DMJ Posted September 9, 2014 Share #1 Posted September 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just silly thinking, but I wonder if Zeiss could use their knowledge of the 'big' Otis range to produce for a Leica M fit? To me something doesn't sit correctly making fantastic manual lenses for cameras (Nikon & Canon) that are based around autofocus. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2014 Posted September 9, 2014 Hi DMJ, Take a look here Otis 85mm f1.4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
james.liam Posted September 9, 2014 Share #2 Posted September 9, 2014 Reserve judgement until after the details of the upcoming ZM 1.4/35 are published. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 9, 2014 Share #3 Posted September 9, 2014 I think it's because the lenses can be so big that they are so good. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 9, 2014 Share #4 Posted September 9, 2014 Size matters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
james.liam Posted September 9, 2014 Share #5 Posted September 9, 2014 Size matters Indeed. But also 7/11 elements are special glass; 6/11 anomalous dispersion + 1 aspheric to boot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted September 9, 2014 Share #6 Posted September 9, 2014 Just too insanely big, it's atrocious. Holding an Otus lens is like holding a big salami and thinking you're so exclusive while the next guy sipping his Dom Perignon doesn't give a damn and wins it everytime. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted September 9, 2014 Share #7 Posted September 9, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I already adapt the ZF 100mm Marko Plannar to the M. So if you feel the need for enormous lenses it's already possible. You couldn't use the RF even if they were coupled, due to the size so I see no benefit in an RF version. And the makro planar is completely unbalanced. Until you put a grip on the M and then it's fabulous. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 9, 2014 Share #8 Posted September 9, 2014 Indeed. But also 7/11 elements are special glass; 6/11 anomalous dispersion + 1 aspheric to boot. Yup. All these elements is why the lens is so big. They had to make the 55 a Distagon (retrofocus) design to fit all the fancy elements in it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted September 9, 2014 Share #9 Posted September 9, 2014 Sample raw file shot at f/1.4 with the Otus 85/1.4 on a Nikon D800E: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6KucEm6Lp0nZXF6NWZOVmFSbWc/edit?usp=sharing Open that file up at 100% and prepare for your jaw to drop. There is absolutely zero need for any kind of sharpening, wide open. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted September 9, 2014 Share #10 Posted September 9, 2014 It is indisputable that new Otus is fabulous optics but so is Hubble Telescope. Typical M lens fits comfortably inside Otus lens hood so in terms of practicality for Rangefinder photography there is no comparison, even before we compare ease of focusing on RF camera. On sheer size alone this should be not discussed here, maybe S forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 9, 2014 Share #11 Posted September 9, 2014 It is indisputable that new Otus is fabulous optics but so is Hubble Telescope. Hubble Telescope is not very good for portraits. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted September 9, 2014 Share #12 Posted September 9, 2014 Hubble Telescope is not very good for portraits. It all depends how far the subject is I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted September 9, 2014 Share #13 Posted September 9, 2014 It all depends how far the subject is I suppose. Indeed. But the subject needs to be at infinity, and then the Hubble may be too sharp for infinitely old people. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted September 10, 2014 Share #14 Posted September 10, 2014 It is indisputable that new Otus is fabulous optics but so is Hubble Telescope. Typical M lens fits comfortably inside Otus lens hood so in terms of practicality for Rangefinder photography there is no comparison, even before we compare ease of focusing on RF camera. On sheer size alone this should be not discussed here, maybe S forum. Stupid comparison is stupid. And what is Rangefinder photography? Is this something else than Photography? By the way, at 85mm and f/1.4 with such razor sharp optics and at that resolution (36 megapixels), it is actually easier to manually focus with good accuracy on a DSLR with Live View and a moveable focus point with magnification. Why? Because at that focal length and aperture, and such sharp optics, and at that resolution (36 megapixels) you can forget everything you've learnt about focus and recompose to get sharp images on a rangefinder. Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted September 10, 2014 Share #15 Posted September 10, 2014 Otis! My man! (Sorry you guys across the pond, I think maybe you have to be American to get that reference). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rirakuma Posted September 10, 2014 Share #16 Posted September 10, 2014 Both Otus has its uses for the right job. I wouldn't consider it to be an everyday type of lens but I can see some working pros appreciate the technical strengths. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted September 10, 2014 Share #17 Posted September 10, 2014 Both Otus has its uses for the right job. I wouldn't consider it to be an everyday type of lens but I can see some working pros appreciate the technical strengths. It's mainly ment to be lenses for people that have transitioned or are transitioning from medium format to 35mm high-resolution cameras (D800, D810, A7R) that needs the absolute highest amount of IQ and resolution in a small and light package (compared to medium format equipment a D810 and especially a A7R and an Otus lens is small and light-weight). It's not ment to be a pocket camera and lens like the M's. That's what people need to understand. Different tools for different purposes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted September 10, 2014 Share #18 Posted September 10, 2014 Stupid comparison is stupid.And what is Rangefinder photography? Is this something else than Photography? By the way, at 85mm and f/1.4 with such razor sharp optics and at that resolution (36 megapixels), it is actually easier to manually focus with good accuracy on a DSLR with Live View and a moveable focus point with magnification. Why? Because at that focal length and aperture, and such sharp optics, and at that resolution (36 megapixels) you can forget everything you've learnt about focus and recompose to get sharp images on a rangefinder. Sorry. Why apologise, I think you've missed Mladen's point entirely? I think we all agree that a lens of this kind, when used at F1.4, is beyond the focussing accuracy of a Leica RF and is less than practical when used with a live view that doesn't allow the magnified focussing point to be moved away from the centre (such as found on the M240). It's a superlative lens that belongs on a DSLR and, hence, not in this section of the forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted September 10, 2014 Share #19 Posted September 10, 2014 It might be interesting if there were a really good screen available for manual focus. Then there needs to be a decent way to change them. Nikon F was decent. Leica R could be done inside with the tools. Well Nikon is not going to make a model or screen so Zeiss can sell their lenses. "So sharp it does not need sharpening." ALL DIGITAL CAPTURE needs sharpening. Actually fine detail gets lost because of the space between pixels. Then the system needs to interpolate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted September 10, 2014 Share #20 Posted September 10, 2014 We have two issues here that leave me cold in presence of Otus brilliance. Call me old fashioned, one example; once glamour shots were more glamorous than current crop photographed with ultra sharp lenses and sensors, seeing every skin pore and pimple even below layer of makeup is not pretty but forensic. Pursuit of optical perfection is creating tools for clinical photography. Given a choice between best and second best lens I would strive to choose best, on small RF camera best lens in the one that works well on it. As said above best big lens works best on big camera (DSLR), on small M camera small M lens is better than best Otus marvel. There is one additional issue that makes pleasure of using best MFN lenses difficult. Both Canon and Nikon are deliberately obstructing screen replacement on flagship models to deny sales to Zeiss. I have D700 (digital Metusalem) fitted with KatzEye screen and my Macro Planar 100mm is pleasure to use. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.