• UPDATE



    The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being.

    I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions

Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
literally it is a great great lens , almost perfect , no doubt about it.
but it is just too huge , it is longer than the Nikon 24-70mmf2.8G, I think the size makes it just an impractical lens for many.
I do not mind 4k for a lens of this great, but I do really hate the huge long ugly barrel design.
So I will use my Zeiss 50mm f2 MP for another few years.
if you guys do not mind the huge 50 kind of lens , then just get it , there is nothing comes close to it at least in a lab test.
 
Upvote 0
#42
MLfan3 said:
literally it is a great great lens , almost perfect , no doubt about it.
but it is just too huge , it is longer than the Nikon 24-70mmf2.8G, I think the size makes it just an impractical lens for many.
I do not mind 4k for a lens of this great, but I do really hate the huge long ugly barrel design.
So I will use my Zeiss 50mm f2 MP for another few years.
if you guys do not mind the huge 50 kind of lens , then just get it , there is nothing comes close to it at least in a lab test.
Click to expand...

Ultimate IQ was the goal, not a pancake.
 
Upvote 0
#43
thepancakeman said:
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.
Click to expand...

huh?
 
Upvote 0
#44
LarryC said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because they all respectively currently have 50mm lenses that already cost a lot more than $400 that don't really compete with the Otus.
 
Upvote 0
#45
I was going to compare a Glock .38, which will shoot a man dead, with a Desert Eagle .50, which will shoot a man very dead.

But that first shot of Roger's, of the red berries, even at the published size, seems to display bokeh that is so creamy, I suspect it would clog my arteries instantaneously and render me not just very dead but extremely dead.
 
Upvote 0
#46
JohnDizzo15 said:
LarryC said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because they all respectively currently have 50mm lenses that already cost a lot more than $400 that don't really compete with the Otus.
Click to expand...

Agree, I have & use the Canon 50 f/1.2 L, very good Lens, My copy though I've settled on after 3 attempts. I like very much the way this lens renders the background, I very seldom use it on auto focus as I'm mostly using it at f/1.2 or f/2, focussing is critical at this shallow depth of field. I expect the Otus 55 to be quite a bit better in any and all areas, except auto focus, and in a couple of weeks I'll know.

I'm somewhat surprised at those that criticise the Otus 55/f1.4 based on price alone, I don't really see the sense in it, either you appreciate there is a difference and want the Zeiss Lens for the little extra IQ it will deliver, and are prepared to pay the 2x price over the Canon 50f/1.2L, or your not, to criticise Zeiss for producing an amazing lens because it's "too expensive" is a little like criticising a Petrus Pomerol 1986 over any 2 litre cask wine, you need to first be able to appreciate that there is a difference, if you can't, your going to head for the cask wine, so just enjoy it.
 
Upvote 0
#50
Upvote 0
#51
I've said it before and will say it again. Every hobby has it's own top end and highest level of premium quality equipment. For that extra 5-10% performance, people pay through the nose. Many buy the respective items for the peace of mind of knowing they have the best, some want to show off, and some just because they can. However, there are still the handful of people out there that could utilize that extra 5-10% performance upgrade and exploit it to the fullest. For anyone to make blanket statements about the lens, it's cost, and it's general lack of worth exhibits a very limited perspective.

This reminds me a lot of road biking which happens to be another one of my hobbies. For the lightest, top grade components on your bike, those components are exponentially more expensive than the next consumer level item down even though it may be the difference of mere ounces in weight. Does this automatically equate to a performance difference to the average cyclist? Probably not while they are going 15 mph down the local bike path. But hey, somewhere out there are a fair amount of cyclists that will when they need those tenths or hundredths of a second to win a race and shaving some ounces off their rig may do that for them. Are you going to tell them they don't need that gear cause it's overpriced or is missing one feature they may not feel is necessary? Don't be the overweight guy in tights telling the stud that he doesn't need those lighter wheels cause they are overpriced.
 
Upvote 0
#54
Quite the impressive lens. Boke is beautiful, and it is razor sharp. Seems sharp is really "in" these days. It used to be in portraiture that a little softness was desirable, but it seems people want to extract every amount of detail they possibly can these days, right down to the pores in their skin.
 
Upvote 0
#55
Love this thing.. 50mm is where I shoot 90% of the time. Regardless of what others will tell you.. It's a damn fine focal length for shooting portraits. And many other things. Every photographer should have a 50mm in their pack.

I've used many a 50mm and settled on my Zeiss 50mm f1.4. Amazing quality and nothing else will do for its image characteristics. Contrast, bokeh and one of the sharpest lens from f4 on. A gorgeous portrait lens from f2 - f2.8, fantastic event and landscape from f4 on... Incredibly dynamic.

The Otus is definitely on my list.. But probably not until 2015. And only if Canon has a body for it that is truly a competitor to the D800 and more importantly: Medium Format

Expensive? Only if you don't value 50mm and the level of performance it brings. Especially if you're making money with it.
 
Upvote 0
#57
MLfan3 said:
literally it is a great great lens , almost perfect , no doubt about it.
but it is just too huge , it is longer than the Nikon 24-70mmf2.8G, I think the size makes it just an impractical lens for many.
I do not mind 4k for a lens of this great, but I do really hate the huge long ugly barrel design.
So I will use my Zeiss 50mm f2 MP for another few years.
if you guys do not mind the huge 50 kind of lens , then just get it , there is nothing comes close to it at least in a lab test.
Click to expand...

How?
 
Upvote 0
#58
sanj said:
MLfan3 said:
literally it is a great great lens , almost perfect , no doubt about it.
but it is just too huge , it is longer than the Nikon 24-70mmf2.8G, I think the size makes it just an impractical lens for many.
I do not mind 4k for a lens of this great, but I do really hate the huge long ugly barrel design.
So I will use my Zeiss 50mm f2 MP for another few years.
if you guys do not mind the huge 50 kind of lens , then just get it , there is nothing comes close to it at least in a lab test.
Click to expand...

How?
Click to expand...

+1, people use much bigger lenses ALL the time. And it's basically the same size as a 2470, and people even more often use a 70-200 which is much bigger and heavier. It's big and heavy for a 50, but not as a lens in general. And for me being used to the 200 f2 for portrait stuff, this is a feather....
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Sigma Announces an Exclusive Clamp-On Ring 162mm COR-11 for Its Sought-After Cine 14mm T2 FF
Replies
0
Views
2K
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Sigma Announces Pricing & Availability for Its 70mm F2.8 DG MACRO Art Lens
Replies
9
Views
6K
Ah-Keong
Ah-Keong
Canon Rumors
Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art and Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art Receive Prestigious TIPA World Aw
Replies
1
Views
2K
Diko
Diko
Canon Rumors
Review: Irix Firefly 15mm f/2.4 by Northlight
Replies
14
Views
8K
keithcooper
keithcooper
Canon Rumors
Lensbaby Delivers a Modern Take on Classic Lenses with the Burnside 35 With Variable Vignetting
Replies
6
Views
3K
Ozarker
Ozarker
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu