Lloyd Talks Up Zeiss Otus

[paulsydaus]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Lloyd chambers has reviewed the Zeiss Otus 50/1.4 and reckons

"When everything is considered, the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon is without a doubt the finest lens ever produced for a 35mm SLR or DSLR (or rangefinder). It sets a new benchmark."

Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon | BH inDepth

[semi-ambivalent]

Lloyd chambers has reviewed the Zeiss Otus 50/1.4 and reckons

"When everything is considered, the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon is without a doubt the finest lens ever produced for a 35mm SLR or DSLR (or rangefinder). It sets a new benchmark."

Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 APO-Distagon | BH inDepth

 

Oh no!! Anything but the Black Cat Test!...

[Guest borge]

Just waiting for a re-designed 50mm APO-Summilux 1.4 ASPH to ship from Leica which beats this and the APO-Summicron in optical performance. Price: Noctilux territory. It's over ten years since the current design was released, so it makes some sense.

[Stealth3kpl]

I'd certainly like a smaller 50 lux, but optically it seems just about perfect.

Pete

[wattsy]

I'd certainly like a smaller 50 lux, but optically it seems just about perfect.

 

Agree on both points.

[Keith (M)]

All well and good on a big, heavy DSLR (if it has a focusing screen good enough to take advantage), but 141mm long x 925mm dia & 970g on an M? Hmmm...

[Guest Marc G.]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think zeiss had a much easier job at creating this lens than e.g. leica had with the 50 summilux asph or the 50 APO. From the looks of it size and weight were totally uninteresting rather than pure performance. i think ,given the lens has no autofocus on a system that (today) is largely dependant on autofocus, it is a bit of a one trick pony although it does this trick fairly well

[cpclee]

The Zeiss does look flawless except size / weight. I think the new lines threatens the S system more than the M?

[tobey bilek]

Zeiss needs to make focus screens for DSLRs as Katz Eye has two problems. Their mold will not accommodate screens big enough to cover a 100% viewfinder like a D3 or D4 Nikon or D800. My D700 has one, but that camera is not 100%. The second issue is the screen needs to be optimized for 1.4 lenses, not 5.6 lenses. This is done by adjusting split image prism angles. Downside is 4.0 lenses , perhaps 2.8, will show some darkening with half the split. That or make a real "ground glass" focus screen like the visoflex or Leica R cameras. Or make one with cross hairs which is the epitome of accurate focus, but not practical for daily use except for a tripod picture. The limitation here is the pitch of the focus helical as the method is that good.

 

Lloyde has long said there is no good way to to manually focus a DSLR. Live view is best but not practical usually. I have to agree. One tester of the Otus did a cat picture and made 10 exposures to get one in focus. If one can not achieve reliable focus, a perfect 1.4 lens is worth nothing.

 

Nikon had a nearly perfect focus system with the F and F2. Pop the prism off, drop out the old screen, drop in the new & replace prism. Prisms were cut for various speed lenses , wides and teles. There were also plain ground glass and all over small micro prisms. Just about anything was available and it was practical to change unlike todays dslr where you need careful work with a pry tool and then adjust screen height perhaps by changing paper thin shims with consumer cameras or the nice adjustment screw with pro cameras. This is not a field operation, trust me as I have done it. It takes an hour to get everything back.

 

Auto focus is a joke if you are critical. Even with fine tune, what you need is between adjustment discrete steps sometimes. There is no way to predict fine tune adjustment from one camera to the next either. One needs a test set up and to work it out trial and error. Half an hour per camera per lens. Sometimes what is correct for infinity is not correct for close range. Zooms have their issues. Then there is the dreaded focus shift no auto focus system can accommodate.

 

After all this, remember film cameras were not perfect either as film was never flat like a sensor. Contax made one slr with a vacuum pressure plate. Film in the Hassy moved depending how long it sat in the exposure plane position. Sheet film in holders bulged depending on temperature and humidity. Accuracy of holders also needs checked so the film is in the same position as ground glass.

 

I have no idea how mirrorless might solve some of these issues. Right not the viewing is unacceptable to me and that makes everything else moot.

[tobey bilek]

The Zeiss does look flawless except size / weight. I think the new lines threatens the S system more than the M?

 

A D800 and the best lenses is completive with S2. It is better by a country mile considering price.

