p.4 #1 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
Rodluvan wrote:
So what we have is yet another limitation, add that to the diffraction coming into play with extremely high resolution bodies already at larger apertures, requirements for very high shutterspeed and/or tripod and the size, weight and cost and you end up with a more restricted set of circumstances where you will benefit from having one.
At f/1.4, handheld, in low resolutions, we will easily see the difference from other 50 mm f/1.4 lenses in the absence of veiling haze and LoCA.
p.4 #2 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
Diffraction is a problem but not that big of a problem. It's more like the boogeyman or a paper tiger. Roger at lensrental did the resolution tests up to f8 and the resolution is still spectacular. On top of that, most people who intend to buy a fast lens like this will likely want to shoot it wide open.
As for focusing, that might be a slight problem. Manual focusing such a heavy rig with less than useful manual focusing screens on full size DSLR might be tough wide open. However, cameras like the A7(r) have tilt up screens so you can hold the rig at waist level like old Rollei cameras and use magnified view to manual focus. The one problem I see with this lens on an A7(r) is that the lens is heavier than the camera and may make the ergonomics a little tricky.
p.4 #4 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
alundeb wrote:
At f/1.4, handheld, in low resolutions, we will easily see the difference from other 50 mm f/1.4 lenses in the absence of veiling haze and LoCA.
No doubt (especially considering existing 1.4/50 lenses, perhaps with the exception of the Sigma and the new Nikkor 58, are abysmal @ 1.4). I'm not denying that wide open it will have a great advantage, but it's interesting to see that along with these new specs comes just as many restrictions. I've always argued that I don't care much for absolute sharpness, to a point, as I don't print huge or crop (a luxury I can afford, as I'm no pro). Also, it's only wide open it will indeed have this great advantage as the bokeh of the 58 seems simply fantastic stopped down (and the resolution should be 'high enough' for a wast majority of applications).
p.4 #5 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
David Baldwin wrote:
Incredible lens. I am on my knees though thanking my maker that I don't need one!
David,
I don't think anyone needs this lens This is just one of those luxuries in life we cherish while we are here. You only live once. Our maker has better things in mind for us I am grateful I can afford one of these lenses but by no means do I take it for granted. Having said all that, I must say I really love this lens!
p.4 #6 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
Rodluvan wrote:
No doubt (especially considering existing 1.4/50 lenses, perhaps with the exception of the Sigma and the new Nikkor 58, are abysmal @ 1.4). I'm not denying that wide open it will have a great advantage, but it's interesting to see that along with these new specs comes just as many restrictions. I've always argued that I don't care much for absolute sharpness, to a point, as I don't print huge or crop (a luxury I can afford, as I'm no pro). Also, it's only wide open it will indeed have this great advantage as the bokeh of the 58 seems simply fantastic stopped down (and the resolution should be 'high enough' for a wast majority of applications). ...Show more →
If there is anything special in sharpness about new nikkor 58g compare to other f1.4, I have not noticed it.
p.4 #8 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
ct8282 wrote:
If it were 85mm or 135mm I'd consider trading my 200 f2 vr2 for one!
I can't see them making anything for this series in the 135mm - 200mm range, they just would be able to make a big enough improvement on what is already available (unless they made a 135mm or 200mm f/1.4!)
The wide end will be where it's at for Otus. 55mm was a good first salvo as there was a decent improvement to be made over the double Gauss design normals. I'm sure they'll make an 85mm but it will be be harder to push significantly ahead of the competition.
p.4 #10 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
zhangyue wrote:
If there is anything special in sharpness about new nikkor 58g compare to other f1.4, I have not noticed it.
My impression is the Nikon 58/1.4 is shaping up to be to Nikon users what the current 50L is to Canon users... a controversial lens that people either love or hate and debate endlessly whether the 4-5x higher cost over the standard 1.4 offering is worth it.
When the Canon was released, we all assumed it was going to be a 50mm version of the 85L. Wide open, it's nowhere near the same technically, and many were disappointed. But the funny thing is, as more people used it, quite a number (including me) grew to really like it, despite some of its quirks (i.e. focus shift). At least for me, I probably use the 50L/85L combo in a 3:1 ratio... When I first got it, it was the opposite.
The Otus is what a lot in the Canon camp were probably expecting, in terms of performance. Well, now it's here, though minus AF and it's huge (and 3x more costly than the 50L)... seems there are always compromises.
p.4 #11 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
Rodluvan wrote:
Read the reviewed in the OP for starters; it's sharper @2.8 than the 50G is at 5.6.
