Leica APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 2.8/100mm f5.6 vs. f2.8 on 5DmkII

[BRunner]

Yesterday I did some photos in local Aero oldtimers museum. I shoot few photos with AME and this one was done on tripod, so I took one wide-open and one at f5.6 just for comparison. No PP, only conversion from RAW in DPP. Color style Neutral, Contrast -1, Saturation -1, Unsharp mask 1,10,1. What to say? This lens is flawless!
f2.8 and f5.6

[Orio]

Don't know what to say, certainly the Apo performance is flawless, and that means a lot when photographing products that have metal parts.
But if I have to say my honest word, I'd say that I would expect something more from an Apo Leica lens: some more sparkle, some more micro-contrast and "presence" of the objects.
I'd have to say honestly that what I have seen from the Voigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 125mm with similar subjects looks more convincing to me. Of course, that could also be fault of the lighting conditions.
I also prefer the type of performance of the Makro-Planars aesthetically, even if I reckon that being non-Apo, they would fall short in the fringing department.

[BRunner]

This is probably due to my very neutral standard camera settings. Here is very slightly adjusted f5.6 version. Again DPP, Color style Neutral, Contrast 0, Saturation 0, Shadows -1, Unsharp mask 2,10,1.

[Orio]

Do you have other photos taken with the lens, in different lighting?
Maybe it's the lighting in the room that does not create depth.

[BRunner]

I don't had the opportunity to compare AME directly with Makro-Planar or Lanthar 125 yet. I own only CZ Sonnar 2.8/85 (QBM) and Lanthar 90 SLII.
CZ Sonnar has better micro contrast than AME in center but it's worse in all other areas on FF (vignetting, CA, field and corner sharpness). If Makro-Planar can keep this level of performance over entire 35mm field, it must be fantastic.
On the other side, AME was computed around 1980 and more than 20 years later, Zeiss (and other manufacturers too) still isn't able to reach it's level of CA correction :-/
Lanthar 90 SLII is comparable to AME. It has even slightly deeper blacks (result of cooperation with Zeiss?), but correction of CAs isn't on AME level too.

But I agree, that at half or third the price of AME, for all practical purposes, the Lanthar can fully replace it.

I don't have comparable photos in different lighting with AME. I don't used it too often outside yet - it's little bit too heavy and slow focus in comparison to my other lenses.

Here is same car, with Distagon 2.8/25 ZF @f5.6 or f8. I think that both lenses perfectly match in terms of color rendering. Lighting was only dull indirect daylight.

[Orio]

[Orio]

Looking at the histograms of the f/5.6 image from the A-M-E and of the Distagon 25 ZF tells something about the different character of the two lenses:



The Mean and Median values of the histogram show that the Distagon lens (on the right) recorded a much higher intensity of middle tones.
This is also visible in the diagram, where there is a significant peak in the middle area, that is almost as rich as the bottom area.
The highlights instead do not differ much from the A-M-E histogram.
The A-M-E histogram shows a lot of dark tones, with clipping in all three channels (the Distagon image shows clipping only in the blue channel),
but afterwards, the histogram falls quite low and there stays until 2/3rds of the run, where there is a small, double peak.
The highlights, as noted, are similar to the Distagon image (except for the red channel).
This weakness of the middle tones is confirmed by the standard deviation value, which is higher in the A-M-E lens
(because the jump from the low tones to the high tones is steeper, due to weaker middle tones).

Of course the images are different, so the comparison is somehow limited, however there are middle tones in the frame of the A-M-E image also,
which should have shown not as wide as in the Distagon image (where you also have the red car), but certainly just as high, even if narrower -
which does not happen, because the A-M-E lens does not boost the middle tones (what we usually refer to as "clarity") as the Distagon lens does.
Of course this is not a defect, rather a different character of the lens. With other subjects, more subtle in shadings (such as flowers, or a human face),
the Leica lens will probably offer a better performance than the Distagon.

[poilu]

congrats! this is the best 100mm macro
I am surprised by the amount of purple fringe on all the metallic surfaces at f2.8, at f5.6 they are clean
green is present in the bokeh even at f5.6 but at a level certainly acceptable
sharpness is difficult to evaluate as the dof is small, but it should not be a problem with this lens

[Orio]

[poilu]

[BRunner]

Yes, I can confirm, that in truly extreme situations AME shows some purple fringing wide-open (i don't know if this is caused by lens alone or sensor blooming). But other lenses in same situation shows massive amount of CA (Tamron 90, Pentax FA 100). Stopping down to f4 solves this problem. There is no perfect lens unfortunately, only better and worse corrected. I have confirmed from no-x, that even APO Lanthar 125 in some situations suffer from bokeh fringing. But still it's nothing to worry about.
My best lens regarding CA WO is surprisingly APO-TELYT-R 3.4/180. I didn't get any photo yet, with even trace of purple color.

[jjphoto]

[jjphoto]

I believe some zooms (such as the latest Canon 70-200/2.8 II) are better corrected for spherochromatism than many primes, but don't hold me to that.

[Himself]

[poilu]

[Himself]

Poilu is right. There is a purple-ish shadow ( I wouldn't call it purple) barely visible.
Poilu you're a purpleish nit picker.


Meself with an IPS panel.

[my_photography]

Poilu, you really have good eyes for this purple thing. Thanks for the extra effort you put in to make it obvious for people like me.

[BRunner]

[Orio]

750 Euros? That's really a fantastic price.
In the used camera fairs here in Italy for 750 Euros you can only get a Macro-Elmar-R 100.
Apo-Macro-Elmarits are always above the 1k.

[AhamB]

[BRunner]

[AhamB]