Ya, he is a troll. I don't understand people like him. Must be some sort of self esteem issue? Maybe we should create a thread for him and guys like Jorge Torralba so they can pump each other's ego about how sharp their lenses are.
Ohh ya, that wouldn't work... they would still continue to troll other threads claiming their superior intellect and gear.
very few photographers have the ability to maximize the perfection found in the Otus, and certainly wouldn't be here wasting time by trolling photographers that enjoy using a different piece of equipment for the work they do.
Alpha_Geist wrote:
If the Zeiss Otus Master Race deems it so, then it must be true! We all have been enlightened. lol
Have you used the 58mm f/1.4 lens or do you just enjoy proselytizing the righteousness and purity of the Otus? I'm curious why you'd venture here to this thread other than to troll.
Yup! We have Nikon gear in our lab. We tried two 58's because our tech thought we need a fast lens for the work. We replace the second one with a Zeiss 50 f/2 makro. The Zeiss 50 is sharper in the corners at f/2 than either 58 at f/4 in the centre.
classic man wrote:
I own the original Noct (17xxxx series, 7-blades), & considered getting the new 58G, so I'm curious on what makes you claim that.
Wide open my Noct seems plenty sharp to me when carefully focussed. Not ZF50MP sharp, but sharp nonetheless.
DOF is razor-thin, pronounced field-curvature comes into play, off-centre objects W.O. not sharp, but the centre.....here judge for yourself.
Full image, followed by 100% crop from focus point.
Driveitputtit wrote:
Man, this crap gets so old...
very few photographers have the ability to maximize the perfection found in the Otus, and certainly wouldn't be here wasting time by trolling photographers that enjoy using a different piece of equipment for the work they do.
One of my Otus photos was used by Ziess at their recent Photokina booth display series. Another six are displayed on their Otus web sites. Obviously all accidents.
I'm here by an accidental search and responded to a misguided comment about manual focus but couldn't resist responding to a 58 comparison. Our experience with the 58 was less than satisfactory. It's a soft, but less schizophrenic version of the Canon 50L. Both have their following among those who look at bokeh first and consider anything at the centre of the bokeh fringe to be sharp. By comparison it is, but.....
In what manner were you using the 58 f/1.4 in your lab? Was it to test critical sharpness? Was it for photos shot near or at MFD? Was it product photography? Did your lab involve people/animal portraits?
I had the Zeiss Makro Planar in ZE mount. It was a great lens no doubt. But I don't see the need to compare it to the 58 f/1.4. I'm sure a 1:2 macro lens is pretty darn sharp compared to a non-macro lens. Especially the 58 where character (58) means more than clinical sharpness (50MP). I don't see why the 58 f/1.4 is compared to either Zeiss Otus or Makro Planar. Different tools for different results.
Vancouver47 wrote:
One of my Otus was used by Ziess at their recent Photokina booth display series. Another six are displayed on their Otus web sites. Obviously all accidents.
I'm here by an accidental search and responded to a misguided comment about manual focus but couldn't resist responding to a 58 comparison. Our experience with the 58 was less than satisfactory. It's a soft, but less schizophrenic version of the Canon 50L. Both have their following among those who look at bokeh first and consider anything at the centre of the bokeh fringe to be sharp. By comparison it is, but.....
Let me ask you Vancouver.... What are you?
Are you a photographer? Are you a scientist? Are you a hobbyist with deep pockets? Are you a lens collector?
I'm asking because it truly matters on what you value on equipment. each one of those categories WILL hold a piece of camera equipment to a totally different regard.
If you are a photographer first, then using a specific piece of equipment say the 58 or the otus day in and day out will show you what is going on. You learn the equipment, what its faults are, what its' pros are and how to maximize those pros well. That is truly different than studying lenses, charts, test pictures of boring things, or in the eyes of a collector.. if its in demand, is it rare, physical value over intangible value.
So I ask again what are you?
I personally love the 58 but I also know when its not the best tool in my bag and when to use something else no matter HOW badly I want to use it. I can look at a scene, the light, my subject and know that the 58 is the lens that is going on the d800e, and other times i know when to hang it up and use something else.
Some of my best images are taken with the 58 but also some of my worst images are as well. Over time I get many more bests than worsts because I learn everything I can about my tools and scenes.
Lenses are our tools in capturing stunning and interesting imagery and it is our job to know our tools inside and out.
There's nothing wrong with being a scientist, collector or hobbyist.. they just have different values and expectations and need to be managed as such.
In what manner were you using the 58 f/1.4 in your lab? Was it to test critical sharpness? Was it for photos shot near or at MFD? Was it product photography? Did your lab involve people/animal portraits?
I had the Zeiss Makro Planar in ZE mount. It was a great lens no doubt. But I don't see the need to compare it to the 58 f/1.4. I'm sure a 1:2 macro lens is pretty darn sharp compared to a non-macro lens. Especially the 58 where character (58) means more than clinical sharpness (50MP). I don't see why the 58 f/1.4 is compared to either Zeiss Otus or Makro Planar. Different tools for different results....Show more →
The first and replacement 58's were used for architectural details where flash was not practical and/or permitted. Neither were close to the level of sharpness we expected.
Different tools... agreed. The 58 was a wrong choice for our needs. End of trolls...I guess.
Vancouver47 wrote:
Huh?? that's not even close to Otus or Art sharp wide open.
That's the point: the Otus's Bokeh is nowhere near as creamy, the Otus's rendition is completely different.
Different tools; which is why besides the original Noct (58mm ƒ1.2), I own the ZF50MP, the Leica R60 Macro (Leitaxed), & the Nikkor-O 55mm ƒ1.2 CRT in the 50-60mm FL range.
What you're saying is your big hammer is better than a screwdriver, which is wrong of course. Both are useful tools.
classic man wrote:
What you're saying is your big expensive and overpriced hammer is better than a screwdriver, which is wrong of course. Both are useful tools.
Yes, it's not the sharpest lens ever @1.4 and it's is overpriced. There is a very little value in this lens for average hobbyist or for pro photographer with critical sharpness in mind...
But for weddings/social events photographers 58/1.4 is a dream lens. There even @1.4 it can deliver images customers will never complain. After a few sessions i will quickly pays for itself so what there no to like?
Okay, now I'll counter that technical review with the following. Some real life images were used in Sam Hurd's review. I'm thinking if the 58mm is good enough for shooting celebrities....
Now how about you just use your Otus as it is a damn fine lens and just leave us 58mm folk to post photos without being told they are horrible. At the end of the day, we are all grown adults who have money to spend as we see fit. We have read all the reviews you have posted but maybe our brains are wired differently and we see more in lens traits other than just critical sharpness.
