Otus is Scharf
I’m probably setting myself up for a replay of the Exo Tria Arxidia scene, but my friend Bernhard introduced me to the German term scharf the other day. It can mean both sharp and hot (as in spicy, or as in, you know, hot). After testing our first copies of the Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus lens I felt the term scharf was just perfect to describe this lens.
As you know, I usually like to have a half-dozen or more copies of a lens before testing, but in this case getting a half-dozen copies all at once doesn’t seem likely. We received two of the 20 something Tyler ordered and don’t know when more will show up. Both of these appeared well-centered, as expected, and Zeiss primes usually have small sample variation, so I thought testing the two before the went out for their first rentals was still worthwhile.
Description
I always enjoy reading online where people trash a pre-release lens even though they’ve never held it. In this case, 7,364 people had told me how huge this lens was and that they wouldn’t have one as a gift because of it’s gigantic size. It is definitely bigger than most standard-range primes, as you can see in the comparison below with a Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro Planar and a Nikon 58mm f/1.4 G, neither of which is considered a small lens.
Bigger, yes, but certainly not huge. My first thought was it was about the size of a 24-70 f/2.8 lens and most people don’t seem to need a heavy-duty tripod and gimbal head to shoot with one of those. So here’s a size reality check.
| Zeiss 55mm Otus | Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 G | Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 G | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length (inches) | 5.5 | 5.2 | 5.2 |
| Width (inches) | 3.6 | 3.3 | 3.8 |
| Filter (mm) | 77 | 77 | NA |
| Weight (lb) | 2.1 | 2.0 | 2.1 |
I guess that was pretty close. The Otus is large for a prime lens, but not significantly larger than the everyday zooms we use.
I can’t say what you’ll think of the appearance, but I love it. Very sleek and minimalist. The focus ring has the typical smooth Zeiss throw with a cinema-like 248-degree rotation. I found it extremely accurate. The D800 doesn’t have the very best live view LCD, but I had absolutely no trouble determining good focus in live view. Even using the viewfinder I was fairly accurate, and I’m quite viewfinder-manual-focus challenged.
Let’s compare what’s inside with some similar lenses.
| Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 | Nikon 58mm f/1.4 G | Canon 50mm f/1.2 L | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elements/Groups | 12/10 | 9/6 | 8/6 |
| Aspheric Elements | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Special Glass | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Min focus Dist (in) | 19.7 | 23 | 18 |
| Aperture blades | 9 | 9 | 8 |
Optical Comparison
This lens is supposed to be one of the best optics ever made. To see just how good the resolution might be we tested it on a Nikon D800e.
For comparison purposes, we used the new Nikon 58mm f/1.4 G, which we’d previously tested on D3x cameras (our standard Nikon test camera). Here are the test results for both lenses at f/1.4 on a D800e. Results are MTF50 in line pairs / image height at the center, averaged across the entire lens, and averaged in the 4 corners.
| Center | Average | Corner Avg. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nikon 58mm f/1.4 | 700 | 560 | 480 |
| Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 | 965 | 810 | 690 |
Those are pretty spectacular numbers for the Zeiss, particularly off-center. Stopped down things get even better.
| Center | Average | Corner Avg. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| f/1.4 | 965 | 810 | 690 |
| 2 | 1010 | 895 | 740 |
| 2.8 | 1255 | 1090 | 870 |
| 4 | 1320 | 1190 | 1000 |
| 5.6 | 1335 | 1210 | 1030 |
| 8 | 1265 | 1180 | 1000 |
It’s worth noting how smoothly the resolution goes up with decreasing aperture, basically maximizing by f/4. Not that f/4 is necessary to get great resolution. By f/2.8 this lens is already sharper than most excellent lenses will get at any aperture. Here are some comparisons of the Zeiss at f/2.8 with other lenses at f/4 or f/5.6.
| Center | Average | |
|---|---|---|
| Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 @ 2.8 | 1255 | 1090 |
| Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 @ f/5.6 | 1105 | 990 |
| Zeiss 25mm f/2 @ f/4 | 1215 | 1015 |
| Nikon 58mm f/1.4 @f/5.6 | 1160 | 940 |
| Nikon 24mm f/1.4G @ f/5.6 | 1185 | 845 |
| Nikon 50mm f/.14 G @ f/5.6 | 1075 | 890 |
By f/2.8 the Otus has higher resolution than any of the other lenses we’ve tested, even when those lenses are stopped down to their best resolution. (Those are D800 results, not D800e, so they would all be slightly higher on the ‘e’, but the illustration is still pretty clear.)
