Interesting blog post on the Otus and Summilux-M and SL

[hteasley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2018/12/zeiss-otus-55mm-f14-apo-distagon-t-vs.html?fbclid=IwAR2_-AKj_jrjGLCSRJhAIz-S_T7uy8Xxx2tAjvsq6nz-zV_-r8-wgR75iO8

A nice read. I like reading someone more knowledgable than myself about optic design coming to the same conclusion I have, that the 50SL is as magnificent a lens as has ever existed. There are times when I use other cameras and lenses, where I wonder if I'm fooling myself about camera or lens quality, and think maybe I'm convincing myself that the 50SL is the best lens I've ever used... and then there are times when it seems obvious that it is.

Anyway, a good read.

[Brian C in Az]

He actually states that the Leica is #3 in the world. He also said:

Quote

Whatever it may be, it is very clear that if a photographer works under controlled conditions and can take his/her time to do things quietly, being able to accurately focus, both in studio and outdoors, with the lens on a tripod, the Zeiss Otus 55 mm f/1.4 Apo-Distagon T* will get the best results.

But if already the legendary world-class Leica expert Tom Abrahamsson doubted if vast majority of Leica photographers could ever use the Summilux-M 50 mm f/1.4 ASPH drawing its full stunning potential, you can imagine the fairly good technique and experience needed to obtain only the 90% potential of the Zeiss Otus f/1.4 Apo-Distagon T*, which is probably the most perfect lens designed , with a large image circle of 70 mm and obtaining an extraordinary image quality in center, borders and corners, with a great evenness of optical performance, even at its widest aperture, without any fall-off, with the added advantage of a flange distance length of around 45 mm enabling infinity focus with most of technical cameras and a state-of-the-art multicoating spawning an admirable light transmission, great contrast and a virtual absence of ghost and flare

 

The article was not well written and it is very difficult follow his thoughts. At times he seems to contradict himself, but then after rereading several several times, you can see that he does state the Zeiss is the best lens, the R280 f4 is another great lens, the 50SL is a distant third. 

His love of the 50SL is for it's small size, considering the speed of the lens, and having AF and IS built in a small package at a 1/3 of the weight of the Zeiss.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Steve7]

21 minutes ago, Brian C in Az said:

His love of the 50SL is for it's small size, considering the speed of the lens, and having AF and IS built in a small package at a 1/3 of the weight of the Zeiss.

The 50 1.4 SL weighs more than the Zeiss Otus doesn't it? 1065g for the 50SL and either 1030 (Canon) or 970 (Nikon) for the Zeiss.  Also the 50SL does not have IS as far as I know.  I do not (yet) own any of the lenses in question.

[jrp]

Erwin Puts compared the M Summilux with the Otus http://photo.imx.nl//zeiss/styled-45/.

It is the M Summilux that is #3, not the SL. 

[Chaemono]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Brian C in Az:

...

The article was not well written and it is very difficult follow his thoughts. At times he seems to contradict himself, but then after rereading several several times, you can see that he does state the Zeiss is the best lens, the R280 f4 is another great lens, the 50SL is a distant third. 

His love of the 50SL is for it's small size, considering the speed of the lens, and having AF and IS built in a small package at a 1/3 of the weight of the Zeiss.

Just making things up or a typo?

[thighslapper]

11 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

He actually states that the Leica is #3 in the world. He also said:

The article was not well written and it is very difficult follow his thoughts. At times he seems to contradict himself, but then after rereading several several times, you can see that he does state the Zeiss is the best lens, the R280 f4 is another great lens, the 50SL is a distant third. 

His love of the 50SL is for it's small size, considering the speed of the lens, and having AF and IS built in a small package at a 1/3 of the weight of the Zeiss.

yup ..... it is a bit of a rambling muddle.

suffice it to say that all the lenses discussed will probably exceed the capabilities of those pointing them at the subject ...... all are optically a class above most of what you can buy. 

