Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions

[Eldar]

Thanks again jrista, for your comprehensive and clarifying posts. They are very much appreciated and one of the main reasons why I spend time on CR!

... and my wife, when she returns to our cabin tomorrow, will be very happy to see that I have stopped shooting out of focus images of lights for CR posting :

 

[Sporgon]

Thanks again jrista, for your comprehensive and clarifying posts. They are very much appreciated and one of the main reasons why I spend time on CR!

... and my wife, when she returns to our cabin tomorrow, will be very happy to see that I have stopped shooting out of focus images of lights for CR posting :

Just don't start breaking the glass off from around the filaments to prove the point or you'll be very unpopular !

Very interesting, but how does this answer the DC light bulbs not producing onion bokeh ?

 

[Eldar]

Thanks again jrista, for your comprehensive and clarifying posts. They are very much appreciated and one of the main reasons why I spend time on CR!

... and my wife, when she returns to our cabin tomorrow, will be very happy to see that I have stopped shooting out of focus images of lights for CR posting :

Just don't start breaking the glass off from around the filaments to prove the point or you'll be very unpopular !

Very interesting, but how does this answer the DC light bulbs not producing onion bokeh ?

The DC lights I had are either unobstructed, so there is no distorting glass between the light source and the lens, or gas filled bulbs, which I suppose goes for the same.

 

[jrista]

Actually, I did see just a slight bit of faint rings in one of the DC lamp images. At first I thought it was compression artifacts, but I'm pretty sure it is some slight warping of the blur circle.

I would have to see the DC lights photographed sharply to tell you any more. It all depends on the materials and quality of materials between the actual light source and the lens. I know that your average christmas light uses pretty cheap glass for the bulb. They pretty much always produce lots of little diffraction spots and funky warped and rainbowed blur circles.

Other lights use better glass, and bulbs with diffuse inner coatings tend to exhibit less diffraction patterning due to the diffusion, which again changes the nature of the wavefront. Noble gases aren't going to be creating diffraction, however noble gases can emit light themselves. A neon bulb of some kind would effectively BE the light source, in which case once again, you end up with just air between the light source and the lens.

You aren't guaranteed to get "onion rings", nor any diffraction pattern for that matter, from every light bulb or other artificial light source. It depends on what things between the actual light emitting source and the lens may be causing diffraction. There aren't really any hard and fast rules here.

 

[Eldar]

I started another thread on this topic. There are more images, including that of the DC light there.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20478.msg387413#msg387413

 

[jrista]

Based on the design of the DC light, it does look like it is a diffuse bulb of some kind. It also has a reflecting shroud, I guess? Dunno, that's a pretty complex system. I think it would be difficult for someone far more versed in the concepts of wavefronts and diffraction and the mathematics behind it all to figure out how the light from those DC lamps would diffract.

Anyway, regardless of the specific causes, I truly do not believe it is your lens that's the problem. The fact that you got different results from different light sources should alone be enough to tell you it can't be the lens.

 

[sagittariansrock]

From the link Jrista posted it appears aspherical elements may also have caused the effect. The concentric rings are slightly asymmetrical and the Otus does have aspherical elements.
However, even if that is the case, this is very very minor side effect for some major correction of optical aberration. The Sigma seems to have them from the sample pictures, and I never seem to notice until specifically looking for it.
Anyway, now, looking forward to more gorgeous shots through the Otus, and hopefully a comparison with the Art- if you decide to buy it as well.

 

[Eldar]

From the link Jrista posted it appears aspherical elements may also have caused the effect. The concentric rings are slightly asymmetrical and the Otus does have aspherical elements.
However, even if that is the case, this is very very minor side effect for some major correction of optical aberration.
Anyway, now, looking forward to more gorgeous shots through the Otus, and hopefully a comparison with the Art- if you decide to buy it as well.

The Art is on preorder. Could not resist

 

[sagittariansrock]

The Art is on preorder. Could not resist

Nice

 

[mackguyver]

Not to re-open a closed case, but here's another thought - what happens if you throw a polarizer on the lens? In theory it should "straighten" the beams of light and eliminate the effects of diffraction, right?

