DXOMark Reviews Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4

[Eldar]

So are you saying that a well practiced manual focusing photographer could use this lens as an effective portrait lens in close quarters wide open? What do you think the keeper rate would be hand held? What percentage of those keepers would use to the fullest extent this very expensive glass? I think it would be disappointingly low.

I don´t know if you have tried, but if you use a high precision focusing screen (I use the Ec-S), nailing focus is not that difficult, even in quite poor light. Close head shots wide open are difficult both with and without AF, if the subject is moving. But the way I shoot portraits, it works quite well and my keeper rates are high. But on close portraits I often use at least f2.0, because I find the f1.4/f1.2 DOF to be too shallow. You´ll just get an eye (maybe not even the whole eye) in focus. It makes interesting images now and then, but not very often.

I have lots of out of focus f1.2 examples from my 85/1.2L II, but unfortunately, I have no shots to show from a manually focused 85mm (yet ...).

There are lots to be said about DxO, but the statement you refer to works for me. I am drooling over this lens, but preorder is not open here in Norway yet, so I still have time to sober up and be sensible.

I find it more difficult to figure out how they sum up their test results and settle on a final score for a lens. Based on the various numbers they published for the Zeiss lenses (on Nikon body), how could the Zeiss 135/2 get a lower overall score than the two Otus lenses? Sharpness is higher, Transmission is the same (relative to wide open aperture), distortion is lower, vignetting is lower and CA is less.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

DXO can score this however they want, but when they say things like this: "The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available" I have no desire to continue reading what they are selling.

What are they smoking? I still haven't figured out what use case there is for this lens. You can't hand hold this lens for closer portraits wide open. You can't. Not while focusing manually.

What am I missing? Why is this the Most Desirable and Best performing 85mm?

We did shoot f1.4 portraits back in the old days, where no AF was available. I had the first 50mm f1.2L lens and have lots of good shots with it, wide open.

A major part of being a photographer then was to practice your manual focusing skills. People were also shooting all kinds of sports and wildlife at the time. Very few (if any) shot f1.4 though, but you still had to handle the movement issues. So adding a precision focusing screen to your camera (I use Ec-S on my 1DX), you can clearly shoot portraits handheld with this lens. But you have to practice quite a bit to master it. If you pick up these manual lenses only once every now and then, I agree, you will not make it. I have lots of close portraits taken with the Otus 55mm at f1.4 (and the Zeiss 135mm at f2.0), where focus is exactly where I want it, so I imagine I will be able to do it with the 85mm also.

So are you saying that a well practiced manual focusing photographer could use this lens as an effective portrait lens in close quarters wide open? What do you think the keeper rate would be hand held? What percentage of those keepers would use to the fullest extent this very expensive glass? I think it would be disappointingly low.
One of the first posts here had a link to some real world examples, I even went to the flickr site referenced. Guess what? No portraits. Some beautiful photos, but no portraits.

In the past photographers practiced their manual focusing. Nowdays it is the videographers out trying to perfect this skill.

I agree that this lens could have a place, but my real gripe was with DXO, who doesn't seem to understand the lens other than by its stats.

Shooting portraits wide open manually is not quite as hard as you think, particularly since Zeiss lenses do have focus confirm (which is pretty accurate). It takes some practice, yes, but better a manual focus lens than one with erratic AF.

 

[jdramirez]

DXO can score this however they want, but when they say things like this: "The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available" I have no desire to continue reading what they are selling.

What are they smoking? I still haven't figured out what use case there is for this lens. You can't hand hold this lens for closer portraits wide open. You can't. Not while focusing manually.

What am I missing? Why is this the Most Desirable and Best performing 85mm?

We did shoot f1.4 portraits back in the old days, where no AF was available. I had the first 50mm f1.2L lens and have lots of good shots with it, wide open.

A major part of being a photographer then was to practice your manual focusing skills. People were also shooting all kinds of sports and wildlife at the time. Very few (if any) shot f1.4 though, but you still had to handle the movement issues. So adding a precision focusing screen to your camera (I use Ec-S on my 1DX), you can clearly shoot portraits handheld with this lens. But you have to practice quite a bit to master it. If you pick up these manual lenses only once every now and then, I agree, you will not make it. I have lots of close portraits taken with the Otus 55mm at f1.4 (and the Zeiss 135mm at f2.0), where focus is exactly where I want it, so I imagine I will be able to do it with the 85mm also.

