Zeiss Announces the ZEISS Otus ML 35mm f/1.4

[Richard-CN]

ZEISS has released its ZEISS Otus ML 1.4/35, or Otus ML 35mm f/1.4, a high-end manual-focus prime lens for full-frame mirrorless cameras. Building on its Otus ML range, which had already included the 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 primes, this lens was announced today and is available for Sony E, Canon RF, and Nikon Z mounts. […]

See full article...

 

[Del Paso]

The latest 85 and 50mm Zeiss lenses weren't exactly overwhelming. And lack of AF didn't boost sales...
But a 35mm Apo sounds interesting, provided it is visibly better than Canon's VCM or EF 35mm f/1,4.
And, above all, if it doesn't cost more than the expected RF 35mm f/1,2 L AF. Otherwise, the Zeiss will be in a very precarious situation.

 

[Richard-CN]

It's certainly a very niche lens without a doubt. The Sigma 35mm that was just announced in my mind is far more impressive.

 

[johnchio]

Why don't they just slap an autofocus motor on and charge $1000 more? The people who will buy this lens probably would still spend the extra money. Or they could make 2 versions (one with and one without AF).

 

[Malm]

It's certainly a very niche lens without a doubt. The Sigma 35mm that was just announced in my mind is far more impressive.

Well, that can be, but can I attach that 'impressive' new Sigma lens to my Canon camera? Maybe with superglue
The usual - Chinese - 3rd party manufacturers are focusing on the budget user, so there might be an attractive 'niche' for Zeiss.
And the MTF curves are looking impressive, especially for my focus on 'astro'. But that has to be proven with a real review.
The new Otus lens is increasing the limited selection of RF lenses which is always nice. With the Canon VCM 35/1.4, this new Otus 35/1.4 and a rumored Canon RF L 35/1.2 (?) lens, we would get a decent selection of fast 35mm lenses. And there are more 3rd party fast 35mm budget lenses.

Based on the available information, the new Sigma 35/1.4 lens is looking very attractive as it has AF, is lighter (500 versus 700g), cheaper (1200 EU versus 2400 EU) and also has impressive MTF curves, but that has to be confirmed by hands-on reviews. So Canons restrictive 3rd party politics is making the Otus look more attractive. Mmmmh ....

 

[roby17269]

Why don't they just slap an autofocus motor on and charge $1000 more? The people who will buy this lens probably would still spend the extra money. Or they could make 2 versions (one with and one without AF).

But then it would not be available for RF...

 

[Malm]

Why don't they just slap an autofocus motor on and charge $1000 more? The people who will buy this lens probably would still spend the extra money. Or they could make 2 versions (one with and one without AF).

Full-frame Canon 3rd party RF autofocus lenses? They would need a damned good lawyer!

 

[Old Man FL/FD]

Why don't they just slap an autofocus motor on and charge $1000 more? The people who will buy this lens probably would still spend the extra money. Or they could make 2 versions (one with and one without AF).

The Zeiss Otus series are close to perfect ‘optically corrected’ lenses.

These have all metal tight tolerance construction. The resultant lens group mass precludes a practical implementation of either auto focus or image stabilization. IBIS only.

Also, the necessary movement required for image stabilization will slightly degrade the optical correction.

 

[Etnaphele]

The Zeiss Otus series are close to perfect ‘optically corrected’ lenses.

These have all metal tight tolerance construction. The resultant lens group mass precludes a practical implementation of either auto focus or image stabilization. IBIS only.

Also, the necessary movement required for image stabilization will slightly degrade the optical correction.

But are they really so perfect? The tests of the 50mm were pretty underwhelming last year (LoCa is one flaw I remember). I see the point and find it fascinating, but if they miss the mark, the whole product just doesn't succeed in its already very niche role.

 

[Del Paso]

The Zeiss Otus series are close to perfect ‘optically corrected’ lenses.

These have all metal tight tolerance construction. The resultant lens group mass precludes a practical implementation of either auto focus or image stabilization. IBIS only.

Also, the necessary movement required for image stabilization will slightly degrade the optical correction.

Not necessarily, it depends on the mass of the lens group used for OIS !
And don't forget the Leica SL AF lenses, did you ever test their 20mm f/2 Apo?

 

[Malm]

But are they really so perfect? ....I see the point and find it fascinating, but if they miss the mark, the whole product just doesn't succeed in its already very niche role.

Good question! I hope that reviews will give us an answer!
Canons 3rd party politic is recently supporting Zeiss as they are the only high-quality 3rd party lens manufacturer for the RF mount (full-frame).
I would like to see the New Sigma 35/1.4 lens on my Canon camera as manual-RF or adapted EF, but Sigma is obviously not going into that direction.

