from this
on L90F2.8) is very compact size, but slowish(for a prime only guy like me). Leica doesn't
have many faults, maybe the most important being that it's not very sharp when focused
close.
3. Canon EF100mm f/2.8
USM Macro (from this on EF100M) is Canon's macro lens. It's extreme sharp but as
overcorrected lenses the bokeh is really distracting unless whole background is completly
blurred by short depth of field and distance to background vs. target.
4. Canon EF85mm f/1.8 USM (from this on
EF85) is pretty sharp when stopped down a little and it also has very fast autofocus. I use
this when photographing sports, but I typically set the minimum aperture by custom function
to f/2.8 to gain focus accuracy and sharpness. Worst in this lens is the terrible CA it
produces.
|
Lens specifications
Here is short summary of lens specifications.
| Lens | Min. Focusing
Distance |
Maximimum
Magnification | Diaphragm
Blades |
Weight | Diameter | Length |
Filter |
| CZ100ZF |
44cm | 0.5x | 9 | 780g |
76mm | 116mm | 67mm |
| 85L |
95cm | 0.11x | 8 | 1025g |
91.5mm | 84.0mm | 72mm |
| L90F2.8 |
?????cm | ???x | ???? |
?????g | ????mm | ????mm | 55mm |
| EF100M |
?????cm | 1.00x | 5??? |
?????g | ????mm | ????mm | 58mm |
| EF85 |
?????cm | 0.13x | 5??? | ?????g |
????mm | ????mm | 58mm |
Tests
Since I do tests when I have time to go photographing, these will come here one by one. Each will will have date mentioned when added and conclusion will be updated when each of the test is completed and added to this page.
Test Scenario 1: CZ100ZF vs L90F2.8 - Headstones
In this test scenario CZ100ZF and L90F2.8 are compared mainly on bokeh point of
view. Scenario includes elements in front and back of the focus plane and strong reds.
My conclusions:
- contrast: CZ100ZF is better (specially in micro contrast, which is not visible in these thumbnails
but at full size images)
- colors: CZ100ZF is a little more vivid, but may be due to lower contrast in Leica
- sharpness: CZ100ZF wins hands down
- bokeh: Not much difference in same apertures. In originals (3888 pixels wide) could be seen that CZ100ZF has a little
narrower bokeh. Otherwise not much difference, which was huge surprise to me since CZ100ZF is famous to have a little edgy
bokeh and Leica to have very smoot bokeh. At similar apertures I would call this as a standoff.
Added July 7th 2008 |
|
Test Scenario 2: CZ100ZF vs L90F2.8 - Yellow flowers
In this scenario CZ100ZF and L90F2.8 are compared mainly on
distant bokeh point of view. Scenario includes strong reds and few hues of green.
My conclusions:
- contrast, colors and sharpness as in test scenario 1
- bokeh seems smoother on CZ100ZF on this test scenario. It also seems that in this scenario
L90F2.8 has much wider depth of field than CZ100ZF.
Added July 7th 2008 |
Test Scenario 3: CZ100ZF vs L90F2.8 - Red plant
In this scenario CZ100ZF and L90F2.8 are compared mainly on
distant bokeh point of view. Scenario includes strong reds and few hues of green.
My conclusions:
- contrast, colors and sharpness as in test scenario 1
- bokeh seems slightly more edgy in CZ100ZF - L90F2.8 has considerably more depth of field at same apertures, can
even been seen on websized thumbnails.
Added July 8th 2008 |
|
Test Scenario 4: CZ100ZF vs L90F2.8 - Blue/Yellow flower
In this scenario CZ100ZF and L90F2.8 are compared mainly on
close-up bokeh point of view. Light did change during shooting this scenario making it a little difficult
to make conclusions based on those.
My conclusions:
- contrast seems to be better in CZ100ZF but due to changing light a slight difficult to estimate
- colors are more real with CZ100ZF (f/2 and f/2.8 which are still with same light as L90F2.8 shots)
- sharpness is better (clearly when viewed 100% - no difference in websize)
- bokeh seems slightly more edgy in CZ100ZF - in this scenario Leica doesn't seem to have more depth of field.
Added July 8th 2008 |
In this scenario CZ100ZF and 85L are compared mainly on distant bokeh point of view. Scenario includes
some bokeh highlights to determine bokeh CA, and also front and behind bokeh can be evaluated.
My conclusions:
- contrast: equal
- colors: equal
- sharpness: equal
- bokeh: 85L is slightly smoother bokeh and larger depth of field - and it also suffers bokeh CA at wide apertures
- vignetting: CZ100ZF gets much darker at f/2 - 85L performs pretty well
Added July 8th 2008 |
|
In this scenario CZ100ZF and 85L are compared in landscape photography. Scenario includes variety of
green hues.
My conclusions:
- contrast: equal
- colors: equal
- sharpness: both lenses draw way more than Canon EOS 1D Mark III can record in this scenario
- bokeh: N/A
Added July 8th 2008 |
Test Scenario 7: CZ100ZF vs 85L - Close-up bokeh
In this scenario CZ100ZF and 85L are compared regarding LoCA and close-up bokeh.
Unfortunately I didn't shoot these photos for this review, but later realized that
they can be used also in this review. Therefore there are no comparable apertures
etc. but real life photos which I took for other purpose. Since I don't have any
APO (apochromatic) lenses I did
comparison to Canon EF300mm f/2.8L IS USM, which is very close to APO performance.
My conclusions:
- Both CZ100ZF and 85L suffer quite a lot of LoCA
- CZ100ZF gets rid off LoCA around f/4, 85L about the same
[Notice! My conclusions are not based these photographs, instead my last year's real life
photography. I do know that 85L is not macro lens and extension tubes will make LoCA performance
most probable worse.]
Added January 4th 2009 |
|
YYYYYYYIn this scenario CZ100ZF and L90F2.8 are compared mainly on
distant bokeh point of view. Scenario includes strong reds and few hues of green.YYYYY
My conclusions:
- contrast
- colors
- sharpness
- bokeh
Added Xxxxx NNth 2009 |
Tests to be added:
- LoCA, see
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/703539
- Amount of depth of field CZ100 vs Canon100/2.8 at same aperture, see
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/662530/16#6334151
- Highlights in front and back of focal plane (put Christmas lights to
floor and then add focus target which is lighted with flash, use snoot
so other part of the rooms stays black. Ambient lightning according to
Christmas lights not blown, but other rooms stays black.)
Conclusion
Overall conclusion based to copies of lens I personally own and have used:
- to be added later when there have been enough tests performed. |