Finally, I’ll note that the Otus has a very low 0.8% distortion.
There’s a lot more to a lens than just resolution, of course, and reviewers and photographers are already making a lot of images to show you how the Otus does with those other things. But looking at the build and resolution, it’s most definitely scharf.
A Few Pictures
I got about 60 minutes this weekend when there was daylight without rain and took a few pictures. Jpgs compressed to web-viewing size are fairly worthless for this kind of thing, so I’ve also posted the 100% jpgs online HERE. Feel free to download if you want to pixel peep. They’re all just out-of-camera jpgs; you’d get even better results with some processed raw images.
These were done quickly, mostly manual focus through the viewfinder. Failure to focus properly is entirely the responsibility of the focuser, not the camera or lens. I really did find it quite easy to manually focus.
I won’t try to say whether the Otus is worth $4,000 to you. But I can certainly say that Zeiss did what they said they had done: gave it exceptional performance even in the corners at widest aperture. From a resolution standpoint, it is, as Zeiss said it would be, “the absolute best SLR lens in the world today.”
Roger Cicala
Lensrentals.com
November, 2013
76 Comments
James Sinks ·
Please, please, please, please do a quick coma test with this one. None of the Zeiss samples were suitable for spotting coma.
CarVac ·
I remember you tested the Coastal Optics 60/4 as achieving 1300 [whatever units] on a D800…have you retested that on the D800e?
Of course, it’s not really a “cheaper option” than the Otus, but it’s certainly in the same league for image quality (unless you’re trying to shoot in the dark).
ginsbu ·
It seems to me Zeiss is really aiming at the medium format market with this lens, so the relevant comparison should be a f/2.8 normal on medium format vs Otus on a D800e. If the Otus measures up, it starts looking like a bargain by comparison. Do you still have any of the Hassy stuff around, Roger?
Ben ·
Amazing lens!
Andreas Weber ·
Not to forget, “scharf” isn’t only “hot” as applied to spices – the same equivalency holds for girls as well 😉
Roger Cicala ·
Andreas, we would never forget that 🙂
Archer1960 ·
I was going to ask the same thing as CarVac: how does this lens compare to the Coastal Optics macro?
Bernhardas ·
That Zeiss is totally cute. (The dog)
I hope he is only photographed with lenses that bear his name.
🙂
Ian Anderson ·
Bring on the big prints! I bet you’ll be able to enlarge these shots many times over for massive prints. I hope the rumored 24mm and 85mm are every bit as good as this first Otus lens. Roger, thanks again for your great tests…
Photon Jess ·
Very impressive test results. I think ginsbu’s comment is interesting…I don’t know if Zeiss or Nikon are aiming at the medium format market, but certain types of work have gradually migrated to smaller formats throughout the history of photography. I wonder whether, right now, the total frame detail possible with the 36MP D800e and Zeiss Otus is roughly comparable with that of a 40-60MP medium format camera with a top grade lens.
Photon Jess ·
Also, while I could not justify the cost for a 50mm for my uses, I’m sure some can, and if Zeiss designs wide angles to this level of performance, who knows, someday it could be worth it – and certainly worth a rental for specific tasks!
billy chiu ·
Have you guys tested the Leica Noctilux 0.95 current version?
According to Popular Photography a few years ago, that lens was their highest tested lens up to that time.
Roger Cicala ·
Billy, we did in our ‘great 50mm shootout’ a couple of years ago, but there were some adapters used in that test, something I wouldn’t do today and therefore don’t recommend. But in testing just with Leica glass on Leica cameras the 50mm Summilux, from a pure resolution standpoint, was a tiny bit better than the Noct.
Stephen Lathrop ·
Thank you very much. Pretty obviously a lens for someone shooting for large prints to consider carefully, especially if you like blurred backgrounds. On my monitor your sample images suggest that top-notch color and contrast have not been left out of the mix either.
