Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo

[gecko]

Do we know what other focal lengths might be coming in the 'Otus' range?

[sharka23]

what the fuss?

calm down everyone.

NOT everyone needs AF !!
there is no linhof, sinar, alpa, arca swiss or horseman WITH autofocus.

this is(looks like) a superb lens (for studio, landscape)
its not produced for holiday-shots and not for taking photos of your 8th birthdaycake.
this lens is to satisfy customers-needs and to salve the photographers conscience..

and for you AF-fans: canon has a suitable 50/1.8 WITH af.

This is simply a biased, gushing, overly long-winded, wordy, and well...BORING review reminiscent of high end audio reviews, such as those of tube amplifiers with output transformers wound with silver wire, which cost in the $100k range.  To review an amplifier like that, is to decide you're going to like it before you review it.  But even most of the decent audio reviews like this, do indeed find some tiny faults...while still winding up with a glowing conclusion (which is evident as you read the review of course...sound familiar?).  To quote an auto reviewer of the Lamborghini Countach on a "60 Minutes" episode back in the 1980's...(who quoted Hemingway)..."Pheasant shooting is worth whatever price you have to pay"...or however the quote went.

I have no doubt the lens is most everything Lloyd says it is, but the review is too subjective, one-sided...too much like ad copy in a sales brochure...to be called a review.  I could have written a better review!

The Countach is now seen for what it is...a crude, unreliable supercar of the day that was more style than substance.  It got by on its looks and exterior rawness...while having an interior sophistication that even a 70's Pacer could match!  What a bad joke!

But if the Countach were a camera lens, would it autofocus?  I say yes...but yet this Zeiss made from an owl's eye, can't. 

Lloyd's image of the Yosemite river with the warm low light, was less than convincing as to how black the blacks could go.  So he then felt the need to make the next image in this "review" something that is almost all black.  I say, this proves nothing.  He says the shadow slider was at +100, but if the image was underexposed to begin with...that doesn't prove how deep a lens's blacks can go.  Anybody can underexpose a shot and get deep blacks.  He's really just doing the trick Nikon shooters are fond of doing, but that proves more the performance of the sensor, than the lens.

The biggest joke to me was before that...his first image of the cat.  It took him 10 minutes to come up with THAT ?  That's why serious photographers make use of lenses with autofocus, Lloyd!

It seems to me that all of these so-called "reviewers" need to learn how to become better photographers before they can take the full measure of photo equipment!

[Eldar]

Do we know what other focal lengths might be coming in the 'Otus' range?

That would be interesting to know. 55mm is probably the least interesting focal length for me. I would much rather have something in the 24-35mm and 85-100mm range.

[GMCPhotographics]

what the fuss?

calm down everyone.

NOT everyone needs AF !!
there is no linhof, sinar, alpa, arca swiss or horseman WITH autofocus.

The fuss is that it's new and we're grumpy!
And there's me thinking arca swiss just made tipod ball heads

[dolina]

I like what it represents and what it can do.

Sadly, I do not take too much effort in photographing people neither am I inclined to buy another manual focus lens.

Nice try Zeiss. 

[infared]

And Bob, when I hit that lottery, the first thing I'm doing is buying one of these lenses for you -- you're one of the major league guys who actually deserves one and knows what to do with it! I'll let you know what day to meet me at B&H!!!
[/quote]

Thanks Bill!
Please buy those tickets!
I don't "get" all the anger regarding this lens???   Looks like a celestial beauty to me...floating above the wannabes.
That's so cool. Perhaps the complainers just can't see what is actually "there there" with this lens. It looks to me like everything Zeiss says it is...WOW!

[zim]

So does it have IS?











(ducks to avoid incoming)    

[sanj]

So does it have IS?

Like your sense of humor!









(ducks to avoid incoming)    

[jdramirez]

 the thing about the Canon fifties is that they are a compromise... af  on  all,  excellent image sharpness when stopped down to 2.8,  decent bokeh,  but better on the 1.2,  but no is.

 so what I want is to buy a 1.2  or 1.4 50mm  that I can use wide open that is sharp and with a beautiful bokeh...  and I really want af  and I can do without is,  but I'd like that too.   sho Canon needs to get off their duffs  and make that happen...  and I'd happily pay $2000 ish for that lens.

$4000  is out of my price range...  at  the  moment  but I don't begrudge others who are willing to throw down the cash. 

[Pi]

the thing about the Canon fifties is that they are a compromise... af  on  all,  excellent image sharpness when stopped down to 2.8,  decent bokeh,  but better on the 1.2,  but no is.

 so what I want is to buy a 1.2  or 1.4 50mm  that I can use wide open that is sharp and with a beautiful bokeh...  and I really want af  and I can do without is,  but I'd like that too.   sho Canon needs to get off their duffs  and make that happen...  and I'd happily pay $2000 ish for that lens.

The 50L is not a compromise. Apparently, IS on f/1.2 is technically impossible now. The 50L is designed for bokeh, not for sharpness. Even Zeiss says that you cannot have both (in their "bokeh" document).

[jdramirez]

the thing about the Canon fifties is that they are a compromise... af  on  all,  excellent image sharpness when stopped down to 2.8,  decent bokeh,  but better on the 1.2,  but no is.

 so what I want is to buy a 1.2  or 1.4 50mm  that I can use wide open that is sharp and with a beautiful bokeh...  and I really want af  and I can do without is,  but I'd like that too.   sho Canon needs to get off their duffs  and make that happen...  and I'd happily pay $2000 ish for that lens.

The 50L is not a compromise. Apparently, IS on f/1.2 is technically impossible now. The 50L is designed for bokeh, not for sharpness. Even Zeiss says that you cannot have both (in their "bokeh" document).

 I've heard that from multiple sources,  but people  live the  Canon 85's   and the 135 L for their sharpness and the bokeh...
 and the sigma 35  gets a ton of praise for being sharp wide open...  and I  know we are  comparing apples to  oranges,  but I just can't seem to accept that it  has to be one or the other

[distant.star]

I could have written a better review!

Permit me to disagree.

I've seen your writing.

[Eldar]

I could have written a better review!

Permit me to disagree.

I've seen your writing.

Allow me to support the latest speaker

[RGF]

Just how better is it?   Not on the test bench but in real life?   Take a 1Dx and this lens versus a 1Dx with an L lens of the same  focal length.  At size enlargement do you see a difference?  Of course I would want to photography a landscape or macro or something else real, not a test pattern

[kirillica]

the thing about the Canon fifties is that they are a compromise... af  on  all,  excellent image sharpness when stopped down to 2.8,  decent bokeh,  but better on the 1.2,  but no is.

 so what I want is to buy a 1.2  or 1.4 50mm  that I can use wide open that is sharp and with a beautiful bokeh...  and I really want af  and I can do without is,  but I'd like that too.   sho Canon needs to get off their duffs  and make that happen...  and I'd happily pay $2000 ish for that lens.

The 50L is not a compromise. Apparently, IS on f/1.2 is technically impossible now. The 50L is designed for bokeh, not for sharpness. Even Zeiss says that you cannot have both (in their "bokeh" document).

 I've heard that from multiple sources,  but people  live the  Canon 85's   and the 135 L for their sharpness and the bokeh...
 and the sigma 35  gets a ton of praise for being sharp wide open...  and I  know we are  comparing apples to  oranges,  but I just can't seem to accept that it  has to be one or the other

+1 here. 85L is amazingly sharp wide open.