This 50 do have beautiful Bokeh from what I see. This is one of the portions it leap ahead compare to Sigma 35 other than APO.
I do want it but until I see how my other DSLR 50 perform on D800 or A7r at WOto decide if I really need it If I buy it, it is because of center to 2/3 frame sharpness, but I have to pay up to extreme corner There are no lens perform as close good as this one in DSLR land, yet.
I can imagine a set of three 28/55/85 will be very sexy in anyone's bag for $15000~18000...
Oct 09, 2013 at 10:26 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Is this lens the first f/1.4 lens that is also APO? I can't think of any others. The latest Leica M 50, 75, & 90 crons are all APO, and the last Leica R 90 and 180 crons were APO, but I don't think Leica has ever made a summilux APO. Others have made longer focal lengths with narrower apertures APO, but I believe this is the first f/1.4 lens that is that highly corrected. I also believe that is a considerable accomplishment because if I understand the physics right correcting aberrations gets exponentially harder as the aperture gets wider.
That helps me keep the price in perspective. I was thinking this would be a well corrected 55 f/1.4 for about $3,000. It turns out it is both better corrected and more expensive than I expected. I suppose that is an understandable trade off.
carstenw wrote:
Actually, I am not aware of any great 50/2 lenses for DSLRs? The 50MP isn't one, it has iffy boke and corners.
I think I have to (partially) disagree here. IMO there is nothing wrong with the corners of the 50MP. At 4.0. these are good and at 5.6 excellent. The bokeh can be indeed a little "iffy" sometimes.
Color, (micro)contrast and sharpness nearby and on infinity are excellent IMO. I must admit that I don't know any of the Leica 50mm lenses, but for CANIKON I think the 50MP is the best "affordable" option available. For good bokeh the 50/1.4 planar is not a much of an improvement IMO. For good bokeh we need this OTUS I think.
Well, I have posted comparison images from 50P and 50MP here before, and in most of the frame the 50MP is sharper, but the corners suck. Note that I was shooting wide open, so we don't actually disagree. I was just disappointed, that's all. And the 50P definitely has much nicer rendering, IMO. Anyway, I still have both.
Don't forget older lenses. I was simply amazed by the humble Nikkor 50/1.8 AI-S "longnose". Small, light, sharp and with nice bokeh. Of course it doesn't give as nice colors as modern lenses, but the rendering and sharpness is still there.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Is this lens the first f/1.4 lens that is also APO? I can't think of any others. The latest Leica M 50, 75, & 90 crons are all APO, and the last Leica R 90 and 180 crons were APO, but I don't think Leica has ever made a summilux APO. Others have made longer focal lengths with narrower apertures APO, but I believe this is the first f/1.4 lens that is that highly corrected. I also believe that is a considerable accomplishment because if I understand the physics right correcting aberrations gets exponentially harder as the aperture gets wider.
That helps me keep the price in perspective. I was thinking this would be a well corrected 55 f/1.4 for about $3,000. It turns out it is both better corrected and more expensive than I expected. I suppose that is an understandable trade off....Show more →
It is badged a Distagon, so does this mean it is retro focus? Would that make it any easier to be APO?
Oct 09, 2013 at 08:26 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Grenache wrote:
It is badged a Distagon, so does this mean it is retro focus? Would that make it any easier to be APO?
I don't think it would make it easier for it to be APO. AFAIK none of the distagons are APO and I think this is the first retrofocus APO lens. That suggests if anything it may have been harder to make it APO.
Grenache wrote:
It is badged a Distagon, so does this mean it is retro focus? Would that make it any easier to be APO?
Yes. Making it retrofocal (to which the Distagon name refers -> more distant from the sensor plane) should provide more room for additional elements to correct aberrations, so that's how it's easier to make it apochromatic than a symmetrical Planar design. It's also the reason why the lens is so big.
Not like other contemporary lenses, this heavy Zeiss has no AF nor IS/OS/VR so handheld shooting is really tough task, and it may take time to get an acquaintance to huge'n'heavy combo( Canon, Nikon, Sony ). I have a Mamiya 50mm ULD, and a Hassy 250mm SA have the same weight as this, my solution for this is a pistol grip with trigger that plays as a remote shutter. The right hand holds the grip, the index finger on the trigger, the left hand on the focus ring.When the camera beeps ( AF on ) pull slowly but firmly the trigger. Just's my 1$.Goodluck.
ADD: The best option is screw the grip to the tripod mount at the balance point of the combo, and the worst case is attach it to the camera bottom.
