Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions

[Pi]

Really? It is hard to make general conclusions of 4 shots, but ... (BTW, who takes a shot of dead leafs at 1/1000 sec. and ISO 800? The lowest ISO shot is at ISO 200. )

I do say impressive sharpness wide open but ... only when I pixelpeep. Without pixelpeeping, I see dull colors and contrast (well, better processing might change that), and circular bokeh. Here

you can see faint concentric circles in the bokeh - not actual circles but ones formed by the oval shaped highlights. Well, any lens cuts the highlights this way but the only examples I have seen where this is apparent is from an older Leica f/1.0 lens. The shot above is just plain ugly, sorry Roger.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

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?

What makes you think they are machine ground? Sure, the initial blank is machine ground, but I really expect that its finished by hand. The technicians that can do this are very few, and can only finish a few lens elements a day. That's why they are hard to find and expensive. The high end Canon lenses are also hand finished. The tolerances are so tight that the lens cannot be measured directly, and uses indirect measurement to get those few millionths of a inch tolerances.

If they were easy to make, the Chinese would be cranking them out by the zillions, but they are extremely difficult to make.
Yes, Zeiss doubles the price just for their name, but so does Canon and Nikon.

 

[eml58]

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?

You perhaps need to compare Apples with Apples, sort of.

Canon/Nikon/Sony Lenses are comparable, some within the group are slightly better than others, all made for the mass market, with a few exceptions, Large Whites (and Nikons similar range), 50f/1.2 etc.

Zeiss lenses you might need to compare with Leica, not made for the mass market more for the Pro/serious amateur that will appreciate that 10% extra all round, IQ etc etc, and the engineered for a life time Lens.

In the Otus 55f/1.4 Category you should be perhaps trying to compare it to the Leica Summilux 50f/1.4, both are manual focus, both are engineered to last 50 years, both are USD$4K Lenses.

A couple years back I tried the Leica M9 system, the Summilux 50f/1.4 Aspherical I waited a little over a year on back order to finally get a copy, Leica sell, mostly on Back Order, every Lens they make, Zeiss have a similar problem (joking), Canon/Nikon/Sony would just love top have the same issue.

I feel this is one area where you do probably get what you pay for, I hope so, I have the Otus 55f/1.4 on order.

 

[anthonyd]

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?

What makes you think they are machine ground? Sure, the initial blank is machine ground, but I really expect that its finished by hand. The technicians that can do this are very few, and can only finish a few lens elements a day. That's why they are hard to find and expensive. The high end Canon lenses are also hand finished. The tolerances are so tight that the lens cannot be measured directly, and uses indirect measurement to get those few millionths of a inch tolerances.

Sure, the human hand can feel tiny anomalies, or wrong curvature, beyond what a typical machine can produce. But for a product that costs $4K and competes against products that cost $340 (canon 50mm f/1.4) I suppose they built machines and manufacturing processes that are not typical. When it comes to millionths of an inch I would trust a (very well made and tuned) machine more than an expert technician. You don't have hand made scramjet engines, or VLSI circuits, or MEMS. Try producing this by hand:
http://www.memx.com/
Also, there is no such thing as "the lens cannot be measured directly". We can measure down to nanometers with scanning electron microscopes and that's about 200 times finer than the smallest wavelength of visible light.

I will agree with your overall view though, that we won't see Canon/Nikon/etc making a similar lens for $400 any time soon, or the Chinese mass producing them.

 

[zlatko]

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?

What is so special about a $2,000,000 Bugatti Veyron that any car company could not reverse engineer and produce for $20,000? It's just another well-made shape on 4 wheels, right?

It should seem obvious that every bit of extra performance costs something to engineer and build, from the 6 elements of special glass to every other part in the lens. Those $400 lenses aren't built anything like this Otus lens.

 

[mrsfotografie]

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?

What is so special about a $2,000,000 Bugatti Veyron that any car company could not reverse engineer and produce for $20,000? It's just another well-made shape on 4 wheels, right?

It should seem obvious that every bit of extra performance costs something to engineer and build, from the 6 elements of special glass to every other part in the lens. Those $400 lenses aren't built anything like this Otus lens.

Actually, it costs Bugatti’s parent company Volkswagen AG nearly $5 million to make one, but the company sells a Veyron for around $2.7 million. That’s a $2.3 million loss on each car, which doesn’t even consider the millions the company spent in car development.

I'd say that 's pretty special (IMHO this car is a showcase of the engineering power of VW).

Btw I'm willing to bet the Zeiss 55 isn't a 'Veyron' lens.

 

[RGF]

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?

Issue is not cost, but why would someone pay for it. What does it deliver that than "regular" lens does not - beside the ego boast of having the best and most expensive lens (based upon focal length)

 

[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.

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 discutss 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.

I don't think it's as simple as to "just put AF in there" and keep that IQ, or else Canon would have done that already, and do you think the Otus would be 4k with AF? Well, the 200 f2.0 is pretty close to a perfect lens (optically) but it's not small light and inexpensive now is it..

 

[FlorentC]

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?

An interesting read from Lloyd Chambers here.

 

[studio1972]

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.

I think the target market is not pros (who would be better served by the Canon 50L as it has AF, or a medium format system if they really need the resolution), but enthusiasts with lots of money who really need the 'best lens in the world' for their holiday snaps.

 

[100]

Mass production is the main reason for a low price technical product. You need a lot of money to develop something. Let’s say it’ll cost you 1 million to develop and the manufacturing cost per product are $10.
You aim to sell 10,000 of your product.
Development cost per product is $100, so total cost per product is $110.
If you can sell 1 million of your product, the development cost per product is only $1, so the total cost is $11 per product.

I know it’s a bit more complicated than that, but in general a big part of the high price of a low sales technical product is due to development cost.

 

[Mr Bean]

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?

An interesting read from Lloyd Chambers here.

Yep, a good read. Making a lens with very tight tolerances, with aspherics in the mix is very difficult (centering issues with aspheric lenses can be tricky). While Canon/Nikon do make fast optics in the 50mm range with aspherics / special glass, etc, they are soft wide open. This one isn't

 

[studio1972]

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?

An interesting read from Lloyd Chambers here.

Yep, a good read. Making a lens with very tight tolerances, with aspherics in the mix is very difficult (centering issues with aspheric lenses can be tricky). While Canon/Nikon do make fast optics in the 50mm range with aspherics / special glass, etc, they are soft wide open. This one isn't

Remember the canon lenses are much older designs. Canon's more recent lens designs are much sharper, like the 100mm macro L.

 

[infared]

I think that it is fantastic that Zeiss has made this lens! I guess it is very difficult to make a great normal (for FF) lens...no one has until now. I cannot afford this lens...but I would love to have the opportunity to view some prints made from it by a skilled image maker. That would be exciting.

 

[StudentOfLight]

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?

Others have already brought up economies of scale and exclusivity of having a limited edition product both of which will result in high unit prices. I'm guessing that Zeiss also has patents to protect its design from being copied, and patents last for 20 years so if you wait that long you might see knockoffs being released.

Just another point on "special" lenses, these are designed to address specific deficiencies in mainstream lenses and you should expect them to be more expensive. People often argue about how much better these are (e.g. maybe 5-10% better) than a competitor lens or a predecessors. The challenge is whether you as a photographer can truly showcase that extra 5-10% of optical performance or not. If optics is the only limiting factor in your photography then these lenses will definitely set you apart from other photographers. If your creativity, composition and use of light is poor then you'll only be taking crap pictures that look 5-10% better optically.

 

[Jeffrey]

I have this lens on order and am anxiously awaiting its arrival. I have several other Zeiss lenses, all of which are incredible. I imagine this lens will be another favorite for me. The lenses really are amazing.

 

[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.

I think the target market is not pros (who would be better served by the Canon 50L as it has AF, or a medium format system if they really need the resolution), but enthusiasts with lots of money who really need the 'best lens in the world' for their holiday snaps.

Probably, but I know a few product and fashion pros who are near, or in one case at, the top of their field and they will gladly pay whatever is asked for even slight improvements in IQ. They all shoot medium format for most things, but like the flexibility and speed of SLRs for some of their location work.

 

[zlatko]

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?

Issue is not cost, but why would someone pay for it. What does it deliver that than "regular" lens does not - beside the ego boast of having the best and most expensive lens (based upon focal length)

It may be the most expensive 55mm, but Leica offers a 50mm that's $8K and another that's $11K.

What the Otus delivers is amazing performance at wide apertures. Forget the ego boost. It delivers something that a regular lens doesn't. The resolution numbers are even better than those of the Leica Summilux 50 (also $4K), which had previously surpassed all other fast 50's on Roger's tests (granted the Otus is a 55).

Of course resolution isn't everything, and for most of us isn't worth that much money. But this lens is without doubt very special. Why someone would pay for it: they want the photographs that can be made with it. Having special tools isn't just about having them, but about using them and making something special with them.

 

[mrsfotografie]

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.

I think the target market is not pros (who would be better served by the Canon 50L as it has AF, or a medium format system if they really need the resolution), but enthusiasts with lots of money who really need the 'best lens in the world' for their holiday snaps.

+1.

This also is the power of Leica IMHO.

 

[JonAustin]

Clearly I'm not part of the target market for this lens; I would want AF and to pay 1/10 the asking price.

But I do understand and appreciate the economics of diminishing returns (i.e., at the high end of any product market, it costs multiples more money for small incremental improvements). This product is no doubt targeted to a relatively small market; I would be curious what Zeiss' first year sales projects are for the Otus.

(I do wish they had named it "Otis" instead of "Otus," however, in honor of the town drunk on the Andy Griffith show ...)