Rumor of Zeiss Otus coming to Mirrorless Mounts
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
L
Loswr
Guest
I was never into positive films. I usually shot Kodak Tmax, occasionally Tri-X.
Upvote
0
I agree, it is something of a conundrum. I’ve never met anyone who has used these lenses professionally, although there must be many out there.
An f/4 lens isn’t sexy is it ? At least not with FF / 35mm sized sensors.
I can see that manual focus makes a lot of sense with ultra wide lenses, especially for landscape where AF can be a pain in the butt, but to own a manual focus 100mm f/1.4 and use it at wide aperture is like something akin to self-flagellation IMO.
Upvote
0
I'll wait for the serious reviews.
Don't forget this lens has a very strong competitor, the RF 50mm f/1,2, which I can get for Euro1900,- from Panamoz...
The Zeiss costs more, is MF, but weighs far less and, if true, should be a real apochromat.
MF doesn't bother me here, as I'm using this focal almost exclusively for landscapes.
The weight of the f/1,2 does...but it is a superb lens.
Yet, there's also the RF 50mm f/1,4, inexpensive, sharp, AF, lightweight, compact...
You may have noticed that, after the beginning enthusiasm, my more rational brain has started to work again...
Upvote
0
Unfortunately, for prestige (?) reasons, there is no longer a market for light, compact and highest quality small aperture lenses.
They simply wouldn't sell in sufficient numbers. Adapted Leica M lenses can be a solution, though focusing them on an EOS isn't always fun.
To be honest, I never use my compact M teles on my EOS, preferring to use the heavier and larger RF lenses with AF...
Upvote
0
I agree unfortunately, so those of us that shoot at smaller apertures are relegated to paying likely higher price, and deal with the extra size and weight....of the faster lenses.
I need Canon to come out with a rf24-70 f4L, although I may settle on the 24-105.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Speaking of the 24-105 f/4...
A good lens, but a bit boring, if you know what I mean. I had it, was satisfied with it, but never surprised by what it produced. I sold it for the 24-70 f/2,8 and never looked back (but missed the 105mm).
I'm a bit afraid that, if ever a new 24-70 f/4 comes, it will be a non-L.
What I dislike about that? Maybe it's a mere coincidence, but both TDP and OpticalLimits tested the RF 28-70 f/2,8.
In TDP's review, the sides and corners were week at 28mm, very good at longer focals, while OL found exactly the opposite. Sample variations???
Is QC more stringent for expensive L lenses? I'm inclined to believe it, although the testing of the 28-70 could also be questioned...
Who knows...
By the way, I have a new favorite, the RF 70-200 f/4: Optically superb, inexpensive, light and compact. And I too miss the non-existing 24-70 f/4 L.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
I suspect is is more stringent, but still not perfect. Bryan/TDP got two bad copies of the EF 24-70/2.8L II then tested two more.
I've never owned a 70-200/4. The RF version looks nice, but it's not all that much smaller than the f/2.8 (non-Z) version.
Upvote
0
From my own experience; never had an L lens that’s more than +/- 3 AFMA, whereas my non-L Canon lenses have ranged from about +/- 5 to 13 !
Upvote
0
My 24mm TSE II was 18 (!) off on the 5 DIII and 5 DIV. All the other L lenses were like yours (+- 3). My non-Ls were in the same category (+- 3).
After I had dropped the 24 TSE on concrete, it needed professional help from Canon. It came back exactly 18 off like before, and euro 950 more expensive...
Gaaaaaaah !
Upvote
0
It is nevertheless longer, wider and 375 g. heavier. Since I didn't notice any important advantage, I chose the f/4.
I don't use it for portraits anyway (no talent at all for people photography !), so I didn't need f/2,8.
I wonder how much incidence the mostly automated manufacturing process had on sample variation. LensRentals seemed positively impressed.
Upvote
0
I understand! It's so tempting. A beautiful mass of glass!
But I will resist, knowing that my least used EF lens was and is the EF 85mm f/1,4. The 90mm Elmarit and Summicron M are so much lighter...
Upvote
0
I had the RF 50mm f1.2L briefly. So fast to focus. So precise. Just great. No AF on the Zeiss? Price? Lol. I wouldn't buy the Zeiss. I need Canon's focus, because my eyes ain't no good for manual.
Upvote
0
Petapixel has a review video of the 50mm f1.4:
petapixel.com
Zeiss Otus ML 50mm f/1.4 First Impressions: Still Legendary?
Zeiss brings back a legendary line of lenses after a long hiatus. Have the other manufacturers caught up to Zeiss during this time?
petapixel.com
Upvote
0
I meant the "M" version. I guess the R optics are identical and
In "R" I own the 90mm Summicron.
Upvote
0
This is a bit disappointing...Petapixel has a review video of the 50mm f1.4:
Zeiss Otus ML 50mm f/1.4 First Impressions: Still Legendary?
Zeiss brings back a legendary line of lenses after a long hiatus. Have the other manufacturers caught up to Zeiss during this time?
I expected better from an Apo, maybe spoiled by Leica's Apo lenses.I think I'll take a closer look at Canon's RF 1,4 and 1,2 versions.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
