Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
Allow me to support the latest speakerdistant.star said:
Upvote
0
Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
- Status
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
Just how better is it? Not on the test bench but in real life? Take a 1Dx and this lens versus a 1Dx with an L lens of the same focal length. At size enlargement do you see a difference? Of course I would want to photography a landscape or macro or something else real, not a test pattern
Just how better is it? Not on the test bench but in real life? Take a 1Dx and this lens versus a 1Dx with an L lens of the same focal length. At size enlargement do you see a difference? Of course I would want to photography a landscape or macro or something else real, not a test pattern
Upvote
0
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
All that money and no autofocus.
Bleh.
I know a street style photographer that was using a zeiss 35mm at fashion week- constant focus, focus, focus...
simply impractical for folks like me
All that money and no autofocus.
Bleh.
I know a street style photographer that was using a zeiss 35mm at fashion week- constant focus, focus, focus...
simply impractical for folks like me
Upvote
0
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
All this bashing about no AF is simply silly. Sure, if Zeiss released a 500mm lens without AF I would steer clear of it because AF is crucial for that type of wildlife photography, but for this range AF isn't really necessary. Many of my lenses do not have AF and even on my 70-200/2.8 I often turn AF off. Once you get used to it, it's really not that difficult and for a number of cases it is better.
Personally I do believe the price of this lens is justified, though I have no plans to buy one because I do not use this focal length.
Seriously, just because you do not understand something gives you no cause to bash it.
All this bashing about no AF is simply silly. Sure, if Zeiss released a 500mm lens without AF I would steer clear of it because AF is crucial for that type of wildlife photography, but for this range AF isn't really necessary. Many of my lenses do not have AF and even on my 70-200/2.8 I often turn AF off. Once you get used to it, it's really not that difficult and for a number of cases it is better.
Personally I do believe the price of this lens is justified, though I have no plans to buy one because I do not use this focal length.
Seriously, just because you do not understand something gives you no cause to bash it.
Upvote
0
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
I tend to agree that everyone needs to calm down about this lens not having AF. I don't think this lens was designed for the type of application where fast and accurate AF would be a big help. In the video by Zeiss it seems like they are aiming for Medium Format type image quality. If you take into account the 4k for this lens and the cost of a FF body such as a D800 or upcoming large MP body from Canon, it would end up costing a lot less than a MF kit (which typically aren't used in circumstances where fast and accurate AF is needed.) Just my thoughts.
I tend to agree that everyone needs to calm down about this lens not having AF. I don't think this lens was designed for the type of application where fast and accurate AF would be a big help. In the video by Zeiss it seems like they are aiming for Medium Format type image quality. If you take into account the 4k for this lens and the cost of a FF body such as a D800 or upcoming large MP body from Canon, it would end up costing a lot less than a MF kit (which typically aren't used in circumstances where fast and accurate AF is needed.) Just my thoughts.
Upvote
0
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
-1.
Longer lenses are easier to be made sharper. The 85L is sharp enough wide open but not really sharp, with strong PF and reduced contrast. The 135L is long and f/2. The Sigma 35 has really poor bokeh.
Make a wild guess where I copied this from:
The nature of the background blurriness of a
spherically under-corrected lens is appealing
to the human eye. The background is calming
and the contours of the object are retained
longer even in the blur. Further below you will
find examples illustrating this.
There are disadvantages to this imaging
property, however:
[...]
If we want to generate a noticeably beautiful
bokeh in the background, then we must
make the under-correction so noticeable that
the focus shift is also very large and makes
focusing difficult.
In addition, the contrast rendition of the lens
is overall poor by necessity. Because the
outside rays form a halo surrounding the
spot where the inner rays form a small
image point, the contrast is reduced.
kirillica said:
-1.
Longer lenses are easier to be made sharper. The 85L is sharp enough wide open but not really sharp, with strong PF and reduced contrast. The 135L is long and f/2. The Sigma 35 has really poor bokeh.
Make a wild guess where I copied this from:
The nature of the background blurriness of a
spherically under-corrected lens is appealing
to the human eye. The background is calming
and the contours of the object are retained
longer even in the blur. Further below you will
find examples illustrating this.
There are disadvantages to this imaging
property, however:
[...]
If we want to generate a noticeably beautiful
bokeh in the background, then we must
make the under-correction so noticeable that
the focus shift is also very large and makes
focusing difficult.
In addition, the contrast rendition of the lens
is overall poor by necessity. Because the
outside rays form a halo surrounding the
spot where the inner rays form a small
image point, the contrast is reduced.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
My 85IIL is very sharp wide open, my copy seems to be a stellar copy. It's nearly as sharp as my 100mm L IS Macro. Even my 135L isn't as sharp as my 85IIL. It's contrast is fantastic, so I would question the copy which you are using, it must be out of spec. Yes it has Purple fringing in specuatular highlights (no where else) which is easily correctable in LR. The 50 f1.2L is a nice lens but it's sharpness is certainly lacking wide open.
135L = sharp wide open
100L = sharp wide open
85IIL = sharp wide open
50L = not particularly sharp wide open
35L = sharp wide open
24IIL = sharp wide open
Which lens is the odd ball here? Ok, this may be my lens samples..but my 2nd photographer has the same kit and her 100L is a bit sharper than mine, but my 85IIL is sharper than hers...her 50L is a wee bit sharper than mine...but they are both the softest lens in our lens collection by a noticable margin. It's softer than any of our zooms or other primes.
As a L lens, the 50L is well built, it's AF is curiously slower than the 35L. The elements aren't that big. It' AF is certainly accurate, just a little slow to react. My mkI 24-70L is a lot snappier.
