Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions

[jrista]

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. :-\

I still disagree. None of your OOF light sources were saturating the sensor. If I understand what Zeiss was saying, you REALLY need to saturate the sensor (i.e. have pure white full value OOF blur circles, blown blur circles...i.e. what you might get from spots of sunlight streaming through the leaves of a tree) to get solid color. The candles for sure were not even remotely close to saturating, yet they don't exhibit onion ringing. I am also 100% certain that the rings you see in my sample photo taken with my camera were due to the bulbs of the Christmas Lights I was photographing, not the lens (which does not have any aspheric elements.)

I truly believe your lens is fine, and that the aberrations in *some* of your OOF blur circles are due to other things.

 

[Eldar]

Thanks Jrista, I need some support.

I have just returned from a heated debate with my boss (or wife if you like). She was not overly enthusiastic when I said I would change all light sources in the house to either candles, halogen point source or gas light bulbs, to avoid onion ring bokeh in my out of focus light source images ... : What happened to sickness & health, support and encouragement and all that ... :-\

 

[Random Orbits]

Thanks Jrista, I need some support.

I have just returned from a heated debate with my boss (or wife if you like). She was not overly enthusiastic when I said I would change all light sources in the house to either candles, halogen point source or gas light bulbs, to avoid onion ring bokeh in my out of focus light source images ... : What happened to sickness & health, support and encouragement and all that ... :-\

Eldar, have you tried the same test using a different lens? The TDP review linked below shows how different bokeh is affected by the different lens designs. If you use a light source that produced the known effect with the Otus and then tried your S35, then you can compare the results with each other and to TDP to see whether or not it is a lens design/manufacturing issue. The S35 isn't as clean as the new 35 f/2 IS, but the pattern should be different if the effect is dominated by the lens manufacturing technology and not by wavefront interference that jrista mentioned.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

FWIW, just going by memory, I don't remember having the onion ring effect with the 85L II or the 135L, but I do remember running into it using the 24-70L II and the 28 f/2.8 IS with Christmas tree lights.

 

[jrista]

Thanks Jrista, I need some support.

I have just returned from a heated debate with my boss (or wife if you like). She was not overly enthusiastic when I said I would change all light sources in the house to either candles, halogen point source or gas light bulbs, to avoid onion ring bokeh in my out of focus light source images ... : What happened to sickness & health, support and encouragement and all that ... :-\

Eldar, have you tried the same test using a different lens? The TDP review linked below shows how different bokeh is affected by the different lens designs. If you use a light source that produced the known effect with the Otus and then tried your S35, then you can compare the results with each other and to TDP to see whether or not it is a lens design/manufacturing issue. The S35 isn't as clean as the new 35 f/2 IS, but the pattern should be different if the effect is dominated by the lens manufacturing technology and not by wavefront interference that jrista mentioned.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

This is an excellent idea. At least it would generally settle the matter with some hard evidence.

 

[Eldar]

Thanks Jrista, I need some support.

I have just returned from a heated debate with my boss (or wife if you like). She was not overly enthusiastic when I said I would change all light sources in the house to either candles, halogen point source or gas light bulbs, to avoid onion ring bokeh in my out of focus light source images ... : What happened to sickness & health, support and encouragement and all that ... :-\

Eldar, have you tried the same test using a different lens? The TDP review linked below shows how different bokeh is affected by the different lens designs. If you use a light source that produced the known effect with the Otus and then tried your S35, then you can compare the results with each other and to TDP to see whether or not it is a lens design/manufacturing issue. The S35 isn't as clean as the new 35 f/2 IS, but the pattern should be different if the effect is dominated by the lens manufacturing technology and not by wavefront interference that jrista mentioned.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

FWIW, just going by memory, I don't remember having the onion ring effect with the 85L II or the 135L, but I do remember running into it using the 24-70L II and the 28 f/2.8 IS with Christmas tree lights.

I posted an example with the Sigma 35A (see page 13 of this thread). Very clear onion rings. I also tried the 85/1.2L II at f1.2 (don´t believe I posted that). It does not show so clear rings, but they are definitely visible. Sharper lens, sharper rings, it seems.

 

[CarlTN]

Thanks Jrista, I need some support.

