As someone who has not shot any video on my DSLRs, can someone explain to me the value in spending 4k on a 50mm zeiss lens to mount on a DSLR that is going to down sample the image to 2 mega pixels?
This is something I've never understood either. I understand that cine lenses are expensive because their designs need to minimize focus breathing and zooms are usually parafocal, but it seems like they should have relatively low sharpness requirements.
I don't shoot video either, but I've heard the same. Parfocal zooms, in particular, are costly.
But I'd like to hear how the non-resolution upsides of the Otus might benefit video -- after all, it's not $4k just because of resolution and build quality. I hear it manages chromatic aberrations well, has low distortion, great bokeh, etc. -- are those especially desirable for video?
The Otus has a long focus throw which helps for video work. And no doubt that good CA and distortion control is beneficial.
Also, now video is pushing towards 4k (Ie. 1D C) and higher so it's no longer only 2MP (4k = 8.8MP & RED Dragon 6k = 19.4MP). So for something like a 60D or even 5D the sharpness probably won't be that noticeable. But then, I don't think someone who is willing to spend $4k on a lens, for video work specifically, would shoot on a something like a 60D.
The other thing is that cinema lenses is way above the $4k price, so having something come really close (or even surpass) the quality of the cinema lens, a $4k price tag is a steal.