Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4

Ksanti · 20 Apr 2014 at 20:56

Above&Beyond said:
How long would it take a pro to amortize a £10k lens? They are in it to make money not spend it. Serious hobbyists will drive the market for it, a pro will still be using the Nikon or Canon version and be with NPS or CPS. You won't be coming up with anything Zeiss haven't thought of themselves. It's the best optic tested so far at DxO with the autofocus 55mm f/1.8 in second place currently so it dispels the myth they can't make autofocus lenses, they just choose not to do it when they can't work closely with the OEM.

Or you know, Sony paying them not to which is almost certainly what it is. Sony don't have much of a selling point if they lose the AF Zeiss card.

Do you have any idea how much pros spend on medium format equipment? Any top level pro could justify £6k on an autofocus Otus imo (or at least before the Sigma 50 and even to an extent Nikon 58 they certainly would have been able to)

D.P. · 21 Apr 2014 at 00:54

Above&Beyond said:
How long would it take a pro to amortize a £10k lens? They are in it to make money not spend it. Serious hobbyists will drive the market for it, a pro will still be using the Nikon or Canon version and be with NPS or CPS. You won't be coming up with anything Zeiss haven't thought of themselves. It's the best optic tested so far at DxO with the autofocus 55mm f/1.8 in second place currently so it dispels the myth they can't make autofocus lenses, they just choose not to do it when they can't work closely with the OEM.

Many reviews popping up showing the sigma to be sharper (in the edges) than both Zeiss lenses and having much less distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberrations.
You have to be careful with the dxo mark reviews - the Zeiss my
Took the edge because it has a better transmission profile, it had equal sharpness to the sigma and worse distortion and vignetting.

Above&Beyond · 21 Apr 2014 at 09:08

Ksanti said:
Or you know, Sony paying them not to which is almost certainly what it is. Sony don't have much of a selling point if they lose the AF Zeiss card.

Do you have any idea how much pros spend on medium format equipment? Any top level pro could justify £6k on an autofocus Otus imo (or at least before the Sigma 50 and even to an extent Nikon 58 they certainly would have been able to)

They have made autofocus lenses for Fuji in the Touit line, so they don't seem to be confined to one brand. Nikon and Canon don't want the competition.

As for medium format if you need that then a 35mm D800 won't cut it. You'll be using an IQ back with Rodenstock or Schneider lenses and manually focusing anyway with studio lights at ISO 50. How many more jobs will a Zeiss 55mm get you? Not enough I'd bet.

Above&Beyond · 21 Apr 2014 at 09:19

D.P. said:
Many reviews popping up showing the sigma to be sharper (in the edges) than both Zeiss lenses and having much less distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberrations.
You have to be careful with the dxo mark reviews - the Zeiss my
Took the edge because it has a better transmission profile, it had equal sharpness to the sigma and worse distortion and vignetting.

In this review it had more CA than the Nikon or Sony or Zeiss:

If there were any weak point in the Sigma's performance compared to the competition, it would probably be CA, as both the Nikon and Sony beat it on that score. The Canon 50/1.2 is higher in both maximum and average measures, though.

The Zeiss 55mm Otus, not surprisingly, shows very well-controlled CA properties; with consistently low CA across the entire aperture range on full-frame and sub-frame cameras. In our test images, we saw practically zero CA in either the center of the frame or up in the corners, at ƒ/1.4 and ƒ/8

The Sigma comes in at a rating of 35 on the 5D MK III and the Otus at 38. The Sigma won't match it in the corners at wide apertures. The Otus is corner to corner sharp as a tack.

Ksanti · 21 Apr 2014 at 12:10

Above&Beyond said:
They have made autofocus lenses for Fuji in the Touit line, so they don't seem to be confined to one brand. Nikon and Canon don't want the competition.

As for medium format if you need that then a 35mm D800 won't cut it. You'll be using an IQ back with Rodenstock or Schneider lenses and manually focusing anyway with studio lights at ISO 50. How many more jobs will a Zeiss 55mm get you? Not enough I'd bet.

All your arguments seem to be structured "here's my opinion, but if you take it as fact then I'm clearly right"

As for the Fuji thing that's neither here nor there. I don't think Sony gives a monkeys about Fuji's lineup at least not enough to be really against their biggest photographic partner producing for them. Nobody thinks "Oh I'll get a Fuji X series because they have Zeiss glass". not to mention this is APS-C only stuff so it's hardly a threat to their claim of AF on full frame Zeiss lenses.