I have just returned from a heated debate with my boss (or wife if you like). She was not overly enthusiastic when I said I would change all light sources in the house to either candles, halogen point source or gas light bulbs, to avoid onion ring bokeh in my out of focus light source images ... : What happened to sickness & health, support and encouragement and all that ... :-\

Eldar, have you tried the same test using a different lens? The TDP review linked below shows how different bokeh is affected by the different lens designs. If you use a light source that produced the known effect with the Otus and then tried your S35, then you can compare the results with each other and to TDP to see whether or not it is a lens design/manufacturing issue. The S35 isn't as clean as the new 35 f/2 IS, but the pattern should be different if the effect is dominated by the lens manufacturing technology and not by wavefront interference that jrista mentioned.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

FWIW, just going by memory, I don't remember having the onion ring effect with the 85L II or the 135L, but I do remember running into it using the 24-70L II and the 28 f/2.8 IS with Christmas tree lights.

I posted an example with the Sigma 35A (see page 13 of this thread). Very clear onion rings. I also tried the 85/1.2L II at f1.2 (don´t believe I posted that). It does not show so clear rings, but they are definitely visible. Sharper lens, sharper rings, it seems.

The onion ring effect is visible in your images on page 13, but it's not anything I would consider harsh or very pronounced. The main problem a lens can have with "bokeh highlights" (in my opinion), has to do with whether there is one severe bright ring around the outside of the highlight...not a bunch of very faint "onion ring" transitions inside it. If these onion rings were a lot harsher, like a bullseye or something, that would be different. If the ones in that image you posted, bother you that much...then it would take literally less than one second to blur them with the adjustment brush. I just don't see that as a problem for the 35A, at least based on the image you posted. What I'm more curious about, is the "transition zone" smoothness, and whether the harsh single "ring" around the outside, ever makes an appearance, or worse, looks pronounced...with the 35A.

 

[Random Orbits]

Eldar, have you tried the same test using a different lens? The TDP review linked below shows how different bokeh is affected by the different lens designs. If you use a light source that produced the known effect with the Otus and then tried your S35, then you can compare the results with each other and to TDP to see whether or not it is a lens design/manufacturing issue. The S35 isn't as clean as the new 35 f/2 IS, but the pattern should be different if the effect is dominated by the lens manufacturing technology and not by wavefront interference that jrista mentioned.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-35mm-f-2-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

FWIW, just going by memory, I don't remember having the onion ring effect with the 85L II or the 135L, but I do remember running into it using the 24-70L II and the 28 f/2.8 IS with Christmas tree lights.

I posted an example with the Sigma 35A (see page 13 of this thread). Very clear onion rings. I also tried the 85/1.2L II at f1.2 (don´t believe I posted that). It does not show so clear rings, but they are definitely visible. Sharper lens, sharper rings, it seems.

I remember reading somewhere that the rings could be due to the grinding/polishing process of the aspherical elements. According to the TDP link, it looks like the Canon 35 f/2 IS is remarkable in the smoothness of the OOF region. It might be worth bringing the Otus and S35 to a camera store and comparing it with the 35 f/2 IS. If the 35 f/2 IS performs notably better than the other two on the same subject then you'd have your answer.

 

[Eldar]

To be honest, this is a minor problem for me. I have looked through the images I have with the Otus and there are only a couple that has the onion ring bokeh issue. I will have to make fairly large prints for it to be visible and if I did, I would fix it in post processing first.

 

[Sporgon]

I remember reading somewhere that the rings could be due to the grinding/polishing process of the aspherical elements. According to the TDP link, it looks like the Canon 35 f/2 IS is remarkable in the smoothness of the OOF region. It might be worth bringing the Otus and S35 to a camera store and comparing it with the 35 f/2 IS. If the 35 f/2 IS performs notably better than the other two on the same subject then you'd have your answer.

The 35 IS will use moulded elements rather than ground & polished. I wonder if we are seeing an improvement in moulded element technology in that lens. It does seems to aquite itself very well against lenses that are using the much more expensive process.

 

[sagittariansrock]

To be honest, this is a minor problem for me. I have looked through the images I have with the Otus and there are only a couple that has the onion ring bokeh issue. I will have to make fairly large prints for it to be visible and if I did, I would fix it in post processing first.

I think even 'minor' is a gross overestimation of the 'issue'.

 

[eml58]

My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.

Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.