[didier]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If the summilux M 50 is #3 , how is the Apo 50 ranked ? I find my copy to be way ahead the lux 50 ?

[Brian C in Az]

12 hours ago, Chaemono said:

Just making things up or a typo?

Typo,

He jumps back and forth rambling about the 50 M and then the 50 SL and concludes the article stating the 50 M is 3rd with the Otus being the leader followed by the 50 SL. 

[Ivar B]

He should probably have putten some more work into the report to make it clearer, but the conclutions reached are not surprising and confirmed by others I guess. Probably the SL 1.4/50 and the Otus 1.4/55 for all practical purposes are equal, and probably match the M APO 2/50. The M 1.4/50 somewhat behind. But like he points out, given the size constraints the performance is still very impressive. He also refers to the 4/280 which everyone praises, but it is also interesting that users of the SL 90-280 zoom claim that the zoom is as good as the 4/280 at 280mm focal length. 

Edited December 8, 2018 by Ivar B

[Conrad69]

On 12/2/2018 at 10:51 PM, hteasley said:

https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2018/12/zeiss-otus-55mm-f14-apo-distagon-t-vs.html?fbclid=IwAR2_-AKj_jrjGLCSRJhAIz-S_T7uy8Xxx2tAjvsq6nz-zV_-r8-wgR75iO8

A nice read. I like reading someone more knowledgable than myself about optic design

At least you have the audacity to admit that you know little about optics design. This blog entry is one of the most amazing and verbose displays of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have seen in a while. My brain still hurts a bit.

[BernardC]

19 minutes ago, Conrad69 said:

At least you have the audacity to admit that you know little about optics design. This blog entry is one of the most amazing and verbose displays of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have seen in a while. My brain still hurts a bit.

Totally agree. It feels like it was written by a bot. It's a condensate of hearsay, advertorials, misunderstandings, and "world renown" pompousness, with very little substance underneath.

[Ivar B]

2 hours ago, Conrad69 said:

At least you have the audacity to admit that you know little about optics design. This blog entry is one of the most amazing and verbose displays of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have seen in a while. My brain still hurts a bit. 

Must admit the Dunning-Kruger effect was unknown to me. Just checked. You learn something every day.

[hteasley]

19 hours ago, Conrad69 said:

At least you have the audacity to admit that you know little about optics design. This blog entry is one of the most amazing and verbose displays of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have seen in a while. My brain still hurts a bit.

You mean "humility" or "self-knowledge", not "audacity". That José Manuel Serrano Esparza is not a native speaker of English seems pretty obvious, but of course he shouldn't be given any consideration there. Doubtless his professional bio at http://www.reportajes-jmserrano.com/principal.html does not equal yours. I look forward to reading your optical design insights.

[IkarusJohn]

Oh, I don’t know. That sounds all very democratic, but is it really fair?  

I don’t know much about optics, and I enjoy reading informative articles. I hate wasting time and effort reading stuff that later turns out to be half-baked bunkum.  I’m grateful when some one points out that an article isn’t worth reading.  It used to be easier to tell, with reputable journals peer reviewing what was submitted before it was printed.

These days with the internet, it can be hard to sift properly researched material from alternative facts and fake news. Some one had the audacity the other day to suggest that the climate was changing as a rssult of human activity!  I mean.  Really!

[jaapv]

At any rate, I didn't make it past the first paragraph...

[Conrad69]

2 hours ago, hteasley said:

You mean "humility" or "self-knowledge", not "audacity". That José Manuel Serrano Esparza is not a native speaker of English seems pretty obvious, but of course he shouldn't be given any consideration there. Doubtless his professional bio at http://www.reportajes-jmserrano.com/principal.html does not equal yours. I look forward to reading your optical design insights.

No, I meant "audacity" in its meaning of "willingness to take bold risks". I overlooked that it also can mean "disrespectful behavior". Thanks for notifying me that I could have been interpreted the wrong way. Can happen as a non-native speaker.

