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

[infared]

Look, the reviewer obviously hasn't read the commentary on this website regarding the lens because quite clearly, without autofocus, this lens is not worth $4000 and nobody will buy it without autofocus, even if it is the sharpest lens since the big bang.

um....for you.
I cannot afford/justify the lens, especially as a manual focus normal lens.  ....but there are many who will buy the lens for its extremely high IQ. The fact that it has the highest IQ for FF makes it worth $4000.  That is some high praise in the review..highest I have ever heard and lets face it....ALL of the Canon, Nikon, Sigma, (previous) Zeiss 50mm primes to date are mediocre if you are a pixel peeper.  This lens blows them away...So just because you cannot afford it or you would never use a manual focus lens to state that "nobody will buy it" ...shows a very large lack of awareness in the photography world.  There are photographers who will buy this, are deserving of it, AND will put it to good use.
I just want to see some of THOSE images!!!!!!
My only hope is an Art Series 50mm from Sigma!!!!  ...I am waiting..........

[dcm]

Reminiscent of automatic/manual transmission discussions over the years.  As in - why would you every buy an expensive car with a manual transmission?   

[jdramirez]

 back when I had an xs, 50 f1.8  and other entry level lenses, I  remember hearing about the 135L  and it's price tag and saying I would never be in the market for one of those.   And it doesn't even have image  stabilization.  I  still don't own one,  but five years later,  I'm in the market.

I  have the same reaction about this...  how much?   and it doesn't even have auto focus? 

[jdramirez]

Reminiscent of automatic/manual transmission discussions over the years.  As in - why would you every buy an expensive car with a manual transmission? 

I don't like the fake manual transmissions.   it is like driving an automatic with more work to do. 

 give me a stick shift, a  clutch,  and a babe at my side...  or on my lap.

[ME]

Well the holidays are just around the corner...so all of you guys know what you can give me as a gift now! 

Likewise. But I must insist:  Dont spend more than $10,000 please. $6000 for the Canon 200/f2 L and $4000 for this lens. I dont want to appear greedy.

[Eldar]

Look, the reviewer obviously hasn't read the commentary on this website regarding the lens because quite clearly, without autofocus, this lens is not worth $4000 and nobody will buy it without autofocus, even if it is the sharpest lens since the big bang.

Really??? I can think of at least one (close to this keyboard) that can´t stand the temptation ...

[Viggo]

Look, the reviewer obviously hasn't read the commentary on this website regarding the lens because quite clearly, without autofocus, this lens is not worth $4000 and nobody will buy it without autofocus, even if it is the sharpest lens since the big bang.

Really??? I can think of at least one (close to this keyboard) that can´t stand the temptation ...

Pluss en! (+1)

[distant.star]

um....for you.
I cannot afford/justify the lens, especially as a manual focus normal lens.  ....but there are many who will buy the lens for its extremely high IQ. The fact that it has the highest IQ for FF makes it worth $4000.  That is some high praise in the review..highest I have ever heard and lets face it....ALL of the Canon, Nikon, Sigma, (previous) Zeiss 50mm primes to date are mediocre if you are a pixel peeper.  This lens blows them away...So just because you cannot afford it or you would never use a manual focus lens to state that "nobody will buy it" ...shows a very large lack of awareness in the photography world.  There are photographers who will buy this, are deserving of it, AND will put it to good use.
I just want to see some of THOSE images!!!!!!
My only hope is an Art Series 50mm from Sigma!!!!  ...I am waiting..........

I agree completely. There are many photographers who do not equate image creation with pushing a shutter button. For them (and myself although I'm not in their league) this is outstanding news. It foreshadows a new level of excellence coming to photography.

The most telling thing I've read so far is this sentence from the B&H release:

"The Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon is so strong a performer that it undermines the rationale for a medium format camera. This is already true with the 36-megapixel Nikon D800E, but certainly so when 50+ megapixel DSLRs arrive on scene."

These folks who know what they're talking about are presuming 50+ MP sensors in our 35mm-equivalent DSLR bodies. If you've been paying attention to lens development/upgrade news the last couple of years, this is obvious. Canon has been on a campaign to substantially improve their most valuable lenses. Sigma has made the leap to extremely high-quality lenses. And now Zeiss has literally defined the moment by introducing this lens.

We're going to see a very different photography landscape (excuse, please) five years from now.

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!!!

[Stealthy Ninja]

Look, the reviewer obviously hasn't read the commentary on this website regarding the lens because quite clearly, without autofocus, this lens is not worth $4000 and nobody will buy it without autofocus, even if it is the sharpest lens since the big bang.

Nobody will buy it?  Leica's entire M lens line is manual focus and in the price range of $1,500 to $11,000.  They sell as many as they can make, so photographers certainly do buy expensive manual focus lenses.  Not every photographer has the same needs, or the same budget.

Look, the reviewer obviously hasn't read the commentary on this website regarding the lens because quite clearly, without autofocus, this lens is not worth $4000 and nobody will buy it without autofocus, even if it is the sharpest lens since the big bang.

um....for you.
I cannot afford/justify the lens, especially as a manual focus normal lens.  ....but there are many who will buy the lens for its extremely high IQ. The fact that it has the highest IQ for FF makes it worth $4000.  That is some high praise in the review..highest I have ever heard and lets face it....ALL of the Canon, Nikon, Sigma, (previous) Zeiss 50mm primes to date are mediocre if you are a pixel peeper.  This lens blows them away...So just because you cannot afford it or you would never use a manual focus lens to state that "nobody will buy it" ...shows a very large lack of awareness in the photography world.  There are photographers who will buy this, are deserving of it, AND will put it to good use.
I just want to see some of THOSE images!!!!!!
My only hope is an Art Series 50mm from Sigma!!!!  ...I am waiting..........

Some of you guys need one of these:

[tnargs]

Obviously just a promo review to kick off sales. Not a single comparison shot with any other lens. Not a good idea to give it any weight.

Can't wait to see proper test bench reviews -- they usually bring Zeiss right back to the pack. Would love to see it against the Sigma 35 on the bench, despite the focal length difference.

[Pi]

I guess this lens will take cat photography to a new level. 

The bokeh in the cat photo, below the cat, is too busy. Behind it - too bland.

[Arkarch]

Not saying I am buying this lens, but I am looking forward to samples and reviews. 

For many, manual focus is a non-starter.

But as a user of a ZE 21/2.8, ZE 50/2, ZE 100/2 and TS-E 24/3.5 - all manual focus - I quite prefer the direct control for landscape work.  I can use LiveView to dial in the exact focus spot and then shoot various exposures/filters without worrying about the camera doing something unexpected.  I can sit around for two hours waiting for the exact light knowing that I am dialed in.   Great for blends/stitches, so on.  Thats what I shoot, so AF is not even part of my landscape routine.

edit - Yeah, I know, you can always switch AF off.  Just saying I dont use it for these applications.  I also do motorsports which often demand AF , but thats a different set of lenses I am working on.  My ZE's are the sharp fine-art pencils.

So $4000?  If it yields higher IQ, sharpness - and allows better renditions of scenes I shoot on my photo excursions - most recently nine days in Colorado - it might be.  Of course I would probably sell my 50/2 to offset the upgrade - and the $3k offset would probably provide something more routinely useful then say the ZE 15/2.8.

In the meantime, my next buy priority is the EF 300/2.8 II so I am already looking at ungodly dollar amounts.

All that said, I applaud the Sigma 35/1.4 and hope they keep making stuff at more affordable price points with sharpness and IQ surpassing Canon's offerings - especially on the wide side.   

[CarlTN]

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!

[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!