Arka wrote:
By MF, do you mean Manual Focus or Medium Format? If the latter, I'm not following you. This optic isn't going to convince anyone shooting a larger format to drop down to 35mm. Moreover, it doesn't even necessarily save you weight over some MF systems. A Leica 70mm f/2.5 Summarit for the S-system weighs a little over a pound and a half, costs only $1000 more, and has an AF motor! Granted it's slower than Otus, but it is also feeding light to a much larger S-series sensor. By contrast, Otus is feeding a 35mm sensor, but it weighs almost twice as much as a Canon 50mm f/1.2 (which is even faster, feeding the same size of sensor, and has AF). ...Show more →
yes medium format
certainly one lens is not going to make a difference, but when more become available, and even higher res bodies come along, maybe it will. Maybe the summarit is not much more expensive, but you need an S body for it.
Spyro P. wrote:
Tariq, I dont know how many people can notice thinness or are even concerned by it, but they are all certainly concerned with detail, and will gladly take the cash savings and all the other advantages that come with 35mm.
My hunch is this is probably wrong. I don't think absolute detail is the main quality most MF shooters are after. Subtle tonal transitions and overall rendering due to the larger sensor (a certain depth of color, file pliability at low ISO's and so forth), beyond just shallow dof, are all reasons folks often shoot MF. The detail/ resolution is only one small part of it. For that reason, I don't see MF shooters ditching their rigs for 35mm FF setups no matter how good the glass is.
JohnJ wrote:
Why is there only one sample image at F1.4, the portrait? All the others are stopped down, so prove little.
I was curious to see how longitudinal CA, purple/green bokeh CA, Spherochromatism call it what you want, was with this lens but there is no useful image to show that aspect of performance, at any aperture where it would be an issue (it's not an issue at F5.6). The Leica R 50/1.4 E60 is particularly poor in this respect (based on my own tests), so I wonder if there will soon be a glut of them on the market? It might not be fair to compare the 2 lenses (as the Zeiss is clearly the 'better' and more advanced lens) but the prices are not that far apart, and I think (not certain) the new price for the 50/1.4 E60 was higher than the Zeiss!
Also, I'm not sure about the bokeh of the Zeiss. Maybe I haven't seen enough samples but I'm not convinced yet. So far I've noticed a fair few with a slightly double line effect, but maybe I'm imagining it. It seems nice overall, but not ideal....Show more →
LoCA alone is not the cause of spherochromatism. Spherical aberration causes veiling haze. And Lloyd's PF means primary (in focus) LoCA. Combined effect of these two aberrations is spherochromatism. Pretty sure that mean you can expect no to low level.
it has very low levels of any sort of PF and PF/GF, look at the video and the f/1.4 samples
hiepphotog wrote:
Not actually assuming anything. I actually looked at his tests and comparisons to other 50s. Also, you seem to think that spherochromatism is just spherical aberration even though it's not. It's the combined effect of both LoCA (on axis, in focus aberration) and spherical aberration (most noticeable as veiling haze). And there is no need to use your French. I tried to point you to the right source. But if you prefer not, then I'll not engage in this conversation any further.
how come you call LoCA in focus aberration when it it abberation that goes behind and in front of the plane of focus?
I would prefer affordable full 645 or 67 digital back over this. Cause most likely if futures goes this way, we will have quite heavy FF cameras with insanely heavy lens.
Might be reason why there are rumors of manufacturers looking up on MF market? Maybe they realised that its much easier to make lens capable of resolving 36 mpix 645 digital back than 36 mpix FF?
skibum5 wrote:
how come you call LoCA in focus aberration when it it abberation that goes behind and in front of the plane of focus?
That's what some might call secondary LoCA. Primary aberration occurs in the in-focus area: LoCA in the on-axis/center frame area, TCA in the off-axis/corner area. You can find the definition on toothwalker (an FM'er) website: http://toothwalker.org/optics/chromatic.html or if you read the Zeiss MTF/Bokeh articles from Dr. Nasse.
Why is it so heavy? I mean wtf? A Noctilux or Summilux is a fraction of the weight, and very capable FF 35mm lenses from Canon and Sigma deliver very good results at a fraction of weight... and they have built-in AF motors!
