Review: Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZE Lens

[Canon Rumors]

The-Digital-Picture has completed their review of the brand new Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZE lens. This is the widest lens currently available in the Otus line which also has 55mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4 offerings.</p>
<p>These Otus lenses have very limited users due to the cost and the fact that they’re manual focus only. However, for the photographers that don’t care about those two things, these lenses are amazing optically.</p>
<p>From TDP:</p>
<blockquote><p>Most apparent in the corner is the vignetting and its clearing causing increased brightness and contrast at narrower apertures. While many wide angle lenses render corners very noticeably blurred at their widest apertures, the Otus 28 holds things together well even into deep corners. I’m not ready to say that this lens is sharper than its longer siblings, but it performs at the top of its class. <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-28mm-f-1.4-Otus-Lens.aspx">Read the full review</a></p></blockquote>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190733-REG/zeiss_otus_28mm_f_1_4_ze.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZE Lens at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[Solar Eagle]

What do you think of the coma on this compared to other lenses? The review is kind of vague. I'm still looking for the ultimate night sky lens

 

[Nitroman]

If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these.

It really is a fatal flaw in their plan and a shame for their customers.

Sort it out Zeiss ...

 

[traveller]

If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these.

It really is a fatal flaw in their plan and a shame for their customers.

Sort it out Zeiss ...

On the other hand, not having af frees up lens designers, as they don't have to make the focusing group small and light to allow it to be driven by motors.

Apart from that, I think they have an agreement with Sony not to make auto focus DSLR lenses...

 

[fentiger]

the only fatal flaw is the price, makes the 35mk11 look cheap

 

[Antono Refa]

If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these.

It really is a fatal flaw in their plan and a shame for their customers.

Sort it out Zeiss ...

On the other hand, not having af frees up lens designers, as they don't have to make the focusing group small and light to allow it to be driven by motors.

There's a problem to put an engine that moves, say, 200 grams of glass?!

 

[Cali Capture]

This focal length is an interesting choice by Zeiss, considering the Otus line manual focus! Not wide enough for most landscape and Architecture uses where manual focus and that long throw focus ring would be OK. Yet same focus ring would make it difficult to use for general photography w/ moving subjects. I would have thought the 15mm would be their next Otus.
When you look at the Canon 35mm 1.4 II, it's build quality, sharpness and propietory auto focus advantage. It is the Otus of Autofocus!
I'm looking forward to Canon moving thru the 50mm, 85mm and 135mm primes. I have the 35mm II, and it's worth the extra bucks! I'm hoping they break tradition by adding IS to the 85 or especially the 135mm?

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these.
It really is a fatal flaw in their plan and a shame for their customers.
Sort it out Zeiss ...

On the other hand, not having af frees up lens designers, as they don't have to make the focusing group small and light to allow it to be driven by motors.

There's a problem to put an engine that moves, say, 200 grams of glass?!

There is no problem in putting a motor to move 200 grams of glass, but ...

If this movement is slow in a lens of $ 5000? ???
If this movement is noisy in a lens of $ 5000? :-\
If this movement is inaccurate in a lens of $ 5000? :-[

If there is no focus motor, will be a "perfect" lens without the three problems that I quoted, and all failed to happen is the user fault. : It will not be the fault of the lens of $ 5000. :-X

 

[Bernard]

There's a problem to put an engine that moves, say, 200 grams of glass?!

You would probably want to move 20 grams, not 200, in order to get fast autofocus. Moving 200g quickly would generate enough force to hurt the user (every action has an exact and opposite reaction!).

Then the problem becomes accuracy. No current autofocus system is accurate enough for a lens like this. They are all designed to be "good enough," which is the philosophical opposite of the Otus lenses.

Frankly speaking, if autofocus is enough for your photography, this isn't the lens for you. There's nothing wrong with that, by the way. It's easy to get bored by perfectly focused, uninteresting pictures.

 

[Eldar]

This is outside of my areas of knowledge, but I would assume that lenses with this long focus throw would be slow. And, taking Sigma's far from impressive AF performance into account, I'd guess that Zeiss will not provide AF unless they get full access to the Canon and/or Nikon AF systems.