A comparison with the performance of the Zeiss 50 MP at various apertures seems like it would be very much on point—especially for shooters who often stop down for max resolution. I have previously thought of that lens as the best 50mm available for 35mm format, and the price advantage is notable, even if it has now become the almost-best.
Roger Cicala ·
I have results up for the 50mm f/2 Makro Planar on the d800 posted somewhere. It’s very very good. It’s not nearly as good as the Otus.
roger
Richard ·
It is amazing how much more one has to pay for each step up the goodness scale from the plain old 50mm f/1.4G. Spending four times more for the 58mm only gets you a 7 percent gain in center resolution (at f/5.6). To get a 24 percent increase over the 50, you have to spend $4,000 or about 10 times as much.
I know that there are a lot of other factors that go into lens goodness and I’m sure these lenses are worth every penny, but thank heavens everything in life doesn’t require such huge expenditure jumps for just a little more quality.
CE ·
How does the Otus compare with the 50mm Zeiss Makro-Planar?
Joe ·
I wonder what one of these Otus lenses with the Alpa FPS and an IQ280 look like. The image may or may not be big enough, but the image itself would push the lens as far as possible.
Rob Sherwood ·
I only own one Zeiss, the 18mm f/3.5 in Canon mount. All my Canon wide angles went on eBay. It is wonderful to see a company ship the quality they promised with no spin. It is more common today to ship the product too soon and work out the bugs later.
CarVac ·
I was reading the archives, and Roger said in a comment that a Hasseblad with a normal lens achieved 1600 LP/PH. I guess it’s still another world out there in medium format.
BArry ·
—-Spending four times more for the 58mm only gets you a 7 percent gain in center resolution (at f/5.6). To get a 24 percent increase over the 50, you have to spend $4,000 or about 10 times as much.–
@Richard — I think the point is not so much the “center”. Almost all 50mm lenses will produce sharp results at the very center of the frame. However, most 50’s…even amongst the very best, have significant issues not just in the corners, but in the majority of the frame outside the very center (20%) of the lens. It’s primarily an issue of design, and Zeiss has tackled the problem by treating this lens as if it was a wide angle. The numbers are “exceptional” in this type of lens, and…. from a price point of view (in that it can provide near MF resolution and can practically be used as a true cinema lens — minus the gear the focus markings)…it’s really not that out of whack.
KimH ·
No worries – you used “scharf” perfectly! No Exi Tria here,,, you can trust Bernhard 🙂
Carl ·
It will be even more interesting to see how this lens resolves on next year’s high MP Canon body. Also I agree with James Sinks’ suggestion, to do a comparative coma test of these lenses. A lens with little or no coma in the outer 50% of the image, would be something interesting indeed…especially on an f/1.4 lens.
richard ·
@BArry…I agree that the lens is worth it, it’s just that I’m always amazed by how much it costs to raise quality by a certain percentage. I’m sure that the Nikon engineers are very proud they were able to put so much visual magic into the lens at the price they did, but I bet the Zeiss engineers were thinking the same thing. It’s all a matter of expectations. Imagine the lens you could get if you were willing to spend $10,000 for a 50mm 1.4….
Sara ·
That glass looks fantastic. I would be happy to see it with an autofocus. Is it so diffcult?
Lars ·
If you only had tested it on lower ISO. The 100% JPGs are noisy as hell. Can you shot more images with a lower ISO please?
Roger Cicala ·
Lars, I’m afraid not – the lenses are all gone. It was pretty cloudy this weekend and light was weak.
ginsbu ·
@CarVac — Roger didn’t note which sensor or at what aperture his 1600lw/ph was based on, but I’d say 60+MP sensors assure medium format an advantage in sheer resolution. The advantages of medium format go beyond that, though: slower, f/2.8 normal lenses can offer superior correction of aberrations and more balanced performance across the frame. I think Zeiss is aiming to offer similar characteristics at an equivalent aperture of f/1.4 (or thereabouts) on 135 format. It’s also worth bearing in mind that many applications may not need the full resolution offered by high-resolution MF backs — 30-40MP may be enough, so long as the lenses can keep up. Similarly, some of the claimed disadvantages of the Otus (size, manual focus, cost) don’t look so problematic for someone comparing against medium format. And bodies like the D800e offer many advantages over medium format of their own: higher ISOs, smaller size, much lower cost, etc.