Ksanti · 21 Apr 2014 at 12:18

Above&Beyond said:
The Sigma comes in at a rating of 35 on the 5D MK III and the Otus at 38. The Sigma won't match it in the corners at wide apertures. The Otus is corner to corner sharp as a tack.

Uhhh... The higher Otus score was only because of the transmission profile (which is fine but ultimately irrelevant at such minor differences to anyone's usage). The Otus was brighter, the Sigma had lower distortion, lower vignetting and the same level of CA.

Above&Beyond · 21 Apr 2014 at 20:36

Ksanti said:
All your arguments seem to be structured "here's my opinion, but if you take it as fact then I'm clearly right"

As for the Fuji thing that's neither here nor there. I don't think Sony gives a monkeys about Fuji's lineup at least not enough to be really against their biggest photographic partner producing for them. Nobody thinks "Oh I'll get a Fuji X series because they have Zeiss glass". not to mention this is APS-C only stuff so it's hardly a threat to their claim of AF on full frame Zeiss lenses.

You don't seem to be taking on board being able to actually do something and not wanting to do it. They would do it if they had cooperation, but they don't so they won't do it. I'm sure with their experience they could reverse engineer any lens, but why? They have obviously weighed it up and it's not worth it.

Above&Beyond · 21 Apr 2014 at 20:37

Ksanti said:
Uhhh... The higher Otus score was only because of the transmission profile (which is fine but ultimately irrelevant at such minor differences to anyone's usage). The Otus was brighter, the Sigma had lower distortion, lower vignetting and the same level of CA.

The Sigma sent for review will be hand picked by Sigma so the best of the best and it still won't beat the Zeiss in the corners. It's not surprising given the differences in price and glass most probably, but it does look a good lens. I'd pick one up used when the price bombs like the 35.

D.P. · 22 Apr 2014 at 01:26

Above&Beyond said:
The Sigma sent for review will be hand picked by Sigma so the best of the best and it still won't beat the Zeiss in the corners. It's not surprising given the differences in price and glass most probably, but it does look a good lens. I'd pick one up used when the price bombs like the 35.

Funny enough that is not how reviews work.

At lenstip the review lenses come from a local camera shop, photozone asks for people to send in lenses, Slrgear gets their from lens rentals. What us more these review sites tend to get several lenses and compares them to check they don't have a lens with misaligned elements.

When lenstip reviews a lens and it has sharper edges, Lower distortion, less vignetting and less chromatic abberaions then the same will apply to all such lenses. Sample variance doesn't effect the properties such as distortion, vignetting it LoCA, merely sharpness can be off centered.

You seem adamant that the Zeiss is clearly better, but that just doesn't stack up with the mounting evidence showing beyond absolute sharpness in the center wide open the sigma is superior.

And lastly, if you believe sigma hand picked a special lens for dxo then who says Zeiss didn't either? There is just no logic to your argument.

D.P. · 22 Apr 2014 at 01:32

Above&Beyond said:
You don't seem to be taking on board being able to actually do something and not wanting to do it. They would do it if they had cooperation, but they don't so they won't do it. I'm sure with their experience they could reverse engineer any lens, but why? They have obviously weighed it up and it's not worth it.

And that is what I am saying. They might be able to reverse engineer the AF and it will cost a certain amount, they seem to think they won't redeem that money, likely due to small market share. But as I said, all that Zeiss really does it push out old construction lenses, eye don't put much effort into producing modern formula lenses that are up yo date for Nikon and canon.

Above&Beyond · 22 Apr 2014 at 08:37

D.P. said:
Funny enough that is not how reviews work.

At lenstip the review lenses come from a local camera shop, photozone asks for people to send in lenses, Slrgear gets their from lens rentals. What us more these review sites tend to get several lenses and compares them to check they don't have a lens with misaligned elements.

When lenstip reviews a lens and it has sharper edges, Lower distortion, less vignetting and less chromatic abberaions then the same will apply to all such lenses. Sample variance doesn't effect the properties such as distortion, vignetting it LoCA, merely sharpness can be off centered.

You seem adamant that the Zeiss is clearly better, but that just doesn't stack up with the mounting evidence showing beyond absolute sharpness in the center wide open the sigma is superior.

And lastly, if you believe sigma hand picked a special lens for dxo then who says Zeiss didn't either? There is just no logic to your argument.

When they are fully released we will see what they are like and if there are any discrepancies in production. Pre-prodcution models or hand picked ones from Sigma sent for early review might not tell the whole story. The Zeiss one in the slrgear test was a random untested example from about 30 sent by lensrentals. Roger Cicala has already stated this.

