p.17 #1 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Yeah, the CA issue kind of puzzles me too. And it's a shame they didn't bring their optical designers into live stream to explain their design targets and choices.. :-/
p.17 #2 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Kalainen wrote:
Yeah, the CA issue kind of puzzles me too. And it's a shame they didn't bring their optical designers into live stream to explain their design targets and choices.. :-/
I had hoped for designers to participate. Instead they showed short clips of ambassadors at the end of the event - kind of the opposite to a more in-depth and "serious" discussion on the new lenses. Now anything about about targets, considerations, prioritizations frames to work within and so on was absent. That was a pity. It is after all not every day Zeiss presents new top of the line camera lenses...
This is pretty shocking. Marketing is always going to involve "spin", you're always going to see chats like this run by people whose "taste" and "opinion" regarding the lens is a positive one, but it's unusual to see an explicit lie about the results of an objective lab test.
Either Art of Photography literally has a defective sample somehow (seems unlikely since his results were excellent except for CA) or Zeiss needs to apologize for this response and/or publish some test results explaining the disparity.
Feb 26, 2025 at 08:38 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #4 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Lee Saxon wrote:
No doubt. I was putting too much trust in DPR's garbage samples. The MTF charts and the Art of Photography samples tell a wildly different story.
I very much noticed that (though bokeh seems nice and soft, not too busy, overall), and I wonder if it's related to Zeiss's data sheet showing that relative illumination improves far less with stopping down than on the Milvus 50 and Otus 55. Makes you wonder if they should've gone up to a 72mm filter thread and/or makes you wonder what they could've done if this thing had been designed for the RF and Z throat diameters only and not had to accommodate E. Then again, the Art of Photography video says vignetting is *less* than the Milvus, not more, so I dunno. It's probably too soon to have firm answers on any of this....Show more →
I think your hypothesis about the bokeh balls is an interesting one. If you are right then the 85 Otus in which the relative illumination improves much faster should evidence this issue to a much lesser extent. It may well be that Zeiss kept the 50mm lens smaller with the tradeoff that the bokeh balls are football shaped wide open much further into the frame, but made the 85mm to avoid that problem with the consequence that it had to be bigger. If that was the tradeoff, then IMO those are both pretty reasonable design decisions.
Feb 26, 2025 at 08:49 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #5 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Lee Saxon wrote:
This is pretty shocking. Marketing is always going to involve "spin", you're always going to see chats like this run by people whose "taste" and "opinion" regarding the lens is a positive one, but it's unusual to see an explicit lie about the results of an objective lab test.
Either Art of Photography literally has a defective sample somehow (seems unlikely since his results were excellent except for CA) or Zeiss needs to apologize for this response and/or publish some test results explaining the disparity.
Of course Zeiss is engaging in spin. I am not shocked by that. I even bet their response is technically correct as they don't specify what the lab test was. This lens is not perfect and spinning it as such I don't think is a smart strategy.
That said, those who expect zero axial CA even in high contrast situations like that one shown in the Art of Photography video are bound to be disappointed. The DSLR Otus 55 showed exactly that sort of axial CA as well. The DSLR Otus 28 showed at least that much axial CA. I don't know if these mirrorless Otus lenses show less or more or the same amount of axial CA than the DSLR Otus lenses--that would take careful side by side comparisons--but I don't think it makes sense to expect these lenses to show zero axial CA, not at f/1.4 in high contrast situations. It remains to be seen how well this lens controls for axial CA, but one example of axial CA blown up from a video presentation simply doesn't tell us much. That is my view anyway, YMMV.
Sure, I would like a lens with zero axial CA at f/1.4 even in high contrast situations, but I don't expect to ever get such a lens. If a lens is reasonably sharp at f/1.4, then it will also tend to show any axial CA that isn't fully corrected and no lens is going to fully correct color aberrations across the full spectrum of visible wavelengths. So, I don't expect zero axial CA, but I do value lower CA and in real use what really matters is not whether a lens ever shows axial CA, but rather how often it becomes an issue. That can't be judged by one image or even one shooting session. It takes time and experience to judge, but people want to make quick snap judgments and nothing can stop that either. Time and experience may well tell a very different story.
p.17 #6 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Agree, I'll wait until it's in the hands of photographers for my final verdict... But there is visible LoCA in the OOF highlights, and the 50/1.4 GM shows a better performance side by side.