So are you saying that a well practiced manual focusing photographer could use this lens as an effective portrait lens in close quarters wide open? What do you think the keeper rate would be hand held? What percentage of those keepers would use to the fullest extent this very expensive glass? I think it would be disappointingly low.
One of the first posts here had a link to some real world examples, I even went to the flickr site referenced. Guess what? No portraits. Some beautiful photos, but no portraits.

In the past photographers practiced their manual focusing. Nowdays it is the videographers out trying to perfect this skill.

I agree that this lens could have a place, but my real gripe was with DXO, who doesn't seem to understand the lens other than by its stats.

Shooting portraits wide open manually is not quite as hard as you think, particularly since Zeiss lenses do have focus confirm (which is pretty accurate). It takes some practice, yes, but better a manual focus lens than one with erratic AF.

I manually focus when I have a stationary target, shoot stopped down (f8), or are using a tripod and live view. Outside of that... give me a good consistent auto focus.

 

[mackguyver]

I find it more difficult to figure out how they sum up their test results and settle on a final score for a lens. Based on the various numbers they published for the Zeiss lenses (on Nikon body), how could the Zeiss 135/2 get a lower overall score than the two Otus lenses? Sharpness is higher, Transmission is the same (relative to wide open aperture), distortion is lower, vignetting is lower and CA is less.

Their T-Stop measurements seem to be the key to their "scores". A decent f/1.4 lens will beat the 300 f/2.8 IS II and Zeiss 135 f/2 (the top two Canon lenses, by measurements) in terms of scores.

 

[Loswr]

I find it more difficult to figure out how they sum up their test results and settle on a final score for a lens. Based on the various numbers they published for the Zeiss lenses (on Nikon body), how could the Zeiss 135/2 get a lower overall score than the two Otus lenses? Sharpness is higher, Transmission is the same (relative to wide open aperture), distortion is lower, vignetting is lower and CA is less.

That's the key point. They don't 'sum up their measurements' to determine a final Score.

From a couple of pages back:

Effectively, the lens goes from a score of 38 to 49 solely based on the increased resolving power of the Nikon. See attached.

You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is: Never get involved in a land war in Asia. But only slightly less well known is this: Believing that DxO's optical metrics are the primary determinants of the Lens Score.

I know, as you show in the screenshot DxO sticks that Score right on top of the list of lens metrics, suggesting the Score is a synthesis of those measurements. It's not. The Lens Score is primarily based on 'performance in 150 lux illumination' (the light level found in a dim warehouse). What that means in practice is the the Lens Score is heavily influenced by the Sensor Overall Score of the body on which it is tested. So, while some of the Zeiss 85/1.4 Otus' higher lens Score on the D800E comes from the higher P-MPix value, the relative difference in the sensor Score also accounts for much of that difference. For example, comparing the two current 600mm lenses, we see that the Canon lens is sharper, has higher transmission, less distortion, equal vignetting, and less CA...the Canon lens is optically superior, but the two lenses get the same score because the D800 sensor scores higher (and I should point out that DxO has explained that their Sensor Score is independent of resolution, so it's not the 22 vs. 36 MP accounting for that difference). Also worth noting that their chosen conditions for the lens score – dim light – would generally require a high ISO setting, yet their Sensor Score is biased toward low ISO (2 of the three subscores are considered only at base ISO). Bias on top of bias. That's DxO's biased scores – aka BS – for you...

 

[Loswr]

Their T-Stop measurements seem to be the key to their "scores". A decent f/1.4 lens will beat the 300 f/2.8 IS II and Zeiss 135 f/2 (the top two Canon lenses, by measurements) in terms of scores.

Well, if you were going to shoot in a dimly lit warehouse, which would Canon MkII lens would you choose – the 600mm f/4L IS II or the 50mm f/1.8 II?

Surely you can see that it makes perfect sense that the nifty-fifty deserves the higher Score. It's a much better lens...for shooting in a dimly lit warehouse.

 

[privatebydesign]

DXO can score this however they want, but when they say things like this: "The new Otus 85mm is without question the most desirable and best performing 85mm portrait lens available" I have no desire to continue reading what they are selling.

What are they smoking? I still haven't figured out what use case there is for this lens. You can't hand hold this lens for closer portraits wide open. You can't. Not while focusing manually.

I will guarantee that I could take sharper photos with my Canon 85mm 1.8 when doing portraits within 10 ft of the subject. I have a pretty steady hand, but there is always enough movement with a standing subject to sway forward and back a few inches. With the Otus, you would have some very sharp ears and the tip of people's noses. That isn't really what I am interested in.

maybe some still life shots would work well on a tripod?

What am I missing? Why is this the Most Desirable and Best performing 85mm?

