Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*

[Maximilian]

As you can image, and predictably, the lens is phenomenal and possibly the best 50mm (yes, it’s 55mm) lens ever made for an DSLR.

Here in Germany the "fotomagazin" jounal has made a test and review where they say that the Sony/Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55 mm F1,8 ZA has a better IQ at 1/4 of the price.
I don't get 100% through their test methods to see if they did something wrong but the results are hard to believe as the optics are comming from the same source.

I think everyone is missing the entire point of this lens and all of the information about it.

Hi Radiating!
And thank you for your detailed summary of lens design and optics for this topic.
I can see clearer now (although not having the Otus )

The Sony 55mm f/1.8 ZA is not an SLR lens, it's a mirroless lens. .

I didn't take this into account. But I understand, that this allows a different optical design as for DSLR cameras.

Hopefully that puts everything into perspective. This is a very special lens, which more than doubles anything in it's class. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART is going to be equally special with 89% the performance, although lacking APO, but also doubling the performance of anything else like it.

Yes it does - at least for me. Thanks again.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I think everyone is missing the entire point of this lens and all of the information about it.

The 55mm Otus is a very special lens too because it's Apochromatic, which means it has no purple fringing all other primes in this range have a ton of purple fringing that looks very ugly, and most publications won't allow you to submit photos with any hint of purple fringing.

Now that's an important aspect IMHO, Radiating! Superfast lenses in the standard/ short tele range nearly always come with heavy fringing. I use e.g. a Canon 85/1.2 II quite often, I love it but it produces a hell of strong purple fringing if there are edges with a lot of contrast in the image. Fortunately, in digital photography you can correct this by carefully post-processing RAW images (LR e.g. supports that quite nicely). But, of course, it is always better to have a lens that delivers clean images right to the sensor.

Radiating, your posts look like your a much immersed in lens design, it is really worth reading them. From this is a thread I really learned something, thx a lot!

 

[jrista]

The Zeiss Otus was the first retrofocal normal lens for full frame cameras and it showed there was a night and day difference compared to the double gauss design.

(snip)

There is no prime that exists that's f/2 or faster below 150mm besides the Otus that doesn't have ridiculous amounts of purple fringing.

If the whole way it got so good is that it's retrofocus, shouldn't the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4 also have those same benefits, since they have to be retrofocus?

The purpose of going retrofocal in a standard prime is so you have more room to put corrective lens elements into the optical path.

The reason why 35mm and 24mm lenses are retrofocal is because there is no other way to do them. You need the focal length to be longer than 35mm when the distance from your sensor to the last optical element is 35mm+.

With a 35mm lens going retrofocal is just barley necessary (Canon can make a 40mm pancake after all for EF with a standard lens design). So you gain a ton of room for aberration correction. The Sigma, Zeiss and Nikon 35mm primes are crazy good for that reason. There is mountains of room to correct everything you can imagine. The Canon 35mm prime is so-so because Canon is lazy and complacent and they didn't feel like updating their 16 year old lens to a modern highly computer corrected design because it was good enough.

With a 24mm lens you don't get the same benefits, as a 35 or 50. Going retrofocal barley gets you enough room to put the basic corrective elements in, which is the same problem as you get with a planar 50mm lens, and because of the wide angles the elements have to be a bit larger so everything is ridiculously scrunched up, which leads to poor performance. To get around this issue Zeiss only makes a 25mm f/2 prime. Going to a slower aperture and 1mm longer focal length gave them just a little more room to correct everything properly, which is why they have the best wide angle prime. Compromising a little on the focal length and aperture was the only way to get the image quality they require.


That's also why telephoto lenses are so incredibly good. There is a ample room within the optical path to add elements to correct for anything and everything.

Having room to correct aberrations has a large effect on image quality, that's why wide angle lenses on mirrorless cameras (which have more room because they have no mirror) are so insanely good. Sony's 10-18mm and Canon's 11-22mm cheap consumer mirroless wide angle zooms are sharper wide open on crop than any pro wide angle zoom available for any Canon camera at any aperture, full frame or crop.

+1000

Excellent stuff! Spot on!

