Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/zeiss-otus-initial-impressions/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/zeiss-otus-initial-impressions/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>From <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com">LensRentals.com</a>

</strong>Roger at LensRentals.com has done some initial testing on the new <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007599-REG/zeiss_2010_056_55mm_f_1_4_otus_lens.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">$4000 Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 lens</a>. When Zeiss announced the lens, they claimed it would be the best SLR lens ever made. By all accounts, it appears Zeiss has come through on that claim.</p>
<p><strong>Says Roger

</strong><em>“I won’t try to say whether the Otus is worth $4,000 to you. But I can certainly say that Zeiss did what they said they had done: gave it exceptional performance even in the corners at widest aperture. From a resolution standpoint, it is, as Zeiss said it would be, “the absolute best SLR lens in the world today.”<strong>

</strong></em></p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/11/otus-is-scharf" target="_blank">Read the full article</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1007599-REG/zeiss_2010_056_55mm_f_1_4_otus_lens.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Zeiss Otus 55 f/1.4 at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[takesome1]

I wonder how well this lens would work on my wife's t4i??? :

 

[mackguyver]

Lenstip's review is out as well:
http://www.lenstip.com/2069-news-Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_-_lens_review.html

And for those keeping track, Carl Zeiss finally cleared up the filter size in their blog:
http://blogs.zeiss.com/photo/en/?p=4432#comments

Carl Zeiss Lenses | November 7, 2013 at 4:11 pm

Dear Myung Soo Lee,
Thanks for you question. To keep the outer dimensions of the Otus 1.$/55 as compact as possible, we managed it to reduce the orginally filter diameter from 82mm to 77mm without any side effects on performance, functionality and sturdiness. If you have further questions, just ask
Best regards,
Your ZEISS Camera Lenses Team

 

[AtSea]

He won't say whether it is worth $4000 to me, but I will.

..No.

 

[mackguyver]

He won't say whether it is worth $4000 to me, but I will.

..No.

Me, neither, but if they release a 24mm, as is rumored, then I might consider it. It would have to blow away the TS-E 24mm, though.

If you shoot 55mm all day long (think fashion or advertising pros) and do huge enlargements (think fashion or advertising pros again), I think this lens would probably be worthwhile. For the rest of us, no.

 

[Eldar]

I am really looking forward to get this lens. Everything looks promising so far. $4.000 is a lot, but less than for a 200/2 and cheap compared to a 300/2.8 (I need to justify the price ...) No confirmation date yet though.

 

[ScottyP]

Sorry but the world's best DSLR lens would have AF....

 

[Albi86]

Sorry but the world's best DSLR lens would have AF....

It wouldn't, because that would add the camera as a big part of the equation. Then we would hear endless talks about Zeiss' poor QC

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It is very expensive to add a little better performance. Its obviously a supurb lens, but it also cost a lot more than a merely excellent lens.

They are apparently very hard to get, so they are selling well.

 

[drjlo]

I'm a bit surprised by the mediocre vignetting performance of -2.05 EV per the Lenstip review, especially given how huge the lens is.

http://www.lenstip.com/390.8-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Otus_55_mm_f_1.4_ZE_ZF.2_Vignetting.html

 

[Viggo]

Sorry but the world's best DSLR lens would have AF....

Although I love my AF more than anyone, I have never experienced a MF lens jump to background or hunt.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And he didn't even mention how completely free of nasty LoCA/PF it is even wide open where the other fast 50mm are riddle with purple (and green) junk.

So between the res center and corners and the above, yeah pretty impressive as expected from the early Zeiss MTF and samples.

 

[thepancakeman]

Best? So, it's the lightest? And has the greatest zoom range? Is unprecedented in it's telephoto capabilities?

People that market "the best" anything drive me nuts. Maybe it's the sharpest in the corners wide open. Maybe it has the truest color representation and saturation. Great, but that doesn't make it "best" in a million different other scenarios.