You are missing the fact that a long throw manual focus lens is specifically designed to manual focus, it is a quantum leap from trying to manual focus any AF lens, they are built completely differently.

Ask anybody that has used the Canon FD 85 f1.2 and then tried to MF an EF 85 f1.2. With a good focusing screen and a lens designed to MF it isn't as hard as you think, do it day after day and it becomes second nature.

 

[mackguyver]

With a good focusing screen and a lens designed to MF it isn't as hard as you think, do it day after day and it becomes second nature.

Those are both the key things most people don't get when they bash MF lenses. After using the super precision matte on my 5DII and 60D for several years, the 5DIII and 1D X viewfinder screens look like some has poured sugar all over them. The are blurry and grainy. The short throw on the focus ring of AF lenses also makes fine tuning very difficult, but if you've used a Zeiss, Canon FD or TS-E lens, or any other MF lens, the ring rotates a long way making precise focus quite easy even handheld.

 

[Eldar]

I have posted some images over on the Zeiss 135mm f2.0 thread, but I´ll repost one here, since I don´t have the Otus (yet). This is a very close shot (uncropped) of a moving cat, shot wide open. I think you´ll agree that that is one sharp eye.

You may think that I only got this one, but I got several, from different distances. I also missed some, but probably not more than I would with the 135/2.0L. DOF is very thin. As several has pointed out, focusing with one of these Zeiss lenses is a completely different sport, than trying to do so with a regular AF lens and a precision focusing screen is a must.

1DX, 1/8000s, f2.0, ISO100

 

[LovePhotography]

1. What DxO says doesn't affect my photos. What Canon's sensors do (or don't do), does. If Canon ever gets as sick about hearing about the 36MP better sensor as we do, maybe they should effing make a better one. They sell enough cameras, it's not like they couldn't afford it.

 

[Eldar]

Preorder button pressed, so then it is time to wait ...

 

[mackguyver]

Preorder button pressed, so then it is time to wait ...

You can download the DxO profile while you - I saw they just posted it.

 

[jdramirez]

I was trying to manually focus with my 85L mkii the other day... it did not go well. Sure it was f1.2 and I was shooting at a backlit object with heavy contrast... but no... not even freaking close.

This was through the viewfinder and not live view... but it was a mess. So much so that the camera adjusted the exposure. Time by three fold.

And I while I was doing it I was thinking.. this is a lot of twisting for a little bit of movement... so I'm not sure how it would compare to the Otis... but my confidence is shaken that I could use a full manual focus lens.

 

[Eldar]

I was trying to manually focus with my 85L mkii the other day... it did not go well. Sure it was f1.2 and I was shooting at a backlit object with heavy contrast... but no... not even freaking close.

This was through the viewfinder and not live view... but it was a mess. So much so that the camera adjusted the exposure. Time by three fold.

And I while I was doing it I was thinking.. this is a lot of twisting for a little bit of movement... so I'm not sure how it would compare to the Otis... but my confidence is shaken that I could use a full manual focus lens.

You shouldn't be discouraged. The Otus is a totally different animal mich better suited for the task. But f1.2 is challenging. Try with a precision focusing screen and a real manual focus lens and I'm sure you will fix it.

 

[privatebydesign]

I was trying to manually focus with my 85L mkii the other day... it did not go well. Sure it was f1.2 and I was shooting at a backlit object with heavy contrast... but no... not even freaking close.

This was through the viewfinder and not live view... but it was a mess. So much so that the camera adjusted the exposure. Time by three fold.

And I while I was doing it I was thinking.. this is a lot of twisting for a little bit of movement... so I'm not sure how it would compare to the Otis... but my confidence is shaken that I could use a full manual focus lens.

AF lenses are simply not designed to MF, trying to do it with a fast prime and standard focusing screen is an exercise in futility. But the 85 f1.2 predates AF, try the focus throw on an FD version and you will see how we managed it back in the day.

 

[jdramirez]

AF lenses are simply not designed to MF, trying to do it with a fast prime and standard focusing screen is an exercise in futility. But the 85 f1.2 predates AF, try the focus throw on an FD version and you will see how we managed it back in the day.

It was the mkii... I was being lazy and omitted that tidbit of info.

In the past... I've had decent results when tripod mounting and manually focusing while using live view... and when shooting at f8, but that really isn't a fair comparison at all.

Having said that... I afma'd the lens at +3 and I've been pleased with the results here to fore... though I fully retract some previous statements about shooting the sigma 50 art as a manual focus lens...

 

[raptor3x]

I find it really interesting that the lens has, apparently, 1/3rd stop less vignetting on the D800 than the 5D3.