The Otus appears to have mostly smoother bokeh, though.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Of course Zeiss is engaging in spin. I am not shocked by that. I even bet their response is technically correct as they don't specify what the lab test was. This lens is not perfect and spinning it as such I don't think is a smart strategy.
That said, those who expect zero axial CA even in high contrast situations like that one shown in the Art of Photography video are bound to be disappointed. The DSLR Otus 55 showed exactly that sort of axial CA as well. The DSLR Otus 28 showed at least that much axial CA. I don't know if these mirrorless Otus lenses show less or more or the same amount of axial CA than the DSLR Otus lenses--that would take careful side by side comparisons--but I don't think it makes sense to expect these lenses to show zero axial CA, not at f/1.4 in high contrast situations. It remains to be seen how well this lens controls for axial CA, but one example of axial CA blown up from a video presentation simply doesn't tell us much. That is my view anyway, YMMV.
Sure, I would like a lens with zero axial CA at f/1.4 even in high contrast situations, but I don't expect to ever get such a lens. If a lens is reasonably sharp at f/1.4, then it will also tend to show any axial CA that isn't fully corrected and no lens is going to fully correct color aberrations across the full spectrum of visible wavelengths. So, I don't expect zero axial CA, but I do value lower CA and in real use what really matters is not whether a lens ever shows axial CA, but rather how often it becomes an issue. That can't be judged by one image or even one shooting session. It takes time and experience to judge, but people want to make quick snap judgments and nothing can stop that either. Time and experience may well tell a very different story....Show more →
p.17 #7 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Steve Spencer wrote:
Just less than one percent barrel distortion, IMO, is not very significant. I have owned many lenses with that level of distortion and I find it fairly low, a non-issue for most types of shooting and easily correctable without hardly any influence on image quality when you want to correct it. Sure the DSLR Otus 85 had a tiny bit less distortion about .8 percent but the difference is really in the type of distortion and not the magnitude of the distortion. The DSLR 85 Otus had pincushion, whereas the Otus 85 ML has barrel distortion. Personally, pincushion distortion bothers me more than barrel distortion, so I actually prefer the pattern in the Otus 85 ML....Show more →
Was actually referring to the DSLR 85 Milvus. Based on what I'm seeing with the charts provided by Zeiss, the DSLR 85 Milvus has around .4 percent pincushion vs. call it .9 percent barrel with new 85 Otus ML. Re distortion pattern, I think it can often depend on what you're shooting. A slight pincushion pattern is sometimes viewed as flattering when shooting portraits which is a typical use-case for 85 mm focal length.
p.17 #8 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Steve Spencer wrote:
85 Otus...should evidence this issue to a much lesser extent
Yeah, I wondered about that very thing given the noticeable size difference. And yes I'd probably agree with you that going *as* big as the 85 probably wouldn't have been worth it, even if that would have fixed this one issue (well, distortion is also a smidge less, but neither has enough to worry about).
Steve Spencer wrote:
That's my opinion on [the axial backlight fringing], YMMV
I mean, I'd agree that I definitely wasn't expecting *none* on a blown-out-sky shot* like that, but I do think I was expecting less. More than the f/2 version of the shot, probably, but less than we got. I mean, $2500 without a focus motor is definitely the high end for a fast 50 in 2025 (not counting Leica and [OG] Otus).
Comparison to said OG Otii are interesting because although it's a lot more size and a lot more $$$$, we seem to have had a lot of advancement in lens design since 2013. But then again, we've also had a lot of inflation. So it's hard to say how we should expect performance or performance per dollar to compare between the two.
*Interestingly, I'd say that the fringing he pointed out earlier in the video on the fence slats actually bothered me more. It wasn't as severe, but then again the backlighting wasn't nearly as harsh.
p.17 #11 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
I'm still puzzled by Zeiss making lenses for your average Nikon, Sony mirrorless cameras. There are so many incredible AF lenses for those platforms.
Enthusiast nerds, like myself, want cool optics from brands with an amazing legacy to use on their Leica cameras. I would start buying updated ZM lenses in an heartbeat. But these massive manual basic (yet another 50/1.4) for the Nikon Z system? Why would I not rather have a Noct? Or the 50/1.2? And if I had a ZF and wanted manual lenses, a Voigtlander.