However, since I already have two Otus's and a few other manual focus Zeiss lenses, I can tell you that I find it a joy to use them as they are. Use a high precision focusing screen and you'll find it a lot easier than you think.

 

[Random Orbits]

If the Otus line of lenses were auto focus, Zeiss would sell a lot more of these.

It really is a fatal flaw in their plan and a shame for their customers.

Sort it out Zeiss ...

On the other hand, not having af frees up lens designers, as they don't have to make the focusing group small and light to allow it to be driven by motors.

There's a problem to put an engine that moves, say, 200 grams of glass?!

There is if they don't get access to Canon's AF algorithms. Would you want to spend 5000 on a lens that that has unreliable AF?

 

[Nitroman]

I agree Random Orbits - that's why i'd never buy an Otus.

I know the glass is superb - but only as good as the operator or AF system.

To be fair, no af is perfect ... but i find af usually more accurate than manual unless i use live view. In which case manual focus is not usually an issue.

 

[ahsanford]

What do you think of the coma on this compared to other lenses? The review is kind of vague. I'm still looking for the ultimate night sky lens

Carnathan doesn't shoot much astro, so he doesn't report much about it. You'll have to wait until LensTip gets one. That's a standard test they run on all lenses.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

When you look at the Canon 35mm 1.4 II, it's build quality, sharpness and propietory auto focus advantage. It is the Otus of Autofocus!

+1. Once the BR gunk is put into much higher resolving next versions of the 24, 50, 85, 135, etc. Canon users will simply giggle at the Otus line like a Mercedes driver giggles at a Bentley. Sure, it's better, but is it that much better for the extra money you are paying? I don't think so.

I have no doubt the Otus lenses are stellar, but future L lenses that are 95% as good with first-party AF at 1/3 of the price will disproportionately outsell the Otus line.

- A

 

[MaxFoto]

Pretty impressive a lens that costs 1/3 as much (Canon 35L II), is sharper wide open, much, much smaller, and has AF.

 

[Random Orbits]

I agree Random Orbits - that's why i'd never buy an Otus.

I know the glass is superb - but only as good as the operator or AF system.

To be fair, no af is perfect ... but i find af usually more accurate than manual unless i use live view. In which case manual focus is not usually an issue.

I tried a Zeiss 21mm Distagon on my 5DIII (stock screen), and the focus confirmation zone was too large to get good focus. It was a pain to find the two points where focus confirmation was achieved and then set it somewhere near the middle. It gave good results, but it was slow and tedious. That is not to say that I don't use manual focus lenses, but I'd rather not use manual focus when I don't have to for general use. Recently picked up the Sigma 20A on sale. AF isn't as good as Canon but it's passable. Center bank of points focuses accurately, but the left and right bank of points front focus. It's not as polished or refined as the Zeiss 21, but it's a lot less expensive and has passable AF, which is good enough for most situations.

 

[ahsanford]

I tried a Zeiss 21mm Distagon on my 5DIII (stock screen), and the focus confirmation zone was too large to get good focus. It was a pain to find the two points where focus confirmation was achieved and then set it somewhere near the middle. It gave good results, but it was slow and tedious. That is not to say that I don't use manual focus lenses, but I'd rather not use manual focus when I don't have to for general use. Recently picked up the Sigma 20A on sale. AF isn't as good as Canon but it's passable. Center bank of points focuses accurately, but the left and right bank of points front focus. It's not as polished or refined as the Zeiss 21, but it's a lot less expensive and has passable AF, which is good enough for most situations.

It also depends on what you need this lens for. If you are...

• ...performing tasks based out of LiveView, shooting video, landscapes, astro, etc.
• ...doing deliberate studio work where you can chimp your brains out (hell, even proof it at 100% on a monitor) and reshoot if necessary
• ...shooting macro on rails, focus stacking, etc.
• ...shooting street in an old-school manner with bracketed range focusing
• [insert other reasons here]

... then an MF lens will do you just fine. There are entire realms of photography that demand MF or cope with MF pretty well.