Anyway I’m curious how close a D800e + Otus gets to, say, a 40MP MF-back with f/2.8 normal. Does D800e + Otus get close enough at equivalent apertures to temp someone who otherwise would have felt medium format was her only option?
Blake ·
Glad to see the Zeiss 25mm f/2 held up so well…
DavidF ·
A little bit off-topic. Question about your dog Zeiss. He looks a lot like my two dogs, Bailey and Buster, who are both beautiful Giant Schnoodles (mom’s a Giant Schnauser, dad’s a Standard Poodle, both brothers from the same litter). They’re both jet black, about 90-100 lbs. each and one of the highlights of my life. I know a lot of other dog breeds kind of look a bit like my GS’s, but I thought I’d ask as there aren’t a heck of a lot of Giants around. Happy Holidays!
As to the lens, well, for those who can afford it, wow. I’d love to have one, but I’m a working photographer budget slave who will accept slightly less resolution for the chance to have more “arrows in my quill” However, who but Zeiss would finally make such a lens? Leica probably comes close, but to use one, well, you need to have only a Leica camera. Score one for Zeiss team, the worlds most obsessive compulsive manufacturer of commercial level optics. Maybe when I retire and just carry one camera and one lens. Sigh.
Roger Cicala ·
David, mine are Portuguese Water Dogs, which if I remember the pedigree correctly are cousins to Schnauser’s and related to Poodles. Everyone thinks they are LabraDoodles, but Labradoodles, if I understand correctly, are well behaved so they definitely aren’t those. PWDs are either getting petted, or doing something they aren’t supposed to be doing.
Randy ·
Carl would be proud. This lens has all the qualities you expect from Leica, hand assembly, German made, very high price. But this seems to be a case where you can really see where the money went. It’s not marginally better; it’s distinctly better.
Chicago Photographer ·
And how does it compare to the Leica ASPH 50’s both the 1.4 and f2.
Rick Knepper ·
The real test for Zeiss will be producing corners as sharp as these on a 15mm or even 21mm lens and keeping prices reasonable. There’s several reasons why the 35mm format became so popular, one of them being price. I see this as an extreme divergence from 35mm history. The “regular” 15mm ZE/ZF.2 got a rave review over at CR. Does one buy the “best full frame ultrawide lens available for Canon DSLRs” or wait for whatever Otus has to offer in UWA?
Bill Guinn ·
Roger, thanks for this and all the wonderful reviews. It seems that this lens may have about reached the point of diminishing returns from a cost/performance perspective. Having designed a few lenses and paying for FPL53 blanks I know its getting pretty close. Regardless do you know what the maximum resolution of the 800e sensor is? It would be nice to know just how close this lens is to the limit (knowing of course glass can’t get there).
Carl ·
Rick, the very inexpensive Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 gets very close in resolution to the Zeiss 15mm (from the tests and samples I have seen online, anyway…google the comparison between the Nikon 14-24, the Zeiss 15mm, and the Rokinon 14mm). The color and contrast (and “microcontrast”) are not close. But given what you can do in post, I would opt for the cheaper lens ($300 vs $3000…maybe that’s just me? Spend the rest on the future 40+MP Canon body…). That said, I feel the best Zeiss value out there is the 18mm f/3.5. I might buy one someday. The color and contrast look stunning, even if the resolution is not very high. As for what the Otus version of a wide angle lens would be…no doubt it would exceed that of the current Zeiss wide angles, but at what cost? Given the current 15mm one is $3000, would an Otus version be $13,000? At least for a wide lens, autofocus is even less necessary. Perhaps there won’t be an Otus lens wider than 24mm or so?
Peter ·
Waiting for the Canon version. From the test video shots (links below), it should also be a superb 2K and 4K video lens. I wonder if it will undermine Zeiss own Cinema Prime sales – Otus is quite a bit cheaper
Video test shots:
http://vimeo.com/79534108
Interview in Japan FF to 3′ 50″
http://vimeo.com/79456702#
Press Correspondent ·
You should rake your leaves, Roger.
Roger Cicala ·
If I wait long enough my wife will do it.
Roger
bubuli ·
“If I wait long enough my wife will do it.”