And why is it an Otus?? What the heck is an Otus??
ps very good results is one thing but when a lens is several stops better than you pay the price. maybe it's because Leica has defined photography for me for the majority of my time in this hobby, but I think this is an amazing lens at an amazing price. clearly people want the world for a pittance, but I think if we look objectively at what other lenses in this class of optics cost, we ought to be downright grateful that Zeiss has gone a route that at least makes the lens reasonable for a pro or well finance amateur.
It's an extra 170 grams above the ZE 35mm f1.4, and costs an extra $2300. Zeiss are firmly of the view that larger, more complex lenses are better, and combined with the exotic glass in this one, I'd say it will achieve all they wanted from it. It's heavy because it is a no compromise effort, twice the number of elements as a regular 50mm, amazing attention to glass selection, with materials and no doubt QA to match.
Technology filters down, so it is important for makers to produce these kinds of lenses. I agree it's good value, too much for almost all, but good value nonetheless and very likely to hold value well.
j.liam wrote:
If you will own a 2014 56MP D5 or 65MP 1DMk.V and make a living off of it, a 50/1.4 G, 50/1.2 L or 50 MP likely won't do.
In fact, no existing Nikkor or Canon will "do".
That's who this 'thing' is for.
But the problem is the diminishing return to scale and actual target market. Luxury lenses like Otus are sold more to collectors (gearhead) than actual pros. I have rarely meet a pro who is willing to spend money on luxury lenses. They need to get the job done, and cost/performance is very crucial to them.
From a gearhead perspective, I'm sure this Otus offers unparalleled performance comparing to lenses currently on the market. But how long can it maintain for? And how about the bragging right (yes gearheads do that)?
Nikon Noct and Canon 50 F1.0L have no substitutes. And even at today standard, they produce incredible images that other can come close to, but never replaced. The same goes with Leica Noctilux. It is the fastest high-performance lens in existence for Leica M.
If Nikon and Canon both have 50MP+ on their roadmap, I'm sure they would update their PRO lens offering accordingly. Heck, take an example of Nikon 28-70mm vs 24-70mm. While the former is reaching its resolution capability on a D800, the latter has no problem of keeping up.
Let's say that Nikon actually produces the 58mm F1.2 AF-S it had patented, (or whatever pro 5*mm they are planning on launching) I would be very surprised that it doesn't have the required resolution power to match the pro-cameras line-up down on the roadmap. At that point, the premium of Otus starts to fade quickly.
As a gearhead, I think the Otus didn't quite get that. A F1.4 lens at such a premium can be easily replaced by a cheaper and more attractive/exclusive alternative. I think if Zeiss had redesigned their 55mm F1.2 Jahre, that would be far more interesting. As gearheads out there do associate a premium with fast lenses (again, Noct, Noctilux and 50L)
hiepphotog wrote:
In short, he said it's as good as (or better than) all of the APO he has shot with (minute trace of bokeh CA). I don't have the Leica subscription, but he keeps bringing up the veiling flare issue of the Cron 50 APO. This one is much better in that department. Based on the MTF (one can draw the same conclusion when Zeiss publish the MTF), it does have a bit astigmatism in mid frame and a slight field curvature at the edges. From the MTF chart, I have not seen one better (including the 180/2.8 APO and 280/4 APO)....Show more →
The LC's focus on flare in this comparison with the APO-Summicron is not very useful, in my opinion. Leica admitted that this was a manufacturing failure, now apparently resolved and invited customers who experience the flaring issue to send their lens back for a complete refurbish. I wonder if he found any other significant differences.
azenis wrote:
But the problem is the diminishing return to scale and actual target market. Luxury lenses like Otus are sold more to collectors (gearhead) than actual pros. I have rarely meet a pro who is willing to spend money on luxury lenses. They need to get the job done, and cost/performance is very crucial to them.
From a gearhead perspective, I'm sure this Otus offers unparalleled performance comparing to lenses currently on the market. But how long can it maintain for? And how about the bragging right (yes gearheads do that)?
Nikon Noct and Canon 50 F1.0L have no substitutes. And even at today standard, they produce incredible images that other can come close to, but never replaced. The same goes with Leica Noctilux. It is the fastest high-performance lens in existence for Leica M.
If Nikon and Canon both have 50MP+ on their roadmap, I'm sure they would update their PRO lens offering accordingly. Heck, take an example of Nikon 28-70mm vs 24-70mm. While the former is reaching its resolution capability on a D800, the latter has no problem of keeping up.
Let's say that Nikon actually produces the 58mm F1.2 AF-S it had patented, (or whatever pro 5*mm they are planning on launching) I would be very surprised that it doesn't have the required resolution power to match the pro-cameras line-up down on the roadmap. At that point, the premium of Otus starts to fade quickly.
