WOW - I have to say it Dustin, you really disappointed me with this review.
Do you realize the that the throw from infinity to 1 foot is just a smidge over 3/4inches?
Aren't you aware that a common trait, welcomed and desired in macro lenses (even half size as this one) in indeed the heavier focus dampening and long throw below 1 foot range, as precision focusing really matters?
Also, it's very common to see the a very narrow DOF in macro lenses, as it's common to have an above average sharpness.
Further more, almost no macro shooting occurs with a lens wide open- nor even if doing photo stacking.
I am surprised and shocked after reading other reviews from you, seeing you bluntly fail and commit such amateur, uninformed mistakes thru your comments.
Can't compare this lens to a canon 1.8 nor even the Otus 55 - It's a whole different league, and built for a special purpose...but can be used everyday.
You are certainly entitled to be disappointed with my review (BTW, Zeiss certainly isn't: https://www.facebook.com/carlzeisslenses/posts/937419462934961; https://twitter.com/CarlZeissLenses/status/557213223095894016
), but I'm not sure where some of your points of view are coming from.
If you have used the lens, then you should recognize that the focus throw is
very long. As I point out, that's great for accuracy, not so great for speed.
The reason for the heavier damping that I give is directly from the president of Zeiss of the Americas. I don't personally like the weight compared to all other Zeiss lenses I have used.
Of course the DOF is very narrow at macro distances...that's the whole reason I supply that information. "That aperture advantage over the typical f/2.8 of most macro lenses is great for use in a variety of applications, but macro is really not one of them. DOF is only .08″/1.98mm at minimum focus distance and maximum aperture. That is TINY! Even at f/5.6 the DOF is only slightly over half a centimeter at the minimum focus distance." - The point here is that you AREN'T going to be using the lens at f/2 for macro purposes.
I don't think your particular criticisms here are valid.