There are plenty of combinations of very similar payloads with no stabilisation aids, Zeiss's own 35/1.4 is just 170 grams less than this one. And the FL is not long, so good technique will benefit the outcome.
I found this article very useful, written by a US Army sniper:
AhamB wrote:
Yes. Making it retrofocal (to which the Distagon name refers -> more distant from the sensor plane) should provide more room for additional elements to correct aberrations, so that's how it's easier to make it apochromatic than a symmetrical Planar design. It's also the reason why the lens is so big.
The design of the 60mm Coastal Optics f/4 APO Macro also looks to be retrofocal, though a little simpler in design to this Zeiss. The front section of the Zeiss actually looks almost identical to the Coastal in fact. In addition to having more elements for corrections, those elements are often of very special glass types - Calcium Fluoride in the Coastal, Anomalous Partial Dispersion in the Zeiss.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
In addition to having more elements for corrections, those elements are often of very special glass types - Calcium Fluoride in the Coastal, Anomalous Partial Dispersion in the Zeiss.
In the case of the Coastal, that lens is also specifically designed as a UV lens which is likely why Calcium Fluoride is used. I don't know if the Anomalous Partial Dispersion glass has the same desirable transparency to UV light. I believe someone had asked about this Otus and UV photography so it might not be that compatible for such uses (Forensics and other UV Photography). I suspect Zeiss would have designated it a UV lens and/ or made mention of it somewhere if it was UV compatible.
From your link:
"Exposure tools for the semiconductor industry make use of fluorite optical elements for ultraviolet light at wavelengths of about 157 nanometers. Fluorite has a uniquely high transparency at this wavelength. Fluorite objective lenses are manufactured by the larger microscope firms (Nikon, Olympus, Carl Zeiss and Leica). Their transparence to ultraviolet light enables them to be used for fluorescence microscopy."
Lotusm50 wrote:
By the way, do we know who will be manufacturing the lens? I haven't seen anything about location of production. Germany, Japan, somewhere else? Cosina makes no mention of it (in contrast to their discussion of Zeiss' ZF/ZE/ZM lenses, which they do make), so I suspect they might not be involved.
Toothwalker wrote:
I am a bit disappointed by the vignetting though. Somehow I was under the impression that it would be less than the usual 2 stops, but it is not.
Wow, vignetting on a 55mm lens with a 77mm filter size!
So more than 2 stops?
Tariq Gibran wrote:
In the case of the Coastal, that lens is also specifically designed as a UV lens which is likely why Calcium Fluoride is used. I don't know if the Anomalous Partial Dispersion glass has the same desirable transparency to UV light. I believe someone had asked about this Otus and UV photography so it might not be that compatible for such uses (Forensics and other UV Photography). I suspect Zeiss would have designated it a UV lens and/ or made mention of it somewhere if it was UV compatible.
From your link:
"Exposure tools for the semiconductor industry make use of fluorite optical elements for ultraviolet light at wavelengths of about 157 nanometers. Fluorite has a uniquely high transparency at this wavelength. Fluorite objective lenses are manufactured by the larger microscope firms (Nikon, Olympus, Carl Zeiss and Leica). Their transparence to ultraviolet light enables them to be used for fluorescence microscopy."...Show more →
I forgot that the Coastal Optics lens was a UV-VIS-IR lens, but the other link said this:
"In the early years of the 21st century the stepper market for calcium fluoride collapsed and many large manufacturing facilities have been closed. Canon and other manufacturers have used synthetically grown crystals of calcium fluoride components in lenses to aid apochromatic design, and to reduce light dispersion. This use has largely been superseded by newer glasses and computer aided design."
Of course that doesn't mean that the Otus uses the same specific type of APD glass that is used in wafer stepper optics though.
AhamB wrote:
I forgot that the Coastal Optics lens was a UV-VIS-IR lens, but the other link said this:
"In the early years of the 21st century the stepper market for calcium fluoride collapsed and many large manufacturing facilities have been closed. Canon and other manufacturers have used synthetically grown crystals of calcium fluoride components in lenses to aid apochromatic design, and to reduce light dispersion. This use has largely been superseded by newer glasses and computer aided design."
Of course that doesn't mean that the Otus uses the same specific type of APD glass that is used in wafer stepper optics though.
If I buy it, it is because of center to 2/3 frame sharpness, but I have to pay up to extreme corner 
There are no lens perform as close good as this one in DSLR land, yet.