And yes, I am critical on both his writing skills and optical knowledge. And I do not bring a lot of factual backup nor reputation to the table while claiming this. But since you are interested in what my optical design insights are, I will give you one example why I think his are limited:

On the retrofocus design of the Otus, he comments the following: "The Zeiss Otus ...  includes DNA of the highly successful and proved .. Carl Zeiss Distagon medium format", followed by: "That´s why its extraordinary bokeh boasts such a great smoothness and subtlety  (typical of the medium format)". This is mixing up the marketing speak of Zeiss with his own (incorrect) interpretation.

He hints to something that is inherited (DNA), and then chooses bokeh. But reality is different. Out of focus rendering is dominated by pupil aberrations. These are easy to manage for f/2.8 or slower designs, and difficult for fast designs, especially close to f/1.4 and faster. This is format and focal length independent. The reason medium format is known for its bokeh, is that f/2.8 or f/4 lenses exhibit already significant background blur, while having the smooth pupils enhancing the effect. The correct statement would have been that the Otus achieves a highly pleasing out-of-focus rendering despite its heritage in the old Distagon lenses. There was a major invention needed for that and in his haste to mention all the great names in optics design, mr. Serrano Esparza fails to mention the most amazing thing about the Otus design. Instead, he takes the implied message of a marketing department, and makes up a logic that has no real basis. This shows lack of knowledge.

And yes, he is likely a better photographer than I am, but I fail to see the connection with him having optics design knowledge.

[Irakly Shanidze]

I was really struggling to understand what was the point of the article aside from using it as an opportunity to display some lens porn. A comparative review without a single picture taken with the optics under discussion is a travesty.

[caissa]

I found this article confusing, and I am not sure if the author is also a bit confused.😄

[hteasley]

On 12/9/2018 at 5:50 AM, Conrad69 said:

No, I meant "audacity" in its meaning of "willingness to take bold risks".

Deferentially admitting ignorance is not taking a bold risk, so I fail to see where I have been audacious. Leave aside the secondary definition, your notion of the primary definition as controlling confuses me. I only mention it given the "glass houses" maxim when it comes to critiquing something: it's best not to commit the sort of errors you're condemning someone else for.

Your contention that f2.8 or f4 lenses already exhibit significant background blur, after having said that all of this is focal length independent... there must be something I must be misreading, because I believe that's just wrong. Focal length has a great deal to do with depth of field characteristics and out of focus rendering. My understanding is medium format is known for good bokeh primarily because, for a given field of view, a MF camera uses a longer lens than a 35mm camera; 80mm is normal for MF, while 50mm is normal for 35mm.

When you say, "the Otus achieves a highly pleasing out-of-focus rendering despite its heritage in the old Distagon lenses," confuses me, as the Otus is a Distagon lens. So, there's that, too. Again, I'm not illuminated by what you said; I'm more doubtful, but am open to clarification.

On the whole, I found the historical information in the article interesting, and I found his inability to stop singing the praises of the Summilux-SL, in an article ostensibly about the Otus and 50mm Summilux-M, pleasing and amusing. It's a rambly article, but it's clearly an ESL product, and I'm particularly forgiving of that.

Edited December 11, 2018 by hteasley

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Brian C in Az]

On 12/8/2018 at 5:35 AM, Conrad69 said:

At least you have the audacity to admit that you know little about optics design. This blog entry is one of the most amazing and verbose displays of the Dunning-Kruger effect I have seen in a while. My brain still hurts a bit.

The correct word is humility. Neither definition of audacity appropriately conveys HT's intentions. His intentions are what are most important in defining his words; not how you interpret them.

As far as the D-K effect as defined in Wiki: 

Quote

The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. 

That is just another example of highly educated, narcissistic people pointing out the splinter in their neighbor's eye even though they have a stick stuck in their own eye (to borrow a phrase spoken 2000 years ago).