Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions

[100]

Why the hostility?
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. Nothing else to it.
In one of your previous posts you wrote In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out.

So I thought you didn’t know…

No hostility implied, my friend.
I merely asked you to understand the context, and then cited it with quotes.
With written posts its possible for statements to appear curt and brusque, and I apologize for any unintentional hostility that might have come across.
Is my intention clearer now?

I read, I try to understand the context and I react. Sometimes I’m not thorough enough. Sorry about that, even though mistakes can happen anyway.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Why the hostility?
You asked a question, I gave you the answer. Nothing else to it.
In one of your previous posts you wrote In any case I am not an expert in Physics, my field is Biology. My knowledge in Physics is quite limited, and I type rather slowly, so I shall stop here. But the information above is quite accurate as you can check out.

So I thought you didn’t know…

No hostility implied, my friend.
I merely asked you to understand the context, and then cited it with quotes.
With written posts its possible for statements to appear curt and brusque, and I apologize for any unintentional hostility that might have come across.
Is my intention clearer now?

I read, I try to understand the context and I react. Sometimes I’m not thorough enough. Sorry about that, even though mistakes can happen anyway.

No worries, I often cannot read through pages after pages of posts myself.
Appreciate that you tried to clarify something.
Cheers!

 

[jrista]

I'd also say that light isn't simply modeled after waveforms. Light IS waves. It's waves in full three dimensional space, which is also why they can behave as particles...a purterbation in an electromagnetic field, focused finely enough, would behave as a particle...a packet of energy that has a quantity, vector and magnitude. One could consider every point of a wavefront as a finely focused "photon". Wave-particle duality simply describes the nature of matter in general...that they are divisible (and quantizable) quantities of mass (particle), and that matter has the capability of transferring energy (wave). Light is not the only thing that, theoretically, exhibits wave-particle duality. All quantum particles do. Which means that all quantum particles are also waves.

What exactly do you mean by "is"?
If you mean "is equal to" than you are basically saying that all quantum particles are light (which is untrue)

Diffraction isn’t inherent to waves because light is a wave, it’s inherent to waves period.

You misunderstood. Light is waves. It isn't "a wave", as that would imply a singular wave. The energy field that represents light propagates through space as waves.

Other quantum particles are also waves. They propagate energy as waves, yet also have mass, therefor they ALSO have wave-particle duality.

I entirely agree that diffraction is inherent to waves, period. That's what I was saying. ;P

 

[jrista]

To refer to the second paragraph- in short, light has been theorized both as a waveform and as a particle- not because one leads to the other, rather because it has characteristics of both (including diffraction). It is not purely a wave. So yes, diffraction is a property of light, which likens it to a wave.
Is there a difference in magnetic and electromagnetic waves? Yes, the former cannot proceed through vacuum.

Just to touch on a point. A magnetic wave is an electromagnetic wave. There is no electronic or electrostaic wave, nor is there a magnetic wave. There are electromagnetic waves. Magnetic fields do indeed exist in space, which is a vacuum. NASA's space probes have been equipped with both a plethora of electromagnetic sensors as well as plasma wave sensors ever since the first ones were sent into space. We've measured the effects of electromagnetic fields in space, which includes the measurements of electric fields, magnetic fields, and plasma waves (electromagnetic effects propagating within free electrons and positively charged ions...plasmas...within interplanetary and interstellar space.)

Now, if you are referring to the propagation of a wave through magnetized mediums (say the waveform that forms in iron particles that conform to the electromagnetic field around a magnet), then that is a bit different. I guess that could be called a "magnetic wave."

Oops, typo. I meant MECHANICAL waves. Mechanical waves cannot proceed through vacuum.
See, my typing sucks!

Ah! That makes a lot more sense.

 

[jrista]

When you get into what diffraction actually is, you learn that it is not actually "caused" by anything. Diffraction is an intrinsic trait of light that exists within the wavefront. It is often described as the "bending" of light caused by it's encounter with an obstruction or an opening. That's a useful description to describe the effect of what is happening, however sadly it is not actually an accurate description of what is actually causing the effect.

