Review: Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 ZE Lens

[ahsanford]

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.

If you are shooting portraits at f/4 or landscapes at f/11 or so, I agree with you completely.

But if you are shooting at f/1.4 lens manually with nothing more than the AF confirmation dot, you are more skilled than I. Most everyone else espouses the use of focus screens to pull that off.

- A

 

[leica_f32]

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.

If you are shooting portraits at f/4 or landscapes at f/11 or so, I agree with you completely.

But if you are shooting at f/1.4 lens manually with nothing more than the AF confirmation dot, you are more skilled than I. Most everyone else espouses the use of focus screens to pull that off.

- A

At 1.4 with the Otus or 1.2 with the 85L you have such a razor thin DOF that you only have two options: higher speed or lower ISO to move off that dime , or, live view with the magnifier default set at 100X to check things on the fly. Sometimes you want the shallow DOF, often times not. I only wish the 5D series and 1DX let me shoot at something like a 32ASA.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

If you are shooting portraits at f/4 or landscapes at f/11 or so, I agree with you completely.

But if you are shooting at f/1.4 lens manually with nothing more than the AF confirmation dot, you are more skilled than I. Most everyone else espouses the use of focus screens to pull that off.

- A

At 1.4 with the Otus or 1.2 with the 85L you have such a razor thin DOF that you only have two options: higher speed or lower ISO to move off that dime , or, live view with the magnifier default set at 100X to check things on the fly. Sometimes you want the shallow DOF, often times not. I only wish the 5D series and 1DX let me shoot at something like a 32ASA.

My problem is that the 5D3 AF points are boxes from an aiming/usage/feedback standpoint. They might confirm on the eye, on the eyebrow, on the bridge of the nose, etc.

At f/4, I won't miss, but wider than f/2, I absolutely will.

- A

 

[Nininini]

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 ...

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Zeiss. As Zeiss has said many many many times, they would LOVE to put AF on canon mount lenses, but it is up to CANON to make their AF tech available. Canon doesn't want to .. because it would cut into their L lens profits if they need to compete with Zeiss.

This is the official Zeiss response to the AF question:

ZEISS: "Due to international licences, it is not possible at the moment for companies outside Japan to offer AF lenses with EF or F mounts”

Basically, due to japanese protectionism Zeiss can't put AF on Canon mount Zeiss lenses because Canon will not allow non-Japanese firms to get access to their AF system.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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 ...

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Zeiss. As Zeiss has said many many many times, they would LOVE to put AF on canon mount lenses, but it is up to CANON to make their AF tech available. Canon doesn't want to .. because it would cut into their L lens profits if they need to compete with Zeiss.

This is the official Zeiss response to the AF question:

ZEISS: "Due to international licences, it is not possible at the moment for companies outside Japan to offer AF lenses with EF or F mounts”

Basically, due to japanese protectionism Zeiss can't put AF on Canon mount Zeiss lenses because Canon will not allow non-Japanese firms to get access to their AF system.

Canon's EF Patents are long ago expired. The License deal is a red herring. You don't need a license to use a expired patent.

 

[Nininini]

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 ...

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Zeiss. As Zeiss has said many many many times, they would LOVE to put AF on canon mount lenses, but it is up to CANON to make their AF tech available. Canon doesn't want to .. because it would cut into their L lens profits if they need to compete with Zeiss.

This is the official Zeiss response to the AF question:

ZEISS: "Due to international licences, it is not possible at the moment for companies outside Japan to offer AF lenses with EF or F mounts”

Basically, due to japanese protectionism Zeiss can't put AF on Canon mount Zeiss lenses because Canon will not allow non-Japanese firms to get access to their AF system.

Canon's EF Patents are long ago expired. The License deal is a red herring. You don't need a license to use a expired patent.

that's pure bs

1) You are saying Zeiss is lying.
2) We know Tamron and Sigma have major issues getting AF to work, they reverse engineer the Canon AF system, both sell USB docks because of it, both still release new lenses that can have very underperforming AF

 

[retroreflection]

Patents are only one level of intellectual property. Trade secrets, including software and electronic system design, are way more significant. Keep your mouth shut and it lasts forever.
Zeiss would need all of that to build AF lenses, Canon doesn't want them to have it.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

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

Very impressive. I can't see the justification in price of Otus line. We are seeing lenses costing 20% the price, Sigma ARt 50 for example, that are so close in performance it's not funny. And my god 1.36kg for a 28mm lens. Not even if I won powerball would this be on my shopping list.