Whiz bang mirrorless cameras are about tech, and we put up with the huge lenses because they focus in a heartbeat. Zeiss needs to understand its target market better. Do crazy things. Put the 135/3.5 Planar back into production, make GFX lenses, make Leica lenses. Re-release film cameras. Be unique and cool.
p.17 #13 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
I think the biggest differentiator is the Zeiss colors. On chromatic aberration, I haven't read the detailed reviews, but it looks clean to me in the samples where I think it matters. Even in the DPReview gallery where a lot of images aren't well focused, I can see it's there. Voigtlander lenses are close but the way they handle colors are different than Zeiss lenses even if Cosina makes both lines.
With that said, I do think it's a bit of an underwhelming release for 2025 and it doesn't add anything to my camera kit
p.17 #14 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
scrappydog wrote:
Not to sound dismissive, but it's Zeiss. I bought the Batis 135mm f/2.8 at full price. Ouch. I still have it and it's still amazing, but still.
Zeiss lenses always come at a premium, and I am sure part of that is the build quality, which is why I said a bit. Personally, I am waiting to see more reviews come out before deciding if I want to buy it or not and at the end of the day 500 won't stop me from buying it if I decide it will add something to my kit that my other 50mm lenses can't do. But seeing the reaction the lens online I think the price point with no AF is tripping people up, and I can understand why.
When you compare the price of the 50mm f1.4 at 2,500 it's about 300 more than other capable 50mm f1.2 lenses with AF. The Sony 50mm f1.2 is 2,000, the Nikon 50mm f1.2 is 2,100, and the Canon 50mm f1.2 is 2,300. The 85mm f1.4 does seem a bit closer to the market at 3,000 since the Nikon 85mm f1.2 and Canon 85mm f1.2 are 2,800.
Zeises lens colors and rendering are still my favorite, and I still find their build quality the best, so I want to see them be successful in the mirrorless space. The reaction to these lenses is making me wonder how he photography market at large is going to take to them. Back when the original Otus lenses came out, people were impressed with the IQ, even if the lack of AF, or the price meant the lenses were not for them. This time around the reaction seems much more neutral, if not even a bit negative so far.
p.17 #15 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
speedgraphic wrote:
I'm still puzzled by Zeiss making lenses for your average Nikon, Sony mirrorless cameras. There are so many incredible AF lenses for those platforms.
People get too wrapped up on everything must be AF/VR/IS. Not all photographers are in need of those features for a portion of their photography. Some photographers are more interested in the final image created or a certain astetic and simply don't require AF/VR/IS. Zeiss has had many requests for several years on making the Otus line available for the mirrorlesss mounts for Sony,Canon, and Nikon. Since each brand of mirrorless cameras have the same mount for their respective line of cameras theses Otus' will also work on the average Canon,Sony and Nikon offerings. Though I don't see an average mirrorless camera owner buying into an Otus. Zeiss has delivered to the Otus requesting crowd. It remains to be seen if it lives up to what that target market requested.
Enthusiast nerds, like myself, want cool optics from brands with an amazing legacy to use on their Leica cameras. I would start buying updated ZM lenses in an heartbeat. But these massive manual basic (yet another 50/1.4) for the Nikon Z system? Why would I not rather have a Noct? Or the 50/1.2? And if I had a ZF and wanted manual lenses, a Voigtlander.
Enthusiasts are not the target market for Zeiss. Absolutely there is some demand for ZM lenses but Zeiss sees more opportunity in Otus - covering 3 brands instead of 1 for the ZM.
Whiz bang mirrorless cameras are about tech, and we put up with the huge lenses because they focus in a heartbeat. Zeiss needs to understand its target market better. Do crazy things. Put the 135/3.5 Planar back into production, make GFX lenses, make Leica lenses. Re-release film cameras. Be unique and cool.
Zeiss knows its market and it does not align with what many enthusiasts have in mind. I'll agree there is a potential market for GFX and L platforms.
Mirrorless is not about tech it is just another tool to capture the image. yes there is a lot of terrific tech in them and that tech helps achieve in getting the image. Last summer when I was off hiking in the mountains I had my trinity of Otus with me (28,55 and 100) the weight was not an issue. Hiked all day, took lots of images. Didn't need AF or VR and as I viewed the mountains they were not moving that fast that I needed AF.