Diffraction happens with waves and one method that we use to model light's behaviour is to say that in some circumstances it behaves like a wave. Diffraction is not an intrinsic property of light at all, it is a trait of waves and how waves behave.

Please stop spreading bad science.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. Here is an article that details the actual science of what a diffracted wavefront is, how diffraction in a wavefront presents and behaves, :

http://www.telescope-optics.net/wave.htm
...

You don't know what you don't know and you're just using a random web article that happens to provide a theory that makes sense to you.

Answering your questions is beyond my ability, schooling or training.

Go find a course on physics that teaches about light and learn about it the way professionals do. An astronomer does not learn about physics from the web. Articles on the web greatly simplify things.

LOL ???

That isn't a random web site. I found that site years ago (probably before I ever even started posting on these forums) while researching optics for photography (I think that would make it even my pre-DSLR days, as I like to research concepts, theory, equipment, brands, etc. before I buy anything.) I pulled that site out of my bookmarks, bookmarks that I've been stringing along from Opera version to Opera version for years.

It's one of the best web sites on the net that covers this stuff in as detailed, specific, mathematic, and scientific a manner as you can find, too! I seriously challenge you to find a better resource than that that explains the concepts better, or more correctly. And it is FAR from "simplified". Did you even check it out, did you actually look through the site at all? Do you know how much science and mathematics is used in that site to explain the concepts of optics, refraction, reflection, diffraction, and every other aspect of telescopes? It's riddled with math and complex theories, the same exact theories I LEARNED IN MY PHYSICS CLASSES IN COLLEGE.

My knowledge doesn't come only from the web...the web is simply an easy source for reference when one is trying to back up their arguments with hard facts (something I have done plenty...I still don't see any references from you to back up anything your saying.) I've got my old college physics books on my bookshelf here, right alongside, um, oh yeah, Feynman's QED (fantastic book, that.) I also have Newton's "Optiks" on the same shelf, as a nostalgic historical reference and read.

I guess I should have expected you to try and refute hard science. I do challenge you to actually read the site, instead of simply assuming it is unscientific or otherwise flawed simply because I'm the one who posted the link. You might actually learn something, find it edifying.

 

[traingineer]

When you get into what diffraction actually is, you learn that it is not actually "caused" by anything. Diffraction is an intrinsic trait of light that exists within the wavefront. It is often described as the "bending" of light caused by it's encounter with an obstruction or an opening. That's a useful description to describe the effect of what is happening, however sadly it is not actually an accurate description of what is actually causing the effect.

Diffraction happens with waves and one method that we use to model light's behaviour is to say that in some circumstances it behaves like a wave. Diffraction is not an intrinsic property of light at all, it is a trait of waves and how waves behave.

Please stop spreading bad science.

I'm sorry, but I beg to differ. Here is an article that details the actual science of what a diffracted wavefront is, how diffraction in a wavefront presents and behaves, :

http://www.telescope-optics.net/wave.htm
...

You don't know what you don't know and you're just using a random web article that happens to provide a theory that makes sense to you.

Answering your questions is beyond my ability, schooling or training.

Go find a course on physics that teaches about light and learn about it the way professionals do. An astronomer does not learn about physics from the web. Articles on the web greatly simplify things.

LOL ???

That isn't a random web site. I found that site years ago (probably before I ever even started posting on these forums) while researching optics for photography (I think that would make it even my pre-DSLR days, as I like to research concepts, theory, equipment, brands, etc. before I buy anything.) I pulled that site out of my bookmarks, bookmarks that I've been stringing along from Opera version to Opera version for years.