1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200

 

[Quasimodo]

My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.

Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.

1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200

Beautiful image

 

[Eldar]

My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.

Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.

1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200

Excellent Edward! Keep practicing and keep posting!

 

[eml58]

Excellent Edward! Keep practicing and keep posting!

Thanks Eldar, and also Qusi, appreciated.

This Lens was a bit of a learning Curve, I have the Zeiss 15 & 21, both are much easier to nail focus on than the 55, I imagine due to the WA of the 15 & 21, the 55 I just wasn't able to rely on my eyes pulling focus through the viewfinder, I don't think I actually nailed focus a single time this way.

Once I switched to using zoomed focus in Live view it was pretty well 100% on the focus.

Unfortunately for me, this relegates the Otus to a Lens I'll use for Portraits, Fixed Point Images, to try using this on moving subjects I think (for me) would be an exercise in futility, my eyesight just isn't good enough, even with an eye piece adaptor, to shoot using the viewfinder, this becomes worse on the 5DMK III which doesn't have as bright a viewfinder as the 1Dx. I do now have the "Ec" focusing screen for the 1Dx so I'll set up one of my 1Dx bodies with this & see if it's of any assistance.

There can be no question regards the Bokeh, Image quality though of this Lens, at f/2 through to f/5.6 this Lens is simply superb, I find that wide open you have a hairline of focus so how you use this is very subject dependant, can work exceptionally well, or be horribly wrong.

It will be very interesting to see how well in real life the Sigma Art 50f/1.4 compares alongside the Otus 55.

But to leave this Lens home at any time in the future will be difficult, after using it for a few weeks it's almost as "have to go in the bag" as my 300f/2.8 II (need a bigger bag).

 

[jrista]

My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.

Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.

1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200

It really is amazing how sharp that lens is wide open. I really love that. I need to get a 5D III this year, but I may just have to put an Otus on my list for the future...it's just phenomena.

Out of curiosity, what is the MFD? Can it be used as a closeup lens for objects within a foot or two?

 

[CarlTN]

My first attempts at posting Images on this thread.

Used the Otus on both the 1Dx & 5DMK III recently while in Bali, found it almost impossible to get the focus spot on using the viewfinder, but once I got the hang of using Live view, zoomed to fix focus, then it starts to come together.

1Dx + Otus 55f/1.4 shot @ f/1.4 & 1/1250th ISO200

It really is amazing how sharp that lens is wide open. I really love that. I need to get a 5D III this year, but I may just have to put an Otus on my list for the future...it's just phenomena.

Out of curiosity, what is the MFD? Can it be used as a closeup lens for objects within a foot or two?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=917

"Close Focus
Specified Min Focus Distance 19.7”
Tested Min Focus Distance (Wide / Long) 19.29”
Maximum Magnification (MM) 0.14x"

 

[Eldar]

Out of curiosity, what is the MFD? Can it be used as a closeup lens for objects within a foot or two?

The 50cm MFD brings you fairly close, but when adding a 12mm extension tube I get about as close as I find practical.

 

[jrista]

Out of curiosity, what is the MFD? Can it be used as a closeup lens for objects within a foot or two?

The 50cm MFD brings you fairly close, but when adding a 12mm extension tube I get about as close as I find practical.

How is the magnification with the extension?

 

[Eldar]

Here´s an image of my iMac keyboard. Image area is about 9,5x6,2cm2. You can of course use a deeper tube, but I rather go for the macro lens in that case.

 

[eml58]

Bali Nusa Dua, last week.

1Dx & Otus 55 f/1.4 @ f/2.8 & 1/125th ISO800

It's an interesting lens, re jrista's comment, I have yet to shoot really close, but the previous Image of the water Lilly I was laying on some stones 3" above the pool & the water lilies were less than a meter distance (people walking by gave me a wide berth, something most Photographers are used to).

Karl pointed to the mfd (which I wasn't aware of) and 20" sounds about right without extension tube.

The more I use this Lens the more I like it, I used to love my 50 f/1.2 L but focus was so slow it was best used Manual Focus anyway.

The background blur is just amazingly smooth & the vignetting produced depending on the subject just adds to the mood of the Image.

This image was taken in shade very close to sunset, hence the ISO, no Flash.

My Model drank 2 Glasses of Wine before I was happy with this Image.