- Status
L
Leopard Lupus
Guest
First you have the difference in focal length.
Also, the maximum aperture on the 50mm is f/1.4 while the 100mm is f/2.
The 50mm is much lighter than the 100mm, where the 100mm is close to a pound and a half!
Both of the lens filter sizes are different. The 50mm is 58mm filter thread while the 100mm is a 67mm filter thread.
IQ wise, both are fantastic. Personally, I get better results with portraits on the 100mm f/2 than the 50mm f/1.4 but the 50mm is a wonderful walk-around lens on FF.
The Zeiss lineup gives great results, but takes some practice if you use AF often.
I own both, and I must say they really do have their own personalities. As far as your second question, can you be more specific?
Also, the maximum aperture on the 50mm is f/1.4 while the 100mm is f/2.
The 50mm is much lighter than the 100mm, where the 100mm is close to a pound and a half!
Both of the lens filter sizes are different. The 50mm is 58mm filter thread while the 100mm is a 67mm filter thread.
IQ wise, both are fantastic. Personally, I get better results with portraits on the 100mm f/2 than the 50mm f/1.4 but the 50mm is a wonderful walk-around lens on FF.
The Zeiss lineup gives great results, but takes some practice if you use AF often.
I own both, and I must say they really do have their own personalities. As far as your second question, can you be more specific?
Upvote
0
ss396 said:
T* means that the lens is fully multi-coated.
AFAIK all the ZE lenses are T* coated, including the 50 Makro Planar.
BTW, not to be pedantic, but Craig has just done a really nice job of reorganizing the forum into Rumors and Gear Talk sections. It would be helpful for the organization of the forum if Gear Talk stayed in Gear Talk. Thanks
.
Upvote
0
There are two 50ies from Zeiss, the 50/1.4 is completely different design than the 50/2.
50f2 is the little brother of the 100/2. It has zero distortion, very little CA and is very sharp. The 100/2 is the same but even more...
I have never seen clearer photos than from the 100/2 AND the 50/2, I have about 2000 keepers from each only in the last year... can't post them all.
A HUGE DIFFERENCE is the way you can manage Manual Focus on both: the longer focal length of the 100 makes it twice as difficult ... So if you want to start MFing, don't start with the 100 - you'll be disappointed. The 50 is a lot more forgiving. And has fantastic IQ as well. The IQ difference is minimal to my eyes. I use the 100 slightly more just because the 50 focal length is too ordinary for many subjects.
50f2 is the little brother of the 100/2. It has zero distortion, very little CA and is very sharp. The 100/2 is the same but even more...
I have never seen clearer photos than from the 100/2 AND the 50/2, I have about 2000 keepers from each only in the last year... can't post them all.
A HUGE DIFFERENCE is the way you can manage Manual Focus on both: the longer focal length of the 100 makes it twice as difficult ... So if you want to start MFing, don't start with the 100 - you'll be disappointed. The 50 is a lot more forgiving. And has fantastic IQ as well. The IQ difference is minimal to my eyes. I use the 100 slightly more just because the 50 focal length is too ordinary for many subjects.
Upvote
0
Another difference is the price tag but as the previous poster says it is worth it. I agree with the focusing ease but the skill does not come overnight and needs not only a good AF assist from the camera (not very reliable at present for anything under EOS 1) and an EgS but good deal of practice - anyway, the versatility of macro to infinity at maximum sharpness and fantastic colors convinced me.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