 

[roby17269]

Good question! I hope that reviews will give us an answer!
Canons 3rd party politic is recently supporting Zeiss as they are the only high-quality 3rd party lens manufacturer for the RF mount (full-frame).
I would like to see the New Sigma 35/1.4 lens on my Canon camera as manual-RF or adapted EF, but Sigma is obviously not going into that direction.

?? Why are you blaming Sigma??
Sigma would happily sell their FF AF lenses to Canon RF users, if Canon would have allowed that.

 

[Berowne]

No need for spending so much money. I am a quite happy user of second hand Zeiss-Glass: 1.4/50mm Milvus, 1.4/85mm Milvus and 1.4/85mm Planar. I will perhaps purchase some more: 2.8/21mm Distagon and 1.4/35mm Milvus. Only waiting for a good Option. Everything available for small money, usually around 600€.

 

[Dopamine-junkie]

And the MTF curves are looking impressive, especially for my focus on 'astro'. But that has to be proven with a real review.

As someone that wants to finally have non adapted Astro primes on my R5 - I was hoping for something in the realm of 20 mm. Or even 28. sigh. But 35? Not sure.

How are you dealing with it?

 

[Malm]

As someone that wants to finally have non adapted Astro primes on my R5 - I was hoping for something in the realm of 20 mm. Or even 28. sigh. But 35? Not sure.

How are you dealing with it?

OK, non-adapted is difficult! I'm using the 'old' adapted Sigma A 28/1.4 as a good 'astro-lens'. I still have the 'very old' adapted Distagon 25/2.0 which is also a good 'astro-lens', but a little bit slow (f/2.0) and the extreme corners have some coma (so I use it mostly for panoramas). The Canon EF 35/1.4 II is my standard lens for tracked milky-way panos, so I would only be interested in another better 35mm lens. I don't know any good 20mm 'astro' lens for Canon. At 14mm we have the 'old' adapted Sigma A 14/1.8 or the Samyang XP 14/2.4 (needs software update for the modern Canon cameras) plus several slightly worse and cheaper 'China' RF(!) lenses like the Pergear/7Artisan 14/2.8 (it's the same lens construction) and there is also a TTartisan 14/2.8.
I'm looking a little into the VCM lenses, but they cannot convince me for 'astro' (strong vignette, very strong distortion correction).

It's a little bit a shame that Canon shooters have to look for work-arounds to get good lenses for astro photography. Many modern Sigma A lenses are looking very interesting, but Canon .......

Concerning Otus lenses: There is now a 85/1.4 a 50/1.4 and a new 35/1.4. In the 'old ' Otus line for DSLR there was also a 28/1.4 (with more coma than the 'old' Sigma A 28/1.4) and also a Distagon 14/2.8. So Zeiss might extend it's Otus line further in the future.

 

[Malm]

No need for spending so much money. I am a quite happy user of second hand Zeiss-Glass: 1.4/50mm Milvus, 1.4/85mm Milvus and 1.4/85mm Planar. I will perhaps purchase some more: 2.8/21mm Distagon and 1.4/35mm Milvus. Only waiting for a good Option. Everything available for small money, usually around 600€.

The 21/2.8 Distagon has a bit of coma. The 25/2.0 Distagon is probably a better choice. Good & smart solution!

 

[Malm]

?? Why are you blaming Sigma??
Sigma would happily sell their FF AF lenses to Canon RF users, if Canon would have allowed that.

?? It is not my intention to blame Sigma as I mention the reason: "Canons 3rd party politics". We know were the problem is coming from!
I just raise the question why Sigma is not offering it's excellent - Art - lenses as MF or with an EF mount. But that's Sigmas decision and we don't know what Sigma has signed to get a permit for APS-C RF lenses.

 

[roby17269]

?? It is not my intention to blame Sigma as I mention the reason: "Canons 3rd party politics". We know were the problem is coming from!
I just raise the question why Sigma is not offering it's excellent - Art - lenses as MF or with an EF mount. But that's Sigmas decision and we don't know what Sigma has signed to get a permit for APS-C RF lenses.

Why would they do that? they'd sell a piddly number of those and it would cost them to make different SKU's, so they wouldn't probably be able to even offer them at a discounted price. This is all on Canon

 

[Etnaphele]

?? It is not my intention to blame Sigma as I mention the reason: "Canons 3rd party politics". We know were the problem is coming from!
I just raise the question why Sigma is not offering it's excellent - Art - lenses as MF or with an EF mount. But that's Sigmas decision and we don't know what Sigma has signed to get a permit for APS-C RF lenses.

I’m not aware of the specific details, but newer lenses are designed for mirrorless systems and just could not work with an EF mount.

I agree that autofocused-disabled RF mount 14mm or 135mm 1.4 would have a market. It would be a pretty sad workaround, but sadder yet: it won’t ever happen!