Zeiss Otus 28mm f/1.4 Distagon T* Coming? [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

We thought a new Otus lens was coming a few weeks ago from Zeiss, but instead they launched the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/zeiss-announce-milvus-lens-lineup/">Milvus line of manual focus DSLR lenses</a>. In the past we’d been told that the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/new-zeiss-otus-coming-in-september-cr1/">next Otus would be a 25mm f/1.4</a>, but it looks like it may not be that wide.</p>
<p>New reports are saying the next Otus will be a 28mm /1.4 Distagon T*. This makes a lot of sense since there isn’t a 35mm option in the Otus lineup. We should see both a Nikon and Canon mount version announced some time in October.</p>

 

[jeffa4444]

Zeiss certainly seems to be taking their time expanding the Otus range with the present 55mm and 85mm being the only two thus far. I guess the 28mm fits in with the 55mm however that would tend to suggest rather than a 35mm they then in-fill with a 40mm or a 42mm.

 

[AvTvM]

No AF, no buy.
Zeiss will eventually get the message. I bet they are losing a ton of money on their manual focus clunkers. Despite astronomical prices. Unit sales are way to low to break even. Good on them.

 

[FramerMCB]

No AF, no buy.
Zeiss will eventually get the message. I bet they are losing a ton of money on their manual focus clunkers. Despite astronomical prices. Unit sales are way to low to break even. Good on them.

Zeiss will never (probably, unless there's a significant legal and operational paradigm shift) make autofocus lenses for either Nikon or Canon unless both companies provide liscencing to Zeiss. Zeiss makes a stellar product, especially their OTUS line, why make it perform worse by adding autofocus which may work ok with current bodies but will need updating the second new bodies are introduced by either company. You see the issue that Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron all have with their autofocus lenses continuing to work with the newer bodies. Sigma got smart and introduced the Sigma dock as a way to mitigate this and extend their lens' life without having to send it back to them for updating/re-calibrating. And the 3 companies I mentioned here also operate and are headquartered in Japan, where Canon and Nikon are also headquartered. This geographic location also comes into play with the autofocus issue.

 

[quod]

Zeiss will eventually get the message.

They've been in business since 1846. I wonder how they don't get the message.

 

[eml58]

No AF, no buy.
Zeiss will eventually get the message. I bet they are losing a ton of money on their manual focus clunkers. Despite astronomical prices. Unit sales are way to low to break even. Good on them.

Mmmm, let me see, Zeiss turned over Euro 4.3 Billion in 2014, Consolidated earnings 400 million, sounds ?? reasonable ???

I can see your point regards the AF, Manual Focus is not for everyone, but clearly from the popularity of the Zeiss Lenses, not everyone shares the "No AF, No Buy" perspective.

The rest of your comments seem to be conjecture ??

My Zeiss lenses, including the 2 Otus Lenses, are without any doubt the best all round I own, and I do own quite a few Canon & Nikon Lenses.

But to each his own, right ??

 

[3kramd5]

No AF, no buy.
Zeiss will eventually get the message. I bet they are losing a ton of money on their manual focus clunkers. Despite astronomical prices. Unit sales are way to low to break even. Good on them.

And while we're at it: Patek Philippe, Vacheron Constantin, Audemars Piguet, etc, what's with mechanical watches? It's 2015 FFS. It's pronounced di git al. I bet they losing a ton of cash on those gear-grinding hand slappers.

No battery, no buy.

 

[AvTvM]

Zeiss as a whole is profitable. I know that but am still convinced they are losing money on their non-AF lenses for (stills) photography, including Otus line. If i were CEO there i would not bother to make non-AF lenses (other than maybe the cinema stuff) at all. Batis yes, all those other "birdie" lines ... no.

I also know, many here will tell me that zeiss knows their own business better bla bla - time will tell whether it is true. Looking at second hand prices for (current, not antique) manual focus zeiss lenses i see that they are exzremely low comparrd to new prices ... that clearly demonstrates a lack of interest on the market.

 

[Eldar]

I have quite a few manual focus Zeiss lenses myself and I will not part with them, especially the Otus lenses. I think the 28mm f1.4 Otus will be a very interesting lens.

Zeiss is not a charity organization, Zeiss is a very professional business organization. Zeiss shareholders, Zeiss Board of Directors, Zeiss management and Zeiss employees are very much aware of the necessity of making money. No company will allow R&D money being spent on non profitable products over time.

People who make bald statements, based on own preferences and assumptions about what someone's business model is and how much money they make from it, without having any factual information to back it up ... look a bit presumtous and stupid to me.

 

[leGreve]

No AF, no buy.
Zeiss will eventually get the message. I bet they are losing a ton of money on their manual focus clunkers. Despite astronomical prices. Unit sales are way to low to break even. Good on them.

That's quite naive of you to say. Not that I agree with the pricing on the Otus lenses, but if you look at the fact that the VAST majority of films are shot on Alexa with Arri Zeiss lenses, they can easily use these experiences to trickle down to the still line for a smaller cost.

Even for indie filming Zeiss still lenses has been prefered because of their solid build and long focus throw.
I would take a Zeiss non AF lens any day over a Canon lens, if my job was one that let me have the time to do proper framing and lighting, wether it be commercial photography in studio or doing a corporate movie.

But yes, for the errorneous still photography where snapping is the way to go, AF does have it uses.

 

[bod]

I have quite a few manual focus Zeiss lenses myself and I will not part with them, especially the Otus lenses.