The 50L offers great flare handling, great contrast, nice out of focus rendering (bokeh is a term which only references out of focus highlight blobs). But it's sharpness isn't in the same league as my other lenses.
Pi said:
My 85IIL is very sharp wide open, my copy seems to be a stellar copy. It's nearly as sharp as my 100mm L IS Macro. Even my 135L isn't as sharp as my 85IIL. It's contrast is fantastic, so I would question the copy which you are using, it must be out of spec. Yes it has Purple fringing in specuatular highlights (no where else) which is easily correctable in LR. The 50 f1.2L is a nice lens but it's sharpness is certainly lacking wide open.
135L = sharp wide open
100L = sharp wide open
85IIL = sharp wide open
50L = not particularly sharp wide open
35L = sharp wide open
24IIL = sharp wide open
Which lens is the odd ball here? Ok, this may be my lens samples..but my 2nd photographer has the same kit and her 100L is a bit sharper than mine, but my 85IIL is sharper than hers...her 50L is a wee bit sharper than mine...but they are both the softest lens in our lens collection by a noticable margin. It's softer than any of our zooms or other primes.
As a L lens, the 50L is well built, it's AF is curiously slower than the 35L. The elements aren't that big. It' AF is certainly accurate, just a little slow to react. My mkI 24-70L is a lot snappier.
The 50L offers great flare handling, great contrast, nice out of focus rendering (bokeh is a term which only references out of focus highlight blobs). But it's sharpness isn't in the same league as my other lenses.
Upvote
0
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
here's a stupid question... with sigma suffering auto focus issues but reportedly great image quality... why don't the manual focus crowd gravitate to sigma as a value option and simply use it as a manual focus lens?
here's a stupid question... with sigma suffering auto focus issues but reportedly great image quality... why don't the manual focus crowd gravitate to sigma as a value option and simply use it as a manual focus lens?
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
I think it would need to "feel" like a £3K before anyone would touch it
jdramirez said:
I think it would need to "feel" like a £3K before anyone would touch it
Upvote
0
K
Kwanon
Guest
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
This lens is not an L lens, it's not casual AF lens. It's a speciality lens made with real image quality in mind.
Who cares if it doesn't have AF. And if you don't like the price there are many other "good" lenses with AF in a cheaper price range.
There are many who appreciate this lens.
This lens is not an L lens, it's not casual AF lens. It's a speciality lens made with real image quality in mind.
Who cares if it doesn't have AF. And if you don't like the price there are many other "good" lenses with AF in a cheaper price range.
There are many who appreciate this lens.
Upvote
0
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
+1
It's a master piece of optical engineering,it has a lot in common with the Zeiss master anamorphics.. No canon L lenses can match it's wide open performance except for the best of the great whites,namely the 200f2 (I owned one for 3yrs)and up and the especially mk2 versions of the super tele's.
It's not for everyone but Zeiss knew this when they gave Dr Hubert Nasse the go ahead to design and build it,at a push I would say indie film makers will be in for it,it's a fraction of the price of the Zeiss masters..it is what it is ,an expensive niche lens high on performance and low on versatility .. very focused piece of kit. (and still almost half the price of the Cron 50 APO)
Kwanon said:
+1
It's a master piece of optical engineering,it has a lot in common with the Zeiss master anamorphics.. No canon L lenses can match it's wide open performance except for the best of the great whites,namely the 200f2 (I owned one for 3yrs)and up and the especially mk2 versions of the super tele's.
It's not for everyone but Zeiss knew this when they gave Dr Hubert Nasse the go ahead to design and build it,at a push I would say indie film makers will be in for it,it's a fraction of the price of the Zeiss masters..it is what it is ,an expensive niche lens high on performance and low on versatility .. very focused piece of kit. (and still almost half the price of the Cron 50 APO)
Upvote
0
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
It's not remotely silly, and I do understand their strategy. Their strategy is to design more affordable lenses that DO autofocus, and let the likes of Fuji and Sony use them on their cameras. But when it comes to Nikon and Canon...for some reason they think those shooters prefer manual focus. We don't, and it's not "silly". What's silly is a $4000 55mm lens, be it manual or autofocus...no matter how sharp it is. I'm no stranger to Zeiss EF mount lenses, I have rented two, and would like to purchase a third. However, the one I want is an ultra wide angle, mostly for landscape...where manual focus makes more sense. It doesn't make much sense at 55mm. Sure there are people who like to manually focus these lenses, but how many of them are using lenses that actually do autofocus, and simply using them in the manual mode? Most of them. Choice is nicer than no choice, and it's not silly.
kirispupis said:
It's not remotely silly, and I do understand their strategy. Their strategy is to design more affordable lenses that DO autofocus, and let the likes of Fuji and Sony use them on their cameras. But when it comes to Nikon and Canon...for some reason they think those shooters prefer manual focus. We don't, and it's not "silly". What's silly is a $4000 55mm lens, be it manual or autofocus...no matter how sharp it is. I'm no stranger to Zeiss EF mount lenses, I have rented two, and would like to purchase a third. However, the one I want is an ultra wide angle, mostly for landscape...where manual focus makes more sense. It doesn't make much sense at 55mm. Sure there are people who like to manually focus these lenses, but how many of them are using lenses that actually do autofocus, and simply using them in the manual mode? Most of them. Choice is nicer than no choice, and it's not silly.
Upvote
0
Re: Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 APO-Distagon Review by B&H Photo
I agree with you on the focal length. I find wide and long lenses the easiest to manually focus with which is why my 50 1.2 went off to eBay land. I'm looking forward to their next Otus lens, hopefully it will be the 21mm. Not sure I would pay that much for it, but maybe if it's out of this world.CarlTN said:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