As a gearhead, I think the Otus didn't quite get that. A F1.4 lens at such a premium can be easily replaced by a cheaper and more attractive/exclusive alternative. I think if Zeiss had redesigned their 55mm F1.2 Jahre, that would be far more interesting. As gearheads out there do associate a premium with fast lenses (again, Noct, Noctilux and 50L)...Show more →
Because of its performance at f/1.4, the highly corrected Leica Summilux-M is worth every penny. This Zeiss brings even better performance to DSLR at the same price point. It is the only 50mm DSLR lens I am aware of that offers really good performance at 1.4. I think it will become quickly popular among people who love the 50mm FOV and want better f/1.4 performance than Planar design can deliver.
azenis wrote:
But the problem is the diminishing return to scale and actual target market. Luxury lenses like Otus are sold more to collectors (gearhead) than actual pros. I have rarely meet a pro who is willing to spend money on luxury lenses. They need to get the job done, and cost/performance is very crucial to them.
From a gearhead perspective, I'm sure this Otus offers unparalleled performance comparing to lenses currently on the market. But how long can it maintain for? And how about the bragging right (yes gearheads do that)?
Nikon Noct and Canon 50 F1.0L have no substitutes. And even at today standard, they produce incredible images that other can come close to, but never replaced. The same goes with Leica Noctilux. It is the fastest high-performance lens in existence for Leica M.
Let's say that Nikon actually produces the 58mm F1.2 AF-S it had patented, (or whatever pro 5*mm they are planning on launching) I would be very surprised that it doesn't have the required resolution power to match the pro-cameras line-up down on the roadmap. At that point, the premium of Otus starts to fade quickly.
As a gearhead, I think the Otus didn't quite get that. A F1.4 lens at such a premium can be easily replaced by a cheaper and more attractive/exclusive alternative. I think if Zeiss had redesigned their 55mm F1.2 Jahre, that would be far more interesting. As gearheads out there do associate a premium with fast lenses (again, Noct, Noctilux and 50L)...Show more →
I think this lens is more of a specialty lens, like big telephoto lenses are, than a luxury lens. Also, you're probably giving the Noct-Nikkor a bit too much credit. From what I've heard its main strength is very little coma, but it's not really sharper than the other 58/1.2 or 50/1.2 lenses (from Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Konica, Canon).
If Nikon reintroduces the 58/1.2, the question is if it offers the same level of performance as this Zeiss at f/1.4. I think that's doubtful, unless they go to great lengths to redesign it. Almost any 50mm lens can give enough resolution for a future 50+ MP sensor when stopped down to f/8, but at f/1.4 there is currently no other lens than this Zeiss with the same level of performance (esp. outside the image center).
hiepphotog wrote:
That's what some might call secondary LoCA. Primary aberration occurs in the in-focus area: LoCA in the on-axis/center frame area, TCA in the off-axis/corner area. You can find the definition on toothwalker (an FM'er) website: http://toothwalker.org/optics/chromatic.html or if you read the Zeiss MTF/Bokeh articles from Dr. Nasse.
LoCA doesn't occur just at the plane of focus, the whole point is that it tosses different frequencies at different depths instead of all at a single plane of focus and it doesn't just occur in the center frame but across the entire frame, center, mid and corner.
Lateral CA is the only the occurs more the closer to the corner you get and is all in plane of focus.
When some FMers start posting their phots, I may change my view, but so far, not drawn to it. I may need to grow up to understand it. ( Love 50P rendering ) Recent Zeiss does not seem to have the 'zeiss look' people love/hate. Too brand for me. ( I have not been drawn to 50MP either.)
Spyro P. wrote:
yes medium format
certainly one lens is not going to make a difference, but when more become available, and even higher res bodies come along, maybe it will. Maybe the summarit is not much more expensive, but you need an S body for it.
I've become used to the S2 with 70 mm Summarit and all I can say is that to me the new Zeiss looks fine on the flickr page. Nice contrasts, colors, corner sharpness, etc. It's just that when I look at the Nikon 800e files, there doesn't seem to be any believable texture in these images. Everything looks the same, metal, skin, fabric, stone, it all his this lifeless plastic look. I don't know if this due to the 56% bigger sensor of the S, or it's a CMOS vs CCD thing, both or something else.
(including the 180/2.8 APO and