I believe Roger has won the internets…at the expense of sleeping at the couch for a whole year when his wife reads this.
Roger Cicala ·
I’m very brave online. My wife never, ever reads this stuff.
One of the best things about doing this is being able to say “No, honey, it’s not a hobby. It’s my job! I have to go take pictures now, the leaves will just have to wait.”
Actually, now that I think about it, I think the right answer is, “Honey, I need those leaves on the ground for testing purposes.”
Alex ·
Have you considered doing a shootout between this on the D800 and a 40mp Medium format setup?
Chuck Jones ·
Great writeup Roger, thanks as always for taking the time to do it. Good friend Michael Prince received his new OTUS probably about the same time you got your two, and had very similar things to say. I posed an interview and some of his test shots here, for anyone interested: http://thecameraforum.com/zeiss-otus-reality/
Roger, have you heard anything for certain about what the next focal lengths in the OTUS line will be, or when we will hear more details? Zeiss is being quite mute with me on the subject.
Roger Cicala ·
Thank you, Chuck. That’s a nice interview.
I haven’t heard anything other than rumors – but if I had I’d probably have had to sign a nondisclosure so I couldn’t say anyway.
Chuck Jones ·
I sure do hear you on the NDA thing. As a journalist, I certainly respect “off-the-record” for now, but I have a serious conflict of interest signing anyone’s non disclosure agreements. Probably a good reason nobody tells me much of anything ;=)
And for the factual record, the leaves decaying in the yard are good natural fertilizer .
derek ·
outstanding , no doubt about that , but I just wish it were smaller. I do not mind the weight of the Zeiss Otus but it is just too huge… for me 4k price is fine as a lens is this good but the size alone makes it impractical for me.
the Nikon 58mm f1.4G looks really lousy and I do not get that even if it costs 800US.
Nikon should be embarrassed about it.
RVB ·
@
It seems to me Zeiss is really aiming at the medium format market with this lens, so the relevant comparison should be a f/2.8 normal on medium format vs Otus on a D800e. If the Otus measures up, it starts looking like a bargain by comparison. Do you still have any of the Hassy stuff around, Roger?
Medium format has the huge viewfinder and leaf shutters for super fast cash sync and these are not available in canon or nikon…
This lens does look amazing though and the shots on the flickr pool are very impressive..
Robin ·
Is it better than the Summicron APO 50? You confidently state it is the best, but have you compared it to this? How does it compare to the 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH? Just wondering. Not sure who needs this lens to be honest, but it does keep you optical testers alive and kicking.
Jilm ·
Just bought this amazing lens to mount on my d800e.
Amazing quality all around. I look forward to see what else Zeiss is planning.
genotypewriter ·
Thanks, Roger! Your write-ups are always refreshing to read because you back your claims up with reasons and/or evidence 🙂
It would be very cool and informative if you could show some side by side 100% crops of how things look when shot with the Otus versus other good lenses at max, largest common, best and diffraction limit f-numbers.
Thanks and keep up the great work.
G
Michael ·
A couple of the pictures suggest substantial vignetting, particularly the leaves. Pretty easily fixed in processing, but surprising. Am I mistaken?
Dave (D&A) ·
Thanks ever so much for your write up of this fascinating lens. Although resolution numbers have many thinking “medium format”, there is still something “image wise” to shooting a larger sensor camera.
Someone “above” posed a interesting question and that was how the Otis did with coma and point light sources. This is one of the strengths of the new Nikon 58mm lens and I have yet to see any comments how the Otis performs in this regard.
Dave (D&A)
Dave ·
The Sigma 1.4 / 35mm Art looks equally sharp @f1.4 as the Otus and lenstip.com confirms that if one compares the resolution charts. I found the colors from the Otus more natural though.
Could I respectfully ask for a feedback about these theoretical findings from somebody who owns both lenses? Thanks!
DK
David ·
Great stuff. I made that berry shot a wallpaper, it’s dreamy.
What I’m most interested in, though, isn’t resolution. I don’t put much stock in that with an f/1.4 lens unless I’m shooting star trails. What does matter, particularly where low-resolution computer screens are the final rendering medium, is bokeh, contrast, and color.