+++1 (for me the lens top of my would not part with list would be the Zeiss 135 f2)

There are occasions when AF is essential (at least for me). Sports and moving people or wildlife for example. There are excellent AF lenses available but this does not mean that AF lenses are without their own quirks and challenges (my 35Art comes to mind). Equally there are other photographic occasions when AF is not essential and the process of using a really good MF lens is a pleasure. Landscape, portrait, travel, macro, still life and a lot of wildlife opportunities for example.

I am very happy to have a mix of Zeiss MF and Canon AF lenses in my kit.

 

[FramerMCB]

I have quite a few manual focus Zeiss lenses myself and I will not part with them, especially the Otus lenses. I think the 28mm f1.4 Otus will be a very interesting lens.

Zeiss is not a charity organization, Zeiss is a very professional business organization. Zeiss shareholders, Zeiss Board of Directors, Zeiss management and Zeiss employees are very much aware of the necessity of making money. No company will allow R&D money being spent on non profitable products over time.

People who make bald statements, based on own preferences and assumptions about what someone's business model is and how much money they make from it, without having any factual information to back it up ... look a bit presumtous and stupid to me.

Quite true!

 

[NadaMal]

This is a good write up on why Zeiss cannot legally, without Canon/Nikon permission, make autofocus lenses for Canon/Nikon:

https://photographylife.com/zeiss-make-autofocus-dslr-lenses

No AF, no buy.
Zeiss will eventually get the message. I bet they are losing a ton of money on their manual focus clunkers. Despite astronomical prices. Unit sales are way to low to break even. Good on them.

 

[AvTvM]

This is a good write up on why Zeiss cannot legally, without Canon/Nikon permission, make autofocus lenses for Canon/Nikon:

https://photographylife.com/zeiss-make-autofocus-dslr-lenses

No AF, no buy.
Zeiss will eventually get the message. I bet they are losing a ton of money on their manual focus clunkers. Despite astronomical prices. Unit sales are way to low to break even. Good on them.

I am fully aware why zeiss cannot produce AF lenses for Canon and Nikon. An Otus with AF problems like any ARTfully reverse-engineeref Sigma lens would be rather annoying. I also fully understand why Canon and Nikon are more than unlikely to ever license their AF system to a company that would then compete with their own lens offering. Actually, i don't think it makes much sense for Sony to allow Zeiss those batis and loxia lenses with native Sony AF in addition to the Sony and Sony/Zeiss lenses. Sony must be quite desperate ... or they know that they are not able to produce really good lenses themselves.

Back to zeiss: All i'm saying is that i am convinced they are losing money on those stills photography Manual focus lenses. Why? Simply too small target audience. There would be an excellent market for a Canon/Nikon Batis (FF) and Loxia (APS-C) line -> 1. high optical performance plus 2. "native" (licensed) AF at 3. prices that are still affordable for a sizeable target group. But that won't happen, because Canon/Nikon won't play. Catch 22 for zeiss, in my opinion. I know they can easily afford it since they are reasonably profitable as a company. It still does not make a lot of sense.


Ps: if you belong to the tiny group of people whose style of photography allows use of mf lenses and it is your personal preference ... Of course, go for it .. while it lasts.

 

[3kramd5]

The size of the market is reflected in the pricing. Some companies offer products at a loss for bragging rights, but I've seen no evidence Zeiss plays at that.

As for Sony, I think it makes perfect sense for them to allow fully-compatible lenses from Zeiss, etc. given their strategy of frequently releasing new bodies. If Zeiss is in the game offering the items people typically keep long term, Sony can pour more development into electronics (i.e. that which it knows).

 

[NWPhil]

I would rather see a 25mm f1.4, but if this 28 is indeed well corrected for astro, then no complains

 

[Berowne]

No AF, no buy.
Zeiss will eventually get the message. I bet they are losing a ton of money on their manual focus clunkers. Despite astronomical prices. Unit sales are way to low to break even. Good on them.

It is only several years that i use a DSLR with so much automatic, that i cannot count all the functions. The ca. 40 years before I did analog photography and all this time manual focus. I did never recognize a problem.

 

[rbr]

I'm a long time Zeiss fan and used Contax cameras back in my film days. I still own and use Zeiss binoculars and spotting scopes. While I don't currently own any Zeiss lenses for my Canon cameras, I'm glad to see that Zeiss is still making these wonderful lenses. I would say that for many of my uses I could get by just fine with manual focusing lenses if today's cameras were as easy to focus as film cameras were with their split prism viewfinders. That's a feature that I really wouldn't mind having as an option in today's cameras. For landscapes, portaits, and general still life it would be easier just to use MF, but today's cameras make that difficult and share the blame IMO. Pressing tiny buttons and turning different wheels in different directions on a camera to select the best focusing point is certainly no easier than simply turning a focusing ring on a lens.

 

[Eldar]

http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/otus/otus1428.html

I am sure the lens is fantastic. But I find the 85mm to be about as heavy as I am willing to accept and the 28/1.4 is heavier ...

 

[NWPhil]

http://www.zeiss.com/camera-lenses/en_de/camera_lenses/otus/otus1428.html

I am sure the lens is fantastic. But I find the 85mm to be about as heavy as I am willing to accept and the 28/1.4 is heavier ...

The nightscape shot makes it look very promising.
- my excuse was going to be the filter size - 95mm filters are hard to find and expensive, but been there and done that
- 1,390 grams only; so roughly half pound heavier than the 85