The Sigma looks good, but not as good as the Zeiss. No point trying to kid yourself on when the evidence doesn't back you up.

Above&Beyond · 22 Apr 2014 at 08:53

D.P. said:
And that is what I am saying. They might be able to reverse engineer the AF and it will cost a certain amount, they seem to think they won't redeem that money, likely due to small market share. But as I said, all that Zeiss really does it push out old construction lenses, eye don't put much effort into producing modern formula lenses that are up yo date for Nikon and canon.

They produce the best rated lens for a DSLR and their 100 f/2, 135 f/2 APO, 35 f/1.4 and 25 f/2 are all on the first two pages of the DxO rating list. The 135 and 25 in particular are some of the finest lenses you can get on 35mm. No doubt with the new Otus 85 waiting in the wings that will break performance records.

I've got the Zeiss 21 and it is a brilliant landscape lens, better than the 14-24 and its cumbersome filter kits. I've got autofocus covered anyway but there is still plenty of times when manual focus can be used well. Rent one from lenspimp they are excellent lenses for tripod work.

D.P. · 22 Apr 2014 at 12:20

Above&Beyond said:
When they are fully released we will see what they are like and if there are any discrepancies in production. Pre-prodcution models or hand picked ones from Sigma sent for early review might not tell the whole story. The Zeiss one in the slrgear test was a random untested example from about 30 sent by lensrentals. Roger Cicala has already stated this.

The Sigma looks good, but not as good as the Zeiss. No point trying to kid yourself on when the evidence doesn't back you up.

The sigma at Slrgear was also a random sample from lensrentals. The sigma at lens tips was a random sample from a camera shop in Poland!

The Zeiss looks good, but not as good as the sigma. No point trying to kid yourself when th evidence doesn't back you up. All evidence is pointing towards the sigma being better corrected optically with lowr distortion, less vignetting, less chromatic aberration with a more even resolution field generating sharper edges while the center doesn't keep up with the Otus wide open.

Seems like Zeiss went for outright sharpness while sigma went for an optimally corrected lens. Someone from sigma even stated they purposely compromised some sharpness in order to gain microcontrast.

One thing in the Otus's favour is probably it has a flatter field curvature which can make naive tests of a brick wall look better than with sigma on the edges. Funnily enough this is mainly only an issue for auto focus where care must be taken not to recompose after focusing, but since the Zeiss doesn't AF....

D.P. · 22 Apr 2014 at 12:32

Above&Beyond said:
They produce the best rated lens for a DSLR and their 100 f/2, 135 f/2 APO, 35 f/1.4 and 25 f/2 are all on the first two pages of the DxO rating list. The 135 and 25 in particular are some of the finest lenses you can get on 35mm. No doubt with the new Otus 85 waiting in the wings that will break performance records.

I've got the Zeiss 21 and it is a brilliant landscape lens, better than the 14-24 and its cumbersome filter kits. I've got autofocus covered anyway but there is still plenty of times when manual focus can be used well. Rent one from lenspimp they are excellent lenses for tripod work.

The Zeiss 21mm has more distortion and more vignetting than the Nikon 14-24mm at 21mm, and they have near-equal sharpness wide open and stopped down the Nikon is sharper. Plus the Nikon has autofocus. Nope, I would definitely take the Nikon 14-24mm over the Zeiss, and the Zeiss 21mm is regarded as the best wide angle Zeiss there is.

The sigma 35mm is sharper, has less distortion and lower vignetting than the Zeiss, plus auto focus and is much cheaper. I'll take the sigma please.

V-Spec · 22 Apr 2014 at 12:53

Above&Beyond said:
I've got the Zeiss 21 and it is a brilliant landscape lens, better than the 14-24 and its cumbersome filter kits.

Got any example landscapes you've snapped with the 21 Zeiss?

I ask because I'm currently debating between a 14-24 and the Zeiss 21mm,

Above&Beyond · 22 Apr 2014 at 17:43

D.P. said:
The sigma at Slrgear was also a random sample from lensrentals. The sigma at lens tips was a random sample from a camera shop in Poland!

The Zeiss looks good, but not as good as the sigma. No point trying to kid yourself when th evidence doesn't back you up. All evidence is pointing towards the sigma being better corrected optically with lowr distortion, less vignetting, less chromatic aberration with a more even resolution field generating sharper edges while the center doesn't keep up with the Otus wide open.