I’d love to see back-to-back shots of real subjects with cheaper lenses, ideally with raw images available. There’s so much you can do with Photoshop. I want to find out just how close I can get in post, which will then tell me if I need to upgrade.
On resolving power again: it’s also a point of amusement to me that of all the real-world test shots on another lens testing website, only about half were in focus. Nick that focus ring a tenth of an inch in the wrong direction and you’ve lose $3500 of resolution.
Anyway, it’s always nice to a see a manufacturer reaching (and achieving) greatness in some sphere. Thanks for the writeup.
pieter kers ·
As this will be the reference lens, one of the things interesting is to see how the lens behaves at d11 and d16.
Correct me if i am wrong, but i think we would actually see the possible resolution at those apertures on the d800e 36MP.
AJ ·
Roger, just wondering if you’re related to Pavlov or just adding to his work?
Can I give my bank manager your address as a reference?
Can you give Nikon Zeiss’ address and contact details?
🙂
Thanks for the review!
Andy ·
I was expecting Vignetting to be as poor on this as it is on other Zeiss lenses, but how bad is it? I see quite a few posts about the strengths, but weekness seem to be brushed under the rug.
The pictures above appear to have severe vignetting, but exactly how much would be interesting to know.
Roger Cicala ·
Andy and others, it does clearly vignette at f/1.4, but that’s not something I measure. I’m sure some reviews that measure vignetting will be out soon.
Shepherd ·
Second what David said above, I would love to compare raw images of some of the other midrange primes with my venerable old 50. I love the thing to death (a 4-ounce lens that’s very sharp stopped down makes for a happy backpacker!) but I sometimes wonder what things would look like if I took the shot with another normal prime. Money is not the only concern for me – the weight is a real concern when walking up to 30 miles a day. It’d take a whole lot of better for me to carry a different midrange prime that adds almost two pounds to my pack. For that weight, I could keep the lightweight 50 and add / swap something else neat!
Carl ·
Robin, those are Leica M mount lenses and are not compatible with Nikon or Canon full frame cameras. The distance from the rear of the lens to the plane of the sensor (or film) is too small with M-mount lenses, but they work on micro 4/3 camera bodies (with an adapter). There is someone who saws the front of a 5D2 off and then mounts Leica lenses to it, google him. Also, for those wanting to compare this Zeiss to a medium format f/2.8, it seems to me it would be difficult to compare, since the image circle isn’t remotely close to the same size. I could be wrong, maybe there’s a way to somehow mount a 35mm lens on a MF camera, but it seems like it wouldn’t work. If you’re just discussing how the resolution of the final image done on a MF digital body with its f/2.8 lens, compares with this Zeiss on the D800e…that’s more a comparison of apples and oranges, it seems to me. A larger image circle makes ultimate lens resolution less of a factor, unless the pixel diodes are the same size. But even then a larger image circle (and sensor) has advantages.
Phil ·
can you make a MTF50 in line pairs / image comparision to Nikkor 200mm F2? Should be sharpest lens made by Nikon.
L.P.O. ·
For those interested, LensTip has their review up at http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=390
They seem to like the lens a lot, only complaining about vignetting (which is, though, roughly on the same level as with other similar instruments if you look at the numbers).
And, just to add my own Exo Tria Arxidia: did you know that “otus” is Finnish and means “creature”? My guess is that Zeiss didn’t have that in mind when naming the lens.
Andrew Burday ·
This is absolutely, totally irrelevant to any real issue, but every time I look at the title of this post I have the same thought: the people at Zeiss really need to work on their English language marketing. “Otus” just does not work in English. It makes me think of odious and otiose and an awful odor. It’s Mr. PItiful, sitting on the dock of the bay, wasting time.
Ok, brief rant over. Of course if it weren’t so far out of my tax bracket I’d buy one, even if they had called it “Steaming Dog Turd”. Just… “Otus”… No. Just no.
Carl ·
Andrew, good point. “Otis” was the town drunk in Mayberry, for those of us who might have seen a certain tv show from back in the day. He was harmless though, because the only reason he stayed drunk is so he could sleep it off in the jail and not have to go home to his wife. I don’t have so much problem with the name “Otus” though. There are worse names…much worse.