I can't wait for Sigma Art 135 and 85 next as well as Canon BR versions too. If I wanted Zeiss I'd go no further than Milvus or get Loxia for Sony. Zeiss needs to realise the competition has improved dramatically and is no longer the ultimate IMO when you factor in other considerations like price and AF. They are throwing everything they have at these designs and still barely beat or match the others. Build quality might be better but if you read the Lens Rental tear down of the 35L II you will see Canon has built an amazing lens in that regards too.

 

[Antono Refa]

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!).

The opposite reaction of moving 200 grams quickly will hurt the user? i doubt that very much.

 

[photennek]

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.

If you are shooting portraits at f/4 or landscapes at f/11 or so, I agree with you completely.

But if you are shooting at f/1.4 lens manually with nothing more than the AF confirmation dot, you are more skilled than I. Most everyone else espouses the use of focus screens to pull that off.

- A

My problem is that the 5D3 AF points are boxes from an aiming/usage/feedback standpoint. They might confirm on the eye, on the eyebrow, on the bridge of the nose, etc.

On 5d3, how do you enable those AF points to give you focus confirmation when using manual focusing? I tried with a canon autofocusing lens and turned the AF to manual (on the lens). I also have configured my camera for back-button focusing, but that shouldn't matter in this scenario? I did not notice any kind of confirming action from the camera in any way... Although it was daylight, when the AF points do not illuminate red anyway, was this the catch? Help appreciated, for example a ref to the relevant manual page (browsed through, nothing caught my eye)

[sorry for being partly off-topic]

 

[ahsanford]

On 5d3, how do you enable those AF points to give you focus confirmation when using manual focusing? I tried with a canon autofocusing lens and turned the AF to manual (on the lens). I also have configured my camera for back-button focusing, but that shouldn't matter in this scenario? I did not notice any kind of confirming action from the camera in any way... Although it was daylight, when the AF points do not illuminate red anyway, was this the catch? Help appreciated, for example a ref to the relevant manual page (browsed through, nothing caught my eye)

[sorry for being partly off-topic]

I use don't back-button AF, I use the normal shutter button. But I believe that MF focus confirmation is done with your normally selected AF points/clusters but with the lens switched to MF (on the lens barrel). You hold down your shutter button halfway while manually focusing, and when your selected AF points are in focus, they will turn from black to red.

(Someone please correct me if my memory is off -- it's been ages since I've used that feature.)

- A

 

[Bernard]

The opposite reaction of moving 200 grams quickly will hurt the user? i doubt that very much.

Take something weighing 200g (or having a volume of 200 ml of water) and shake it back and forth by a cm quickly. Ideally, you would want to make the full motion in no more than 100 ms (10x per second). Do you feel the vibration? Now use your face as the stop, like you would if you were using an eye-level viewfinder...

That's why AF lenses focus by moving very small and light elements. It's an optical compromise, but it allows for faster AF, and lower power use. The fact is, if you use AF, you aren't interested in getting 100% of your lens's optical potential, so it's not an issue. These Milvus and Otus lenses are for the few situations where getting 100% out of a lens makes a visible difference. Obviously, they are also for photographers who don't like losing control to AF systems.

 

[slclick]

Those who complain about the lack of AF in Zeiss and other companies lenses must never shoot macro or tilt shift.

AF is a very new concept in the grand scheme of things and if folks in the past could do it with their clunky gear, you too can do it with your whiz bang techno marvel bodies.

btw this is coming from someone who was once blind in one eye and has an auto immune disorder which effects my retinas so suck it up.

 

[Rick]

I would have been all over this lens if Zeiss had not changed how they approach infinity (being able to focus past the infinity mark). With older lenses, Zeiss provided a hard stop at infinity. If the lens was well calibrated, a blind man could focus such a lens by turning it to infinity and leaving it (if the target was infinity of course).

As it stands, my eyesight does not allow manual focusing any longer and I have to have auto focus. The way I see it, the Batis 25mm autofocus lens is a reasonable alternative with very good sharpness across the frame. I could buy the A7r II and the Batis with the Otus money and still have money left over for a Dr. Pepper.

 

[ahsanford]

Those who complain about the lack of AF in Zeiss and other companies lenses must never shoot macro or tilt shift.