 

[Musicjohn]

I'm not impressed. A lot of vignetting at large appertures, and the very first sample shot (lady standing) is not even sharp where it should be (face). At this level of money I think it's over-priced. My old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 did nearly just as good a job. at nearly a 10th of the costs.

 

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

At that price, I would have expected a better looking lens . The focus ring looks like it's covered with cheap black electrical tape, and the rest of the barrel looks like it's painted with what ricers use in their Hondas: flat matte black paint for that "prototype-model" look. And yet you still have to "row the gears" yourself! ;D

 

[Eldar]

At that price, I would have expected a better looking lens . The focus ring looks like it's covered with cheap black electrical tape, and the rest of the barrel looks like it's painted with what ricers use in their Hondas: flat matte black paint for that "prototype-model" look. And yet you still have to "row the gears" yourself! ;D

Have we seen, held and used the same lens??

 

[roby17269]

I want one
Too expensive though :'(

 

[Eldar]

An interesting question is why Zeiss apparently have such problems with ramping up their volume. Every online site I have visited, in the US and Europe, have the lens on unconfirmed backorder. I got mine 2 months ago and I would have thought they had the pre-orders covered by now. The alternative is that they are making tons of money on this lens ...

 

[Loswr]

An interesting question is why Zeiss apparently have such problems with ramping up their volume.

Is the lens made in Germany, or Japan as some Zeiss camera lenses are? I know that when I order Zeiss microscopes, the lead time is 2-3 months – I always picture some guy named Hans, wearing his horn-rimmed glasses and painstakingly assembling them somewhere in the Black Forest (even though their factory in Jena is several hours' drive away from that region).

 

[Eldar]

An interesting question is why Zeiss apparently have such problems with ramping up their volume.

Is the lens made in Germany, or Japan as some Zeiss camera lenses are? I know that when I order Zeiss microscopes, the lead time is 2-3 months – I always picture some guy named Hans, wearing his horn-rimmed glasses and painstakingly assembling them somewhere in the Black Forest (even though their factory in Jena is several hours' drive away from that region).

He he, I can picture him clearly
I have sent a question to Zeiss about the production location, since there is some confusion around that. I suspect the answer will be Germany, if they disclose it.

 

[mackguyver]

An interesting question is why Zeiss apparently have such problems with ramping up their volume.

Is the lens made in Germany, or Japan as some Zeiss camera lenses are? I know that when I order Zeiss microscopes, the lead time is 2-3 months – I always picture some guy named Hans, wearing his horn-rimmed glasses and painstakingly assembling them somewhere in the Black Forest (even though their factory in Jena is several hours' drive away from that region).

He he, I can picture him clearly
I have sent a question to Zeiss about the production location, since there is some confusion around that. I suspect the answer will be Germany, if they disclose it.

I knew I had seen this somewhere - here's the answer:

Where will the lenses be made?

The lenses will be manufactured in Japan. They will be developed in close consultation with our longstanding global production network of trusted partners in the optical industry to ensure that the lenses’ actual performance corresponds to their theoretical optical design performance.

Source: http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=2860

 

[Radiating]

I'm not impressed. A lot of vignetting at large appertures, and the very first sample shot (lady standing) is not even sharp where it should be (face). At this level of money I think it's over-priced. My old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 did nearly just as good a job. at nearly a 10th of the costs.

The Zeiss has 3 times more resolution on average than the old Sigma 50mm f/1.4, and in the corners 5 times more, so I don't think you'd be "just as good". More like "not even close". The model is leaning back, and outside the focus plane. I think you're wishing that the Zeiss had operator error correction.

Vignette is the easiest image quality aberration to correct there is. I've looked at a ton of images from this lens and this hasn't seemed to be a limitation for the work of any photographer who's used it. Complaining about this is like complaining about a cure for diabetes because it bleaches your hair. The problems it fixes (first non-purple fringing fast prime wider than supertelephoto, first high resolution standard SLR fast prime) are far more trouble than the problems it causes, and the problems it causes are trivial to fix.

 

[mackguyver]

I'm not impressed. A lot of vignetting at large appertures, and the very first sample shot (lady standing) is not even sharp where it should be (face). At this level of money I think it's over-priced. My old Sigma 50mm f/1.4 did nearly just as good a job. at nearly a 10th of the costs.