LPO, the lenstip review is interesting, but it’s a shame they don’t use a D800E, rather than the D3x.
However, I’m pleased to see that their test clearly shows my Cosina Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton, is in second place behind the Otus, for maximum resolution at optimized aperture (slightly ahead of the Zeiss Macro Planar), and in third place from f/1.4-f/2.0 (ahead of both Nikkor lenses). It’s also the best value of all of these lenses at around $445, in my opinion. It’s more than enough resolution on my 6D. The bokeh may not be quite as smooth as the Canon 50 f/1.2, but it’s more than good enough considering price.
Robin ·
Yes, agree it’s a stupid name. Why not call it “Bob”? I didn’t realize lenses had to have names? Will there be more Otuses (Otae?). Sounds like a collection of country hicks.
Agree the Leica-M lenses are not “SLR lenses”, but you can now use them on such cameras as the Leica M240 and Sony FF A7 with EVFs, so the mount is rather irrelevant these days, hence my question about th’Otus’ performance relative to the Leica M 50s.
Stephen Scharf ·
Roger,
“Scharf” also happens to be my last name! We’re relatively far and few as last names go…
When I was doing a lot of pro motorcycle racing photography, a coupla of the pro roadracers nicknamed me “Sharpshooter” because my last name meant sharp in German.
Cheers,
Stephen “Sharp” Scharf
Richard ·
I love the look of this lens, but am disappointed its manual focus, as I have been considering D4 or DF with the standard and 35mm. But I need auto. I see many references to it being the sharpest – but I can’t see any reviews of this against the Leica Apo Asph FLE 50mm Summicron. I saved for a year for this and bought it and it substantially out performs anything else I’ve ever had. It would be very significant to see a comparative test between the 2 lenses.
michael boyle ·
ROGER, ISN’T THE COASTAL OPTICS 60 MACRO EVEN MORE SCHARF ?
OR IN OTHER WORDS,THE BEST SLR LENS IN THE WORLD TODAY ?
CAN YOU TEST ONE OR RENT THEM PLEASE
THANKS,
MICHAEL
Roger Cicala ·
Michael, we do rent them. I’ll retest them one of these days (we did it on older cameras so not a direct comparison).
ferrif ·
Mr Cicala,
Just out of curiosity, did you shoot any picture stopped down to f/4 or f/5,6, and if yes, would you care to upload them as an addendum?
The DOF is very shallow at f/1,4 on a full frame camera, hence it probably does not really do this lens justice.
Again, I’m just curious, this lens is practically worth my cam and my three most used primes… Highly unlikely I’ll ever cough up $4000 for a 50mm.
Michael Watt ·
Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus lens is no doubt an elitists optic that floats in the clouds beyond the consideration of us mere mortals. I don’t doubt the optical qualities of this lens but I question the practical application that for most output is destined for magazine print or screen monitors. Even many camera senors would be hard pressed to capture the pixels this lens would throw at it. An analogy is that it would be nice to drive a Lamborghini to the corner shop to buy a loaf of bread but the same job can be done riding a bicycle. In low light work this lens may have a distinct advantage but you would have to be earning pro mega-bucks and specializing in low light work to justify purchasing this lens. I consider this is a wonderful plaything for millionaires and an optic that is waiting for the rest of the photographic industry and recording media to catch up.
Will ·
And I thought scharf was short for sharp as f#(%…
Max ·
Crazy sharp lens. http://flic.kr/p/itiBhr
Lynn Allan ·
Roger,
Any chance you and OLAF would participate in a discussion thread on DPReview regarding the resolution of a full-frame sensor that would be a suitable match for the Zeis Otus 50mm f1.4 ?
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53559809
Arthur Meursault ·
Despite the cost, size, weight, manual focus, I still keep my Otus 55mm in my carry bag and often mounted to my D850. It’s my go to lens when I really want spectacular results and don’t require AF. Sharpness is one aspect but it’s really in the way that it paints. The Otus just does something that other lenses can’t manage.
Arthur Meursault ·
Despite the cost, size, weight, manual focus, I still keep my Otus 55mm in my carry bag and often mounted to my D850. It's my go to lens when I really want spectacular results and don't require AF. Sharpness is one aspect but it's really in the way that it paints. The Otus just does something that other lenses can't manage.