It's one of the best web sites on the net that covers this stuff in as detailed, specific, mathematic, and scientific a manner as you can find, too! I seriously challenge you to find a better resource than that that explains the concepts better, or more correctly. And it is FAR from "simplified". Did you even check it out, did you actually look through the site at all? Do you know how much science and mathematics is used in that site to explain the concepts of optics, refraction, reflection, diffraction, and every other aspect of telescopes? It's riddled with math and complex theories, the same exact theories I LEARNED IN MY PHYSICS CLASSES IN COLLEGE.

My knowledge doesn't come only from the web...the web is simply an easy source for reference when one is trying to back up their arguments with hard facts (something I have done plenty...I still don't see any references from you to back up anything your saying.) I've got my old college physics books on my bookshelf here, right alongside, um, oh yeah, Feynman's QED (fantastic book, that.) I also have Newton's "Optiks" on the same shelf, as a nostalgic historical reference and read.

I guess I should have expected you to try and refute hard science. I do challenge you to actually read the site, instead of simply assuming it is unscientific or otherwise flawed simply because I'm the one who posted the link. You might actually learn something, find it edifying.

And we can now end this argument, agree with Jrista and talk about the Otus.

 

[jrista]

Sorry, I'll shut up now. Bring on the beautiful photos!

 

[sagittariansrock]

Sorry, I'll shut up now. Bring on the beautiful photos!

Good idea. He is just trying to bait you.

 

[Eldar]

I am very impressed of what has been written. I personally believe it must be outside of the lens, but in this company I am a total illiterate. I have therefore sent off an email to Zeiss, with the link to this thread attached, to see how they reply. I´ll post their reply when I get it.

I welcome the return to images, but that must mean that more people than me must start posting. I am sure there are many readers of this thread who have the Otus.

Every morning, when I woke up in my cabin this Easter, a new icicle had formed from the gutter. At noon, when the temperature increased, it melted. Next morning, new icicle.

5DIII, 1/8000s, f2.2, ISO100

 

[jrista]

I am very impressed of what has been written. I personally believe it must be outside of the lens, but in this company I am a total illiterate. I have therefore sent off an email to Zeiss, with the link to this thread attached, to see how they reply. I´ll post their reply when I get it.

I welcome the return to images, but that must mean that more people than me must start posting. I am sure there are many readers of this thread who have the Otus.

Every morning, when I woke up in my cabin this Easter, a new icicle had formed from the gutter. At noon, when the temperature increased, it melted. Next morning, new icicle.

5DIII, 1/8000s, f2.2, ISO100

WOW. Look at that boke! About as creamy as it gets!

 

[sagittariansrock]

Sorry, I'll shut up now. Bring on the beautiful photos!

Good idea. He is just trying to bait you.

Damn you! There goes my Easter entertainment.

LOL
Happy Easter!

 

[sagittariansrock]

I am very impressed of what has been written. I personally believe it must be outside of the lens, but in this company I am a total illiterate. I have therefore sent off an email to Zeiss, with the link to this thread attached, to see how they reply. I´ll post their reply when I get it.

I welcome the return to images, but that must mean that more people than me must start posting. I am sure there are many readers of this thread who have the Otus.

Every morning, when I woke up in my cabin this Easter, a new icicle had formed from the gutter. At noon, when the temperature increased, it melted. Next morning, new icicle.

5DIII, 1/8000s, f2.2, ISO100

Which melts sooner, the ice or the bokeh?
Nice!

 

[leGreve]

I haven't got so many photos done lately… mostly I've been using it for video, so my share is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRTowWE1C9Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxDNwHkwKC8

 

[Jeffrey]

I've been shooting with my Otus lens that I received just after they were released. I use the lens on my 1D-X.

I've not noticed any rings or other anomalies with the photos I have taken so far. Most all of the shots were with the amazing hood on the lens.

As for focus, it might take a bit of getting used to. Learning to focus this lens is like learning to ride a bike. Once conquered it almost becomes second nature.

The images are amazing. I'm not a pro photographer or a techie with superior technical knowledge. I'm just a guy who loves to shoot landscapes, buildings details, and nature. The lens has outperformed my expectations in ever great way. Now I'm looking forward to seeing what new Otus lenses will be released at Photokina.