The Zeiss has 3 times more resolution on average than the old Sigma 50mm f/1.4, and in the corners 5 times more, so I don't think you'd be "just as good". More like "not even close". The model is leaning back, and outside the focus plane. I think you're wishing that the Zeiss had operator error correction.

Vignette is the easiest image quality aberration to correct there is. I've looked at a ton of images from this lens and this hasn't seemed to be a limitation for the work of any photographer who's used it. Complaining about this is like complaining about a cure for diabetes because it bleaches your hair. The problems it fixes (first non-purple fringing fast prime wider than supertelephoto, first high resolution standard SLR fast prime) are far more trouble than the problems it causes, and the problems it causes are trivial to fix.

+1 and I really need to stop reading this thread...I'm getting too tempted...must shutdown computer...hide all credit cards...and convince myself that the 50L has absolutely no flaws

Actually, for my ~50mm prime needs, which are almost exclusively portraits, I can live with my Canon lens, but when LensTip can't find anything wrong with a lens (other than vignetting), that really says something.

 

[Sporgon]

I knew I had seen this somewhere - here's the answer:

Where will the lenses be made?

The lenses will be manufactured in Japan. They will be developed in close consultation with our longstanding global production network of trusted partners in the optical industry to ensure that the lenses’ actual performance corresponds to their theoretical optical design performance.

Source: http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=2860

That's interesting because I had a look at your link and it was dated 19th Sept 2012. I'm sure that in the interview Zeiss gave late in 2013 they stated the lens was being made in Germany / assumed by just a couple of people. Maybe someone can find the interview.

 

[Sporgon]

Won't it state on the lens where it is made ?

Ask Eldar or Edward or Winnie the Pooh to look

 

[mackguyver]

I knew I had seen this somewhere - here's the answer:

Where will the lenses be made?

The lenses will be manufactured in Japan. They will be developed in close consultation with our longstanding global production network of trusted partners in the optical industry to ensure that the lenses’ actual performance corresponds to their theoretical optical design performance.

Source: http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=2860

That's interesting because I had a look at your link and it was dated 19th Sept 2012. I'm sure that in the interview Zeiss gave late in 2013 they stated the lens was being made in Germany / assumed by just a couple of people. Maybe someone can find the interview.

It wouldn't surprise me if they are made in Japan and assembled in Germany.

 

[Eldar]

Won't it state on the lens where it is made ?

Ask Eldar or Edward or Winnie the Pooh to look

Good point. It says Made in Japan.

 

[Sporgon]

Won't it state on the lens where it is made ?

Ask Eldar or Edward or Winnie the Pooh to look

Good point. It says Made in Japan.

That probably means it's made by Cosina to Zeiss standards. Not that it makes any difference. I'm more than happy with the quality of items made in Japan.

 

[Rick]

I haven't purchased this lens since I am not interested in this FL, but, when Zeiss releases the Otus 21 or 25mm, I'll be all over it if it stacks up to the 55.

From the perspective of someone who is interested in the Otus concept but doesn't have the personal experience with one yet (and I'll defer to those who actually own one), the main draw to the product is its sharpness across the frame @f1.4. I see no reason why an Otus (assuming identical optical goals for all future FLs in this series) can't be used at f1.4 on a landscape with infinity distance across the frame and get acceptably sharp corners (judging from samples distributed by Zeiss). Even if one had to stop all the way down to f2 , this will keep diffraction well at bay.

OTOH, @f5.6, if one wants to save $1k, an A7r with an FE 55mm ($3k), appears sharper than the Otus/D800 according to a comparison tool over at DPR (I think they got the raw numbers from DxO).

 

[Rudeofus]

The Otus shows impressive numbers, and thanks to Radiating's explanation we can now understand why. Apparently this comes not just from improved manufacturing, but from a revolutionary new design that allows lots of extra optimizations. It does make me wonder, though, what Zeiss might have up their sleeve with future Otus lenses at shorter focal lengths. Most/all other 24s and 35s are already retro focal design, so Zeiss can't pull that trick here any more. And an Otus 35 that does not beat all other lenses in that range by a margin would rather tarnish the name that has just been so carefully built up by this new 55.