It's quite impossible that Nikon will release a 5x more expensive lens that doesn't best the closest thing in the lineup on every parameter.
I think you're mistaken between the 58 and the Otus 55. The 58 is not much different than the 50G at any aperture. There might be other things to justify for the 58, but sharpness is not one of them.
p.4 #12 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
rscheffler wrote:
My impression is the Nikon 58/1.4 is shaping up to be to Nikon users what the current 50L is to Canon users... a controversial lens that people either love or hate and debate endlessly whether the 4-5x higher cost over the standard 1.4 offering is worth it.
When the Canon was released, we all assumed it was going to be a 50mm version of the 85L. Wide open, it's nowhere near the same technically, and many were disappointed. But the funny thing is, as more people used it, quite a number (including me) grew to really like it, despite some of its quirks (i.e. focus shift). At least for me, I probably use the 50L/85L combo in a 3:1 ratio... When I first got it, it was the opposite.
The Otus is what a lot in the Canon camp were probably expecting, in terms of performance. Well, now it's here, though minus AF and it's huge (and 3x more costly than the 50L)... seems there are always compromises. ...Show more →
Well, if the 58 is actually a f/1.2 lens, it might be a different story. The 50L has that going for it. And I'm not sure anyone would expect the 50L is as sharp as the 85L. Both of them were based on the FD Aspherical, and the 55 ASPH was already inferior than the 85.
Nikon is always comfortable to be half a stop slower than Canon with these high-speed 50 and 85 lenses. They just prioritized them differently.
p.4 #13 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
+1 about f1.2, though not a whole lot of difference in terms of DOF, but a good excuse to have a better rendering lens at asking price.
Rodluvan, I don't see its sharper at f2.8 than f5.6 50G from Lensrental number:
Both at f2.8
58G: 850 680 650
50G: 870 770 580
Ron, the 3 to 1 ratio should n't be surprise based on focal length but I understand your comments about preference on 50L. based on samples I see,(remember I start a post about British photographer's street candidate purely using this 50L ) it is quite good and performance is widely different in different hand though.
I will refrain my comment for this 58G from now on before any confirmed conclusion.
To put it more objectively I have seen so far:
1. This otus is doing what Nikon has been claim for, shoot night/sky at f1.4.
2. Based on sample, I agree this 58G can do decent job shooting at f1.4 at infinity, which not many lens can do, at least cross frame. but this is a extreme limited usage to most people. AND, not really great performance anyway.
3. At close distance, based online sample I have seen, I don't see detail, but like a paint with thick brush strok, good structure, no detail.
4. The cross frame sharpness after f2.8 might be good as many recent Nikon introduction, but at this focal length, that is not something to brag about.
p.4 #14 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
I guess my ultimate point is, we can nitpick over the technical details, but it can be misleading. You either use and like the lens, or you don't. Any of these will allow photographers to create excellent images. Sometimes even the 'defects' of a given lens become the source of creative inspiration for some...
p.4 #15 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
rscheffler wrote:
I guess my ultimate point is, we can nitpick over the technical details, but it can be misleading. You either use and like the lens, or you don't. Any of these will allow photographers to create excellent images. Sometimes even the 'defects' of a given lens become the source of creative inspiration for some...
I agree, I have to ask myself why so harsh about this lens, it actually remind me a lot about 80lux. Maybe my expectation get distorted by 55 Otus.
p.4 #16 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
Crossing fingers that Zeiss makes some Otus wide angles. Bravo zeiss for making the 55mm, unlike a lot of lenses, it more than lived up to the hype. Stunning performer.
p.4 #17 · Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 Otus: The absolute best SLR lens
hiepphotog wrote:
I think you're mistaken between the 58 and the Otus 55. The 58 is not much different than the 50G at any aperture. There might be other things to justify for the 58, but sharpness is not one of them.
Actually you might just be right. However looking at the MTF's provided by nikon for the two lenses shows that the 58 is only slightly sharper in the middle, but more pronounced towards the edges @ 1.4 with a much more evenly distributed sagi/merid contrast reproducibility. In short, the 50G is only usable, from the pov of sharpness, in the middle of the frame whereas the 58 is keeping its own throughout.
This is just one of those luxuries in life we cherish while we are here. You only live once. Our maker has better things in mind for us