Seems like Zeiss went for outright sharpness while sigma went for an optimally corrected lens. Someone from sigma even stated they purposely compromised some sharpness in order to gain microcontrast.

One thing in the Otus's favour is probably it has a flatter field curvature which can make naive tests of a brick wall look better than with sigma on the edges. Funnily enough this is mainly only an issue for auto focus where care must be taken not to recompose after focusing, but since the Zeiss doesn't AF....

What reviews are you reading here because it isn't the same ones I'm looking at. If it was better then surely it would be above the Otus on the DxO list. So is it above that? I want to see the bokeh of the Sigma as the 35 ART wasn't a home run on that front.

Above&Beyond · 22 Apr 2014 at 17:44

D.P. said:
The Zeiss 21mm has more distortion and more vignetting than the Nikon 14-24mm at 21mm, and they have near-equal sharpness wide open and stopped down the Nikon is sharper. Plus the Nikon has autofocus. Nope, I would definitely take the Nikon 14-24mm over the Zeiss, and the Zeiss 21mm is regarded as the best wide angle Zeiss there is.

The sigma 35mm is sharper, has less distortion and lower vignetting than the Zeiss, plus auto focus and is much cheaper. I'll take the sigma please.

Go and use a Zeiss 21. Autofocus for a landscape is absolutely useless anyway.

D.P. · 22 Apr 2014 at 19:49

Above&Beyond said:
What reviews are you reading here because it isn't the same ones I'm looking at. If it was better then surely it would be above the Otus on the DxO list. So is it above that? I want to see the bokeh of the Sigma as the 35 ART wasn't a home run on that front.

I started at photozone.de with Nikon 14-24 because their reviews are nice and clear and are easy to compare. These guys just review their personal lens and ask on their forum for people to send them lenses to review. They try to examine several copies so they know what they present is a fair sample and not a poor sample.

Unforunately they didn't have a FF Zeiss 35mm review so I went to Lenstips.com. These guys give the best reviews out there, by far the most acurate and detailed. They work along side a shop in poland to get most of their review samples. I just don't like their webpage format so much.I compared the sigma and the zeiss 35mm and the sigma looked better overall. Some measures like distortion and vignetting are easy to compare in the sigma review.

As for DXO, as Ksanti and I have said earlier, DXO take into account the transmission profile of the lens in their scoring. If a lens lets in slightly more light than another (Otus 50mm vs sigma 50mm art) then it scores higher even if some of the other attributes are lower. But the transmission value doesn't affect image quality in the same way that vignetting or distortion does. As with DXO's sensor scores you need to ignore the overall score and look at the details. The Zeiss lens have a better transmission because they don't have auto focus elements

The Otus may well have a slight sharpness advantage over the sigma 50mm (but that mostly seems to be in the center), but it is very clear that the sigma is better controlled for other optical aberrations.

D.P. · 22 Apr 2014 at 19:54

Above&Beyond said:
Go and use a Zeiss 21. Autofocus for a landscape is absolutely useless anyway.

The Nikon is useful for many things beyond landscape, group shots, street, club etc. where AF is very useful

Above&Beyond · 23 Apr 2014 at 17:45

D.P. said:
I started at photozone.de with Nikon 14-24 because their reviews are nice and clear and are easy to compare. These guys just review their personal lens and ask on their forum for people to send them lenses to review. They try to examine several copies so they know what they present is a fair sample and not a poor sample.

Unforunately they didn't have a FF Zeiss 35mm review so I went to Lenstips.com. These guys give the best reviews out there, by far the most acurate and detailed. They work along side a shop in poland to get most of their review samples. I just don't like their webpage format so much.I compared the sigma and the zeiss 35mm and the sigma looked better overall. Some measures like distortion and vignetting are easy to compare in the sigma review.

As for DXO, as Ksanti and I have said earlier, DXO take into account the transmission profile of the lens in their scoring. If a lens lets in slightly more light than another (Otus 50mm vs sigma 50mm art) then it scores higher even if some of the other attributes are lower. But the transmission value doesn't affect image quality in the same way that vignetting or distortion does. As with DXO's sensor scores you need to ignore the overall score and look at the details. The Zeiss lens have a better transmission because they don't have auto focus elements

The Otus may well have a slight sharpness advantage over the sigma 50mm (but that mostly seems to be in the center), but it is very clear that the sigma is better controlled for other optical aberrations.

The Sigma isn't an apochromatic (APO) lens like the Zeiss so will show more aberrations. That's what the early reviews seem to be indicating. We will see when the production run of the Sigma is released on the Nikon mount and see what it performs like on the D800E.