Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 60 2.8 vs Leica Macro-Elmar 60 2.8

[Srdjan]

I have Carl Zeiss Makro-Planar 60 2.8, and I have chance to get Leica Macro-Elmarit-R 60mm 2.8. Dose anyone ever compared these two lenses?

[exaklaus]

Yes, I had both. Compared them and with my copies, the Zeiss was better.
Well, then compared them to my Olympus macro lenses and sold the Leitz and the Zeiss.

Greetings

[RSalles]

Cheers,

RSalles

[tb_a]

I considered Olympus always as the Japanese specialist in this area. So I am not really surprised. They have been always excellent also in scientific optical instruments.

[Srdjan]

Thank you for answer, Leica is really expensive so I don't wont to make mistake.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Micro-Nikkor 3.5/55 is cheap and the best macro lens I have tried, one lens I will never sell.

[listera]

For close-ups or real macros, keep your money in your pocket and get a cheaper 50/55mm f:2.8/3.5 lens. Less popular brands like Vivitars (or their rebadges) have similar offers. Even if wide open results are not good, in f:8, most of them will give you surprisingly nice results.

[Srdjan]

I must say I had never been fun of macro photography, but last couple of mounts my interests in these field groves. So any advise about lens is worthy. I m using Canon 5D mk3 and more or less I have all the lens I need for my purpose (this statement is not true, we always needs something more . So I decided to go for macro, I found really cheap Sigma 70 2.8, and i got Carl Zeiss Contax 60 2.8. My first idea to go for 100 2.8 L, but I not need IS. So any advise?

Thank you for all advices.

[tb_a]

Tell us what you want to achieve (in terms of what kind of targets you have in mind and what the desired magnification factor should be) and we can then suggest the best way to get there. Besides that there is always a very low budget and also a sophisticated version available.

I've done a lot of macro photography in my life and I can tell you that you can achieve stunning results with almost zero budget as long as you know how to do it. At the end of the day the planned result should be on the first place and not any lens required for that. Actually nearly every lens could be used for macro photography.

[scsambrook]

SrdJan - I think the only way you can ever know which of these lenses will be better for you is to buy the Leitz lens and use it alongside the one you already have. If you can afford to lay out the money and then spend some time shooting identical comparisons you will be able to judge for yourself how they perform. I'll bet that having done that you'll notice some differences, but will still be unable to say which is "better".

Working at a much lower price level, I have a 105/2.8 Sigma, 90/2.5 SP Tamron and a 100/4 Macro Elmar-R. After more than a year I'm still trying to decide which to keep and which to sell. If you asked "Doctor Stephen" what to do, he would say "Stick with what you've got and save your money for something to extend the scope of your photography". What you already have is about as good as there is

[Attila]

I had Leica-R lens , I never had Zeiss sadly, I sold Leica without any hesitation after test, it was luxury to keep it , if I couldn't make better result with Leica than other cheap macro lenses. Proper technic is more important than lens in macro photography, I have Indonesian friend who use Domiplan and create far better macro shoots than most of us. Keep Zeiss and be very happy you have it.

[Gardener]

[listera]

and forgot to suggest: instead of buying another lens, concentrate on lightning equipment like a flash set. YongNuo's ring flash (Clone/imitation of Canon MR14) can be a good stating point.

[Srdjan]

Tank you for all replays. I need macro lens for product photography and some food photography.

[manufelices]

Which is the best for general purpose? (no just macro photo)

[jamaeolus]

My best results in macro work have been with tele lenses and extension tubes, or bellows. Also had surprisingly good results with enlarger lenses. I have used komura 75mm to good effect. But my favorite is the pentax 150mm smc 6 x 7 with bellows (150 to pentax 67/ef ef bellows to ef/nex to a7ii). The increased
depth of field with longer FL mitigates one of my pet peeves with macro, paper thin focal depth.. I want most of the ant in focus, not just the first mm of the antenna. Other workarounds for this include macro stacking but I would rather take a good photo to start with than manipulate in post. Just my penny and a half (likely not worth the standard 2 cents worth!)

[Lightshow]

[meanwhile]

I remember someone recently, I think here, talking about a very valuable tool for product photography being a good tilt and shift lens. Perhaps that would be an area to look at rather than another lens that pretty much does what you can already do?

[tb_a]

[Pontus]

I have the S-Planar which goes to 1:1. This is a heavy lens but it is the sharpest macro lens I have tried (and I have tried many) at 1:1 and f2.8 (ie wide open). Stopped down there are smaller and lighter lenses that produce just as good results. But if short DOF and macro is your thing then this is the one to get.

[TrueLoveOne]