There are a lot of interesting comments throughout this thread and each person is right in their personal desires for their own photographic needs. The Zeiss Otus lenses both DSLR and ML have a target audience and for most on FM they are not the target audience.
p.17 #16 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
burningheart wrote:
People get too wrapped up on everything must be AF/VR/IS. Not all photographers are in need of those features for a portion of their photography. Some photographers are more interested in the final image created or a certain astetic and simply don't require AF/VR/IS. Zeiss has had many requests for several years on making the Otus line available for the mirrorlesss mounts for Sony,Canon, and Nikon. Since each brand of mirrorless cameras have the same mount for their respective line of cameras theses Otus' will also work on the average Canon,Sony and Nikon offerings. Though I don't see an average mirrorless camera owner buying into an Otus. Zeiss has delivered to the Otus requesting crowd. It remains to be seen if it lives up to what that target market requested.
Enthusiasts are not the target market for Zeiss. Absolutely there is some demand for ZM lenses but Zeiss sees more opportunity in Otus - covering 3 brands instead of 1 for the ZM.
Zeiss knows its market and it does not align with what many enthusiasts have in mind. I'll agree there is a potential market for GFX and L platforms.
Mirrorless is not about tech it is just another tool to capture the image. yes there is a lot of terrific tech in them and that tech helps achieve in getting the image. Last summer when I was off hiking in the mountains I had my trinity of Otus with me (28,55 and 100) the weight was not an issue. Hiked all day, took lots of images. Didn't need AF or VR and as I viewed the mountains they were not moving that fast that I needed AF.
There are a lot of interesting comments throughout this thread and each person is right in their personal desires for their own photographic needs. The Zeiss Otus lenses both DSLR and ML have a target audience and for most on FM they are not the target audience.
This post should be recommended reading for everyone before writing into this or other threads about Otus lenses. If I could get 5 cents of every post about Otus not having AF...
Feb 26, 2025 at 03:13 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #17 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
JadedWriter wrote:
So does this Otus 50 justify being more expensive than the 50 1.2S?
I think that is a question each person has to answer for themselves. I know that personally I prefer MF to AF for some types of shooting, so that helps to possibly justify the cost. I also have used the Sony 50 f/1.2 GM extensively and although I like the way the files look, it is possible I would like the Otus 50 files more. I haven't used the Nikon 50 f/1.2S, so I would have to see how much I liked its files if I decide to shoot Nikon for this type of shooting. Different people can certainly answer this question differently.
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.17 #18 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
speedgraphic wrote:
I'm still puzzled by Zeiss making lenses for your average Nikon, Sony mirrorless cameras. There are so many incredible AF lenses for those platforms.
Enthusiast nerds, like myself, want cool optics from brands with an amazing legacy to use on their Leica cameras. I would start buying updated ZM lenses in an heartbeat. But these massive manual basic (yet another 50/1.4) for the Nikon Z system? Why would I not rather have a Noct? Or the 50/1.2? And if I had a ZF and wanted manual lenses, a Voigtlander.
Whiz bang mirrorless cameras are about tech, and we put up with the huge lenses because they focus in a heartbeat. Zeiss needs to understand its target market better. Do crazy things. Put the 135/3.5 Planar back into production, make GFX lenses, make Leica lenses. Re-release film cameras. Be unique and cool. ...Show more →
I put up with huge lenses despite them having AF because I like the images they make. I would prefer they didn't have AF for a bunch of the stuff I shoot.
p.17 #19 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Kalainen wrote:
Yeah, the CA issue kind of puzzles me too. And it's a shame they didn't bring their optical designers into live stream to explain their design targets and choices.. :-/
When I worked as a (software) engineer for a software company, it was a rule to never allow customers to interact directly with members of the engineering team. Considering that engineers are not uniformly diplomatic, it's probably a wise policy !
p.17 #20 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
"In the build-up to the announcement of Zeiss' new 50mm and 85mm F1.4 Otus ML lenses for full-frame mirrorless, we spoke to Tony Wisniewski, Senior Manager, Creative Arts, Zeiss Cinema and Photography....We're here, we understand our position in the industry," Zeiss discusses its new lenses and new approach"–Richard Butler/DPR"
Where have you been?
Who are these lenses for?
Competition
Manual focus in the mirrorless age
What's next?