I encourage you to rent or buy this lens and have tons of fun using it for your photo needs.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I've been shooting with my Otus lens that I received just after they were released. I use the lens on my 1D-X.

Looking forward to seeing your photos. Photos beat technical discussions any day.

 

[Jeffrey]

Posting images? Maybe, but probably not. I'd rather take my camera and go shooting. Sorry!

 

[Eldar]

Posting images? Maybe, but probably not. I'd rather take my camera and go shooting. Sorry!

Nobody can make you post anything here, but it would be appreciated if you did. It would be of interest though if you did some f1.4 test shots with different kind of light sources in the out of focus area, to verify if you get the same onion ring bokeh as I get. I am quite sure I'll find it.

 

[Eldar]

I got an answer back from Zeiss, which seems to be an honest one.

Apparently onion rings are normally indicators for aspherical elements, showing the structures of the manufacturing process. They also say that visibility and intensity of these structures depend on various factors in the scenery, such as the intensity of the light source compared to the surroundings, the exposure, the spectral built-up, the amount of "unsharpness" and many other factors. They also mention that some bright light sources in the out-of-focus areas may be clean, due to light intensity (saturating the sensor).

So, without starting a new series of unfocused shots of all the various light sources I have available at home : I think it is fair to conclude that this has to do with the lens. But! I made lots of shots where I deliberately used very fast shutter speeds at low ISO, to make sure I didn´t saturate the sensor. And in the cases where I had a clean light source, being a candle, a halogen point source or a gas filled bulb, I did NOT get onion rings.

So, I am still puzzled. :-\

 

[thepancakeman]

I got an answer back from Zeiss, which seems to be an honest one.

Apparently onion rings are normally indicators for aspherical elements, showing the structures of the manufacturing process. They also say that visibility and intensity of these structures depend on various factors in the scenery, such as the intensity of the light source compared to the surroundings, the exposure, the spectral built-up, the amount of "unsharpness" and many other factors. They also mention that some bright light sources in the out-of-focus areas may be clean, due to light intensity (saturating the sensor).

So, without starting a new series of unfocused shots of all the various light sources I have available at home : I think it is fair to conclude that this has to do with the lens. But! I made lots of shots where I deliberately used very fast shutter speeds at low ISO, to make sure I didn´t saturate the sensor. And in the cases where I had a clean light source, being a candle, a halogen point source or a gas filled bulb, I did NOT get onion rings.

So, I am still puzzled. :-\

Yes, it's very strange. To quote one of my favorite songs, "the problem with mysteries is they're so mysterious."

 

[sagittariansrock]

I got an answer back from Zeiss, which seems to be an honest one.

Apparently onion rings are normally indicators for aspherical elements, showing the structures of the manufacturing process. They also say that visibility and intensity of these structures depend on various factors in the scenery, such as the intensity of the light source compared to the surroundings, the exposure, the spectral built-up, the amount of "unsharpness" and many other factors. They also mention that some bright light sources in the out-of-focus areas may be clean, due to light intensity (saturating the sensor).

So, without starting a new series of unfocused shots of all the various light sources I have available at home : I think it is fair to conclude that this has to do with the lens. But! I made lots of shots where I deliberately used very fast shutter speeds at low ISO, to make sure I didn´t saturate the sensor. And in the cases where I had a clean light source, being a candle, a halogen point source or a gas filled bulb, I did NOT get onion rings.

So, I am still puzzled. :-\

Nothing to be really puzzled about. What they seem to say is that it isn't predictable when the aspherical elements would cause the onion ring, only that sometimes it does. That makes it a 'rare' side-effect of an otherwise excellent technology for correcting optical aberrations.
I'd go so far as to surmise that if it was predictable, Zeiss would have found a way to fix it.

So yeah, your lens is not 'perfect', it's just as perfect as the Germans (read: humans) can make it. I think I'd be able to sleep with that.
Cheers