Zeiss CFI 100 & CFI 120 VS Schneider 90 APO-Symmar

I have both the CFI 100mm and CFI 120mm Makro-Planar lenses. I suspect all three of the lenses you mentioned are superb performers within their specific design categories. for my photography, the CFI 120mm f4 Makro-Planar is the sweetest all-around lens. I use the CFI 100mm f4 Planar for architecture and aerial work, and appreciate its low distortion. as discussed here previously, you will find comments that the Schneider 90 APO-Symmar is also a wonderful lens. the comparisons don't work well, as they all have their specialties and compromises.

The CF 120 not sharp for infinity at f/4 and the CF 100 is better than CF 120 at infinity. The CF 120 design for close-up photography, it can be improve by stop down two level of aperture for infinity.

I have a friend just to buy Rollei 6008i with Apo Symmar 90mm f/4.0 and Tele-Xenar 180mm f/2.8. Next saturday, I will test with him with my Hasselblad lense. Talk to you later of the result.

I have owned both of these lenses. I found the 120 to be a little soft at infinity. It still produces an adequate impression of sharpness in some photos, where the contrast is very high. However the 150mm Sonnar and the 100mm Planar are both superior beyond the macro range.

See also this thread: <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000PxL">100mm vs 120mm</a>

Adding my experiences with all three lenses under discussion here:

The Zeiss Makro-Planar 4/120 is designed for macro, as the name is supposed to indicate, and not for infinity. Zeiss does not claim at all that this lens delivers Zeiss image quality at infinity. Even if some users are happy with the performance at infinity. However, we are convinced that it is an excellent performer close-up. Especially in the new CFi version which comes with improved straylight reduction. Every demanding photographer who has used the new Makro-Planar CFi should be able to agree easily.

The Zeiss Planar 3,5/100, on the other hand, is optimized for infinity. And it is also designed to deliver high performance wide open. This is why aerial photographers prefer this lens. The image quality is very high everywhere in the entire frame. Distortion is exceptionally well corrected. I recently tested it close-up (it is not made for this!) at 1:10 magnification, copying a flat subject of 55 x 55 cm (20 x 20 inches) with resolution test targets onto film (Agfa APX 25) and achieved 160 linepairs per millimeter in the center of the image. This beats almost any medium format macro lens! But, as I indicated, this performance is not available at the edges or in the corners.

The Schneider Apo Symmar Makro 4/90 is a good allround lens. The optics is tiny and the lense is lightweigt but the barrel is huge. It houses a lot of air. At infinity and around f/8 to f/11 I found it as good in resolution as the Zeiss Planar CFE 2,8/80. Wide open, it is a bit weak, and the Zeiss Planar 3,5/100 is far better. Aerial photographers will not be really happy with the Apo Symmar Makro 4/90. Close-up, it shows convincing performance in the whole frame. It also shows the typical properties of an Apo lens design: shallow depth of focus. I did a focus bracketing series with both the Schneider 4/90 (which is an Apochromat) and the Zeiss 4/120 (which is an Achromat). This is what I found: In perfect focus, the Schneider delivered the same resolution as the Zeiss. But slightly off the plane of perfect focus, the Schneider dropped to lower resolutions than the Zeiss did. Which means, at the same aperture a 120 mm Achromat can offer a larger depth of field than a 90 mm Apochromat. Which is something a macro photographer usually appreciates quite much.

Shattering a popular myth now:

Apo has become a fashionable buzz word in the industry, suggesting that any Apo lens is always better in any performance aspect than a similar non-Apo lens. This is just not true. There are valid reasons in favour of Achromats. At Zeiss, we design and make all three levels of chromatic correction, Achromat, Apochromat, and Superachromat. But we are always aware that Apo and Superachromat require better alignment of camera, focusing screen, and better film flatness, before they can deliver their strengths. And they will offer less depth of field than non-Apo counterparts at the same aperture. Most photographers don't care, they are simply not aware of the phenomenon. Since we cater to the most discerning ones, we pay attention to these aspects. By the way: The military avoids Apo-lenses for the abovementioned reasons in their reconnaissance cameras. These cameras are subjected to severe and sudden temperature changes. Since they cannot be refocused for every shot, the lens must offer some tolerance against focusing deviations caused by thermal expansion effects, even if they are only small. So the military expects us to design lenses that offer high resolution and sufficient depth of focus at the same time. The know-how that we have developed here benefits the users of cameras with Zeiss lenses.

Kornelius, could you give a brief explanation of how APO and super APO lenses deliver less DOF? This sounds remarkable, but coming from you I can't be skeptical.

For those of you who would like to read more about this question, please go to the Rollei section (threads) and look under the suject: 90mm/100mm/120mm Rollei vs Hasselblad. You will also find other good info comparing Zeiss/Schneider and Rollei/Hasselblad.