AF is a very new concept in the grand scheme of things and if folks in the past could do it with their clunky gear, you too can do it with your whiz bang techno marvel bodies.

btw this is coming from someone who was once blind in one eye and has an auto immune disorder which effects my retinas so suck it up.

For $4-5k for these Otus lenses, I think the task of photography should be easier, not harder.

I respectfully appreciate your point -- we all do have the ability to learn this skill. And yes, skilled photogs in the days prior to AF developed that skill and took stellar pictures. We can do this, but our needs or our patience dictates that we prefer AF.

I'm not condemning this lens, but the Venn diagram overlap area of...

[Has the the skill/patience to shoot MF] +
[Type of photography/videography plays well with MF] +
[Has the money for Otus glass]

...is very, very small.

- A

 

[slclick]

Those who complain about the lack of AF in Zeiss and other companies lenses must never shoot macro or tilt shift.

AF is a very new concept in the grand scheme of things and if folks in the past could do it with their clunky gear, you too can do it with your whiz bang techno marvel bodies.

btw this is coming from someone who was once blind in one eye and has an auto immune disorder which effects my retinas so suck it up.

For $4-5k for these Otus lenses, I think the task of photography should be easier, not harder.

I respectfully appreciate your point -- we all do have the ability to learn this skill. And yes, skilled photogs in the days prior to AF developed that skill and took stellar pictures. We can do this, but our needs or our patience dictates that we prefer AF.

I'm not condemning this lens, but the Venn diagram overlap area of...

[Has the the skill/patience to shoot MF] +
[Type of photography/videography plays well with MF] +
[Has the money for Otus glass]

...is very, very small.

- A

Love it!

Oh I won't be buying this anytime soon... I do my MF with Canon, Sam/Rok/Bow and Lensbabies. (LiveView x 5/10)

 

[FramerMCB]

Patents are only one level of intellectual property. Trade secrets, including software and electronic system design, are way more significant. Keep your mouth shut and it lasts forever.
Zeiss would need all of that to build AF lenses, Canon doesn't want them to have it.

I would add, Tamron and Sigma are both companies headquartered in Japan. Zeiss, while many if not most of its lenses are manufactured in Japan, is a German company and headquartered in Europe. Lending further credence to the "rumor" that Canon does not allow non-Japanese companies to manufacture AF lenses for Canon cameras. And I believe it is absolutely true that both Tamron and Sigma have to reverse engineer their autofocus capabilities for all the AF lenses they make, whether for Canon, Nikon, or Sony.

 

[slclick]

Patents are only one level of intellectual property. Trade secrets, including software and electronic system design, are way more significant. Keep your mouth shut and it lasts forever.
Zeiss would need all of that to build AF lenses, Canon doesn't want them to have it.

I would add, Tamron and Sigma are both companies headquartered in Japan. Zeiss, while many if not most of its lenses are manufactured in Japan, is a German company and headquartered in Europe. Lending further credence to the "rumor" that Canon does not allow non-Japanese companies to manufacture AF lenses for Canon cameras. And I believe it is absolutely true that both Tamron and Sigma have to reverse engineer their autofocus capabilities for all the AF lenses they make, whether for Canon, Nikon, or Sony.

I cannot believe that for one moment. It's the simple mechanics of optics. You can build a sharper, clearer, less distorted lens without the internal and external parts needed for AF mechanisms.

 

[ahsanford]

Patents are only one level of intellectual property. Trade secrets, including software and electronic system design, are way more significant. Keep your mouth shut and it lasts forever.
Zeiss would need all of that to build AF lenses, Canon doesn't want them to have it.

I would add, Tamron and Sigma are both companies headquartered in Japan. Zeiss, while many if not most of its lenses are manufactured in Japan, is a German company and headquartered in Europe. Lending further credence to the "rumor" that Canon does not allow non-Japanese companies to manufacture AF lenses for Canon cameras. And I believe it is absolutely true that both Tamron and Sigma have to reverse engineer their autofocus capabilities for all the AF lenses they make, whether for Canon, Nikon, or Sony.

As much as I have always heard the 'Canon AF is only for Japanese based companies', I have always also heard the 'Zeiss doesn't want to introduce imperfect guidance to perfect optics'.

Perhaps the reality of the former statement was spun by Zeiss marketing folks into the latter statement?

- A

 

[Sharlin]

Photographers that don't care about autofocus and cost : 0,000001 %..... :

Apparently that's enough to keep Zeiss profitable.