It will be interesting to see real world testing results when available. While I love these lenses what I would really like to see are offerings in wider focal lengths (15,21,28,35). One can hope.
Upvote
0
Rumor of Zeiss Otus coming to Mirrorless Mounts
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Well, these Zeiss Otus ML (as well as EF) lenses are fine examples of highly optically corrected glass.
Let’s see if those opposed to lens aberration software correction are willing to pay up for this.
Let’s see if those opposed to lens aberration software correction are willing to pay up for this.
Upvote
0
The early tests have demonstrated that the 50mm is relying on digital correction for distortion, some minor lens flare issues, but is virtually free of any vignette. I do wonder how well these will end up selling and I really look forward to seeing how the 85mm looks compared to the RF 85mm f/1.2L. The images from the 50mm look incredibly clean and sharp, but there was room for improvement over the RF 50mm f/1.2L and f/1.4L. The Canon 85….man, that thing is bordering on perfection. We’ll see..
Upvote
0
).Manual focus?! I gave up on manual focus when I sold my FD-mount cameras and lenses in 1997. I'm not going back!
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
What’s your hurry? Clearly, you don’t care about creative perfection.
From the advert: “The new ML lenses will appeal to mirrorless shooters for whom time is no object in the pursuit of creative perfection.”
Upvote
0
I don't quite get it.... what would be the use cases for these lenses wide open? I assume for portraiture so nailing focus is a priority yet at f1.4 the DoF would be pretty thin.What’s your hurry? Clearly, you don’t care about creative perfection.
From the advert: “The new ML lenses will appeal to mirrorless shooters for whom time is no object in the pursuit of creative perfection.”
Is zeiss relying on bursts where the shooter moves in and out to hope to get one shot in focus?
Or are the shooters so much better than me to achieve critical focus without Canon's excellent eye AF?
Or they don't have the AF motor technology or don't want the weight of the lenses to be even heavier?
Upvote
0
Hey! Take a close look at my User Name…
BONUS: Anybody see what’s in common to all three focus settings?
Attachments
Upvote
0
I could see a manual focus UWA (21 mm or less) f1.4 for astro work, but that is the only scenario that I would buy a MF lens for the RF mount.
Upvote
0
Given the fact that Zeiss thought it was viable to produce these manual focus lenses for dslrs I can only assume that the target audience for serious photography would not use them for portraiture wide open, or anything like if they are shooting close. In all the weddings I shot I never once came across anyone who thought that a picture with just one eyelash in sharp focus and the rest blurred was anything but bad.
Even with mirrorless the only way to nail razor thin dof with manual focus is with magnification and although you can get used to doing it reasonably quickly, it’s still clunky. You could work this way in liveview with a dslr of course; maybe that’s what people did.
It’s also worth noting that the focus aid in mirrorless, where you join the two arrows together and it goes green, (Canon) is not accurate enough for f/1.4 or even 1.8, just as the ‘in focus’ dot on a dslr wasn’t either.
However I think that for the pleasure of using a good manual focus lens (if that’s your thing) it does make a lot more sense on mirrorless than it did on dslrs. But if you habitually shoot wide open with very fast lenses I’m not sure it’s worth the hassle.
Upvote
0
I really don't need the large aperture of these two lenses as I shoot landscape. Likely to be used at f8 plus. I used live view for focusing with the 5D series, and the same with the r5. Worked great for me, not fast, but great.
Upvote
0
Zeiss would have run the numbers and expected to make profits for these lenses but....
If wide open f1.4 (or f1.2) is too shallow a depth of field then why make them instead of f4 for instance. Cheaper and smaller. Landscapers would use ~f8-f14 to maximise DoF.
Wide open for video in bright light makes sense if no ND filters but still the issue of focus/DoF comes into it.
Wide open (ultra) wide angle for astro makes sense to me and 20-35mm for live bands etc with low light and up close but focus is again the issue.
Maybe I am missing the point here.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