 

[LarryC]

Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?

 

[ScottyP]

Sorry but the world's best DSLR lens would have AF....

Although I love my AF more than anyone, I have never experienced a MF lens jump to background or hunt.

Sure, but you can turn AF off whenever you want to. But not having the option for AF is a negative. Remember that their "world's best" claim was bold, and broad, and kind of outrageous. But the WORLD'S BEST DSLR LENS would be able to do something as simple as autofocus. When people discuss Bower or Samyang lenses or other cheap-o brands, no one bends over backwards to dismiss the shortcoming, unless it is to say that is forgivable "for the cheap price", which does not apply here with the Zeiss. So a great lens? Sure. The world's best? That is really bold.

 

[candc]

you have to hand it to them. i am not sure what the main factor that makes a lens so sharp, contrasty and punchy is? is it the quality of the glass, coatings, optical formula, super tight tolerances? all of the above is suppose. i have seen some cutaways of zeiss lenses i am not sure even how many of those elements move but they look really complex.

whatever it is you have to give them credit whether it is something that suits your needs or not.

 

[ahsanford]

Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?

I'd imagining much much much tighter component tolerancing than cheaper lenses, and a systematic elimination of assembly float / jiggle / variation (by design) would make this very difficult to reverse engineer for such a low cost.

I'm not remotely drinking the Kool Aid that this costs $4k to build, but it's also not a vanilla EF mount prime design by any stretch. Zeiss saw an opportunity to build a premium MF prime and sell a performance message that goes hand in hand with the needs of a high MP sensor. One might argue that a future Canon refresh to the L primes could deliver 95% of what the Otus does at a lower price, much like how Sigma scoops Canon business in some lengths today.

So the value proposition of the Otus will someday be its undoing. But that someday is when Canon or Sigma makes something that can deliver performance that compares to what Roger and others have experienced (...with AF, weather sealing, etc.) for less -- and that may be a while. The numbers alone for the Otus are staggeringly good so far.

- A

 

[Policar]

And he didn't even mention how completely free of nasty LoCA/PF it is even wide open where the other fast 50mm are riddle with purple (and green) junk.

So between the res center and corners and the above, yeah pretty impressive as expected from the early Zeiss MTF and samples.

It's funny how no one seems to mention the lens being truly apochromatic, especially when, while the added resolution and contrast might not be immediately apparent in web-sized samples, this is obvious in virtually ever sample anyone has posted. The colors look so pure and vibrant.

This lens looks AMAZING. I have no plans to buy it, but it looks like the type of thing that can set one's work apart almost instantly if used even competently, similar to the 200mm f2 L IS.

 

[takesome1]

Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?

Seriously Canon produces a 24-70 II for over $2,200 and people go through several copies to find a decent copy.
Do you really think they can approach the Quality Control necessary to produce a lens like this for $400??

 

[deleteme]

Honest question. I don't get why a well made lens with half dozen machine ground lenses of a particular shape and in one configuration can cost 10-20x what another well made lens with a half dozen machine ground lenses of a similar shape and configuration? How can the shape of a lens element or the coating cost so much more to produce? What is special about this lens that Canon, Nikon or Sigma could not reverse engineer (i.e. lens shape) and produce for $400?

It is only slightly about materials and labor.
This is a prestige brand. It is the Rolex of lenses. They are thoroughly aware that the market for manual focus lenses is small so the ones on sale must either be ultra premium (Zeiss, Leica,Schneider etc) or super cheap (Samyang).
By leaving off AF they obviate the need to license, design, and test a configuration for both Nikon and Canon and the attendant support and repair expenses of all of this.
By imbuing the lens with the last bit of resolution, bokeh quality and superb build, they can maximize their profit over a small production run. By dropping the price they lose the cachet of scarcity and the mythic legend of its alleged excellence.
Familiarity breeds contempt. Scarcity and urban legend breed awe.