But for me, I don't shoot those things above nearly as much as I shoot my life and things around me, and my life / my subjects / my circumstance [cough significant other] requires me to stick and move. I just don't get second chances for shots that often, so these Otus lenses -- and any MF glass for that matter -- are dead to me, regardless of price.

That said, they set a lovely bar for IQ, build quality, handling that future L lenses should aspire to.

- A

 

[Random Orbits]

It also depends on what you need this lens for. If you are...

• ...performing tasks based out of LiveView, shooting video, landscapes, astro, etc.
• ...doing deliberate studio work where you can chimp your brains out (hell, even proof it at 100% on a monitor) and reshoot if necessary
• ...shooting macro on rails, focus stacking, etc.
• ...shooting street in an old-school manner with bracketed range focusing
• [insert other reasons here]

... then an MF lens will do you just fine. There are entire realms of photography that demand MF or cope with MF pretty well.

But for me, I don't shoot those things above nearly as much as I shoot my life and things around me, and my life / my subjects / my circumstance [cough significant other] requires me to stick and move. I just don't get second chances for shots that often, so these Otus lenses -- and any MF glass for that matter -- are dead to me, regardless of price.

That said, they set a lovely bar for IQ, build quality, handling that future L lenses should aspire to.

- A

As long as future L lenses don't aspire to Zeiss prices!

 

[wearle]

What do you think of the coma on this compared to other lenses? The review is kind of vague. I'm still looking for the ultimate night sky lens

Solar Eagle,

I was a little disappointed with the Otus 28mm lens with respect to coma. The Canon 35mm f/1/4L II is much better; however, it is also a little more difficult to correct coma at 28mm. Here are some full resolution examples:

http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/images/testing/zeiss_otus-28mm_star-test1.jpg

http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/images/testing/zeiss_otus-28mm_star-test2.jpg

http://www.northwest-landscapes.com/images/testing/zeiss_otus-28mm_star-test3.jpg

I have some newer samples under better conditions if you are interested.

It's a great lens otherwise.

Wade

 

[leica_f32]

I tried a Zeiss 21mm Distagon on my 5DIII (stock screen), and the focus confirmation zone was too large to get good focus. It was a pain to find the two points where focus confirmation was achieved and then set it somewhere near the middle. It gave good results, but it was slow and tedious. That is not to say that I don't use manual focus lenses, but I'd rather not use manual focus when I don't have to for general use. Recently picked up the Sigma 20A on sale. AF isn't as good as Canon but it's passable. Center bank of points focuses accurately, but the left and right bank of points front focus. It's not as polished or refined as the Zeiss 21, but it's a lot less expensive and has passable AF, which is good enough for most situations.

It also depends on what you need this lens for. If you are...

• ...performing tasks based out of LiveView, shooting video, landscapes, astro, etc.
• ...doing deliberate studio work where you can chimp your brains out (hell, even proof it at 100% on a monitor) and reshoot if necessary
• ...shooting macro on rails, focus stacking, etc.
• ...shooting street in an old-school manner with bracketed range focusing
• [insert other reasons here]

... then an MF lens will do you just fine. There are entire realms of photography that demand MF or cope with MF pretty well.

But for me, I don't shoot those things above nearly as much as I shoot my life and things around me, and my life / my subjects / my circumstance [cough significant other] requires me to stick and move. I just don't get second chances for shots that often, so these Otus lenses -- and any MF glass for that matter -- are dead to me, regardless of price.

That said, they set a lovely bar for IQ, build quality, handling that future L lenses should aspire to.

- A

I've been using the Otus 85mm for about a year now. I purchased it for studio work and, yes, it excels beyond all its counterparts for that service. Then I took it out for landscape work and realized how much better it really was. Today it sits on my 5D3 or 5DSr when I'm out and about grabbing everyday shots. Crowds, animals - whatever I'm shooting. You only have one more task to perform - to turn the focus ring. The viewfinder gives you conformation of focus by the red focus points illuminating when you're dead on. You choose - don't want that in focus, keep turning and another item in the image lights up. It's really not that complicated.