 

[eml58]

From the link Jrista posted it appears aspherical elements may also have caused the effect. The concentric rings are slightly asymmetrical and the Otus does have aspherical elements.
However, even if that is the case, this is very very minor side effect for some major correction of optical aberration.
Anyway, now, looking forward to more gorgeous shots through the Otus, and hopefully a comparison with the Art- if you decide to buy it as well.

The Art is on preorder. Could not resist

Same, must be a disease affecting Photographers.

That & the need to take Images of light sources :.

Still, that had a learning experience, Thanks so much jrista, all made complete sense once explained.

 

[Eldar]

I promise, no more light bulbs

I have tried to post an image, to get this thread back to images, but I only get a blank page in response. it´s within the size restrictions, so I don´t know what causes it. Anyone with the same experience?

 

[Eldar]

I have tried to post a couple of images, but it seems I have hit the ceiling on how many posts one individual can do on one thread. This is last attempt.
5DIII, 1/100s, f1.4, ISO100

 

[dcm]

I promise, no more light bulbs

I have tried to post an image, to get this thread back to images, but I only get a blank page in response. it´s within the size restrictions, so I don´t know what causes it. Anyone with the same experience?

I had this happen a couple of times recently as well. Waiting a while or restarting my browser/system seemed to clear it.

 

[Eldar]

5DIII, 1/1000s, f1.4, ISO100

 

[CarlTN]

5DIII, 1/1000s, f1.4, ISO100

Quite nice!

 

[Eldar]

Not to re-open a closed case, but here's another thought - what happens if you throw a polarizer on the lens? In theory it should "straighten" the beams of light and eliminate the effects of diffraction, right?

Not necessarily.

If you want to understand light, take a course in physics. Freshman level maybe?

Or get a physics text book ... no, do a course - a good book should be a requirement for the course. Reading CR is not a substitute for doing a course on this if you really want to understand it.

He asked a simple question. If you can´t answer his question or add to it, stay off.

For you I can recommend a book on simple politeness. Freshman level might be to advanced thought ...

He did not ask for a rude reply from an incompetent jerk. Spread your garbage someplace else!

Or, alternatively, start posting images and show us that behind this rude alias, there is one who knows where the view finder on a camera is. I for one have not seen a single image for you, so I believe you haven´t shot a single decent image in your life. So until I see someone comment on your images, you will remain on my list of ignored posters.

 

[CarlTN]

Not to re-open a closed case, but here's another thought - what happens if you throw a polarizer on the lens? In theory it should "straighten" the beams of light and eliminate the effects of diffraction, right?

Not necessarily.

If you want to understand light, take a course in physics. Freshman level maybe?

Or get a physics text book ... no, do a course - a good book should be a requirement for the course. Reading CR is not a substitute for doing a course on this if you really want to understand it.

He asked a simple question. If you can´t answer his question or add to it, stay off.

For you I can recommend a book on simple politeness. Freshman level might be to advanced thought ...

He did not ask for a rude reply from an incompetent jerk. Spread your garbage someplace else!

Or, alternatively, start posting images and show us that behind this rude alias, there is one who knows where the view finder on a camera is. I for one have not seen a single image for you, so I believe you haven´t shot a single decent image in your life. So until I see someone comment on your images, you will remain on my list of ignored posters.

To be fair, there are plenty of rude participants on here. I didn't realize dilbert had never posted an image. Maybe he will. I guess I wasn't as bothered by his rudeness, because I've seen so much of it on here, I'm becoming numb to it.

Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least. Not sure why it bothered you so much. Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.

 

[Sporgon]

Or get a physics text book

Here's a book I recommend you get.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Win-Friends-Influence-People/dp/0091906814

 

[Eldar]

Mackguyver seems quite the level headed guy, I doubt the rudeness bothered him in the least. Not sure why it bothered you so much. Also I assume I am on your ignore list...lol...didn't realize that.

Carl, I´m sure Macguyver is perfectly fine. He has posted lots of good posts and should be treated accordingly. It is the volume of rubbish posts from Dilbert that filled my cup.
I will not participate in a thread extender, so I will end my comments here.

For the record, you are not on my ignore list