[semi-ambivalent]

The Zeiss does look flawless except size / weight. I think the new lines threatens the S system more than the M?

 

If you've lived in DSLR-land for any period of time you've become inured to the bulbous shape of camera bodies and big/long 6.3 zooms. I'm not in the market for it but it's good that SLR users are introduced to the world of $LARGE lenses; it takes some of the onus off Leica as rich man's candy. Hope Zeiss sells a lot of these.

 

Your thought about the S system threat is on point.

[paulsydaus]

Agree with everyone about the size and weight. Is anyone a member? I wonder what the MTF curves look like?

[Guest]

I'd certainly like a smaller 50 lux, but optically it seems just about perfect.

Pete

 

I'd like it to focus as easily as the good old Summicron 50mm to be truly perfect in use.

[menos I M6]

The Zeiss does look flawless except size / weight. I think the new lines threatens the S system more than the M?

 

The Zeiss is a nicely educated optical showpiece.

 

One (or a small line) of exceptional manual focus SLR lenses in combination with a high resolution 35mm DSLR hardly threaten the S system (or any of the established medium format systems for that matter) though.

 

These systems are a slight bit more than a 40 megapixel number and one exceptional manual focus only lens.

[wattsy]

One (or a small line) of exceptional manual focus SLR lenses in combination with a high resolution 35mm DSLR hardly threaten the S system (or any of the established medium format systems for that matter) though.

 

Dirk, I agree with you that there is much more to medium format than extra resolution and I suspect you are right that a new line of exceptional DSLR lenses (in combination with a new generation of high resolution 35mm sensors) doesn't specifically threaten the S system. The latter has kudos attached by virtue of being a Leica system (and will be bought by many because of that) in addition to being a very fine photographic tool. However, I think you are wrong if you don't think the current direction of travel in the marketplace towards exemplary lenses and high resolution sensors will impact on the already struggling medium format sector generally.

[menos I M6]

Ian, at the costs of these new high performance 35mm lenses there is no savings, comparing them with medium format lenses.

 

Yes, one does pay less for a camera body/ digital back, but how many lenses/ camera body one buys?

How many focal lengths of high performance 35mm lenses are currently available?

 

How about Autofocus, leaf shutters, tethering, …

 

On short term there is no threat to established medium format systems, because there are now high resolution 35mm sensors available.

 

I see these lenses as very, very interesting masterpieces of optical houses, who do offer special purpose lenses for people with compact, fast 35mm systems (which do not stay compact with such large sized lenses).

These will not revolutionise the industry.

 

Would this lens not be so large, I would have some interest in trying one in Nikon mount.

As there is no optimal provision on focussing these lenses throughout the optical finder of current Nikon cameras, this will never happen though :-(

[wattsy]

Ian, at the costs of these new high performance 35mm lenses there is no savings, comparing them with medium format lenses.

 

Yes, one does pay less for a camera body/ digital back, but how many lenses/ camera body one buys?

 

I think the cost of the bodies is the key point. Medium format lenses have always been expensive but the cost of a medium format film body never used to be the price of a perfectly good car. Back in the day:D it wasn't prohibitively expensive for a jobbing professional or keen amateur to build up a medium format system of 3-5 lenses and a couple of bodies and that investment was good for a whole career. In the digital universe, the economics are very different and I don't think you should underestimate how attractive a DSLR like the D800E is at £2500 compared with a Phase or Hasselblad MF body at £18000. The advent of a new line of top class lenses makes the D800E an even more attractive option. If Zeiss (and Sigma with their new ART lenses) can provide a wide enough range of first rate lenses to marry with a high resolution DSLR, the 'traditional' medium format system will almost inevitably be an even harder sell than it already is.

 

Incidentally, I don't think it is an accident that the Zeiss Otus and Sigma ART lenses are large and have the appearance of modern medium format lenses like those in Hasselblad H system.

[Paul J]

Medium Format Digital can be bought, second hand, for relatively crazy prices these days. I have a P65+, which on ebay can be bought for a third of what I paid for it only 4 years ago. It has been a good tool and has made me money, but still, it's depressing. Considering I bought a 75mm Summilux 2 years ago and it has almost doubled in value.

 

 

There is no matching Medium Format IQ with small formats though even in relative Pixel Count.