p.25 #2 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
I remember testing it against my Lux 50 CF and the Lux wasn't that as much of a difference as that comparison for the sharpness. GM and ML were pretty close too. The major thing for me was the color contrast and temp especially when shooting mirrored images and reds, it wasn't just a matter of illumination falloff saturating the colors more. Bokeh was close enough for me for all three.
p.25 #3 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
ftllens wrote:
I remember testing it against my Lux 50 CF and the Lux wasn't that as much of a difference as that comparison for the sharpness. GM and ML were pretty close too. The major thing for me was the color contrast and temp especially when shooting mirrored images and reds, it wasn't just a matter of illumination falloff saturating the colors more. Bokeh was close enough for me for all three.
"You've Come a Long Way Baby"
As a Sony mirrorless forum wars survivor, I find it almost astonishing, a Sony GM lens is being compared/considered to a legendary Leica and a Zeiss OTUS/ML lens without batting an eye. Sony has indeed come a very long way.
p.25 #4 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
I actually think these three lenses render quite similarly. The Leica 50/1.4 ASPH. Lux (any version) has a modern look with smooth transitions, much like the Zeiss ML and Sony GM -- and even the Voigtlander 50/1.2 Nokton.
The resolution difference he mentioned comes down to how he tested them. He adapted the Leica to his Sony, not realizing that the sensor's thicker coverglass affects performance. He had a Leica M available, but since he chose to use the adapter and show the results using Sony body, the Leica ended up looking worse than it really is.
p.25 #5 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
For me the clear winner is the GM lens. I grew up with manual focus, but manual focus is a constant liability, especially in the age of phenomenal autofocus.
When a reviewer says "I might have slightly missed focus here", they are reflecting the everyday experience of using manual focus lenses. Frequent slight mis-focus is a cost of doing business with manual focus lenses. Even more for older photographers.
Leica necessarily makes manual focus lenses for M cameras, but I don't understand why Zeiss (or anyone) would make manual focus lenses for Sony mirrorless cameras.
By the way, when a reviewer says this review is "not sponsored", but gets a *free* $2500 lens, even if sent with "no obligation", then the review is 100% sponsored.
p.25 #6 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Oh I skipped through it and missed that he adapted it. I tested The Lux CF on M11 and ML on A7CR, and didn't notice much difference.
Regarding manual focus, this is a stills forum so many might be unaware that Sony E-Mount is the fastest growing preferred mount for cinema usage. There's so many reasons why'd you want a mechanical focus ring even if the linear MF mode is getting quick good on the GMs. For me, I'm going to use the ML as a taking lens for an anamorphic setup occasionally and it's just easier to leave it at infinity and I know it's not going anywhere.
The previous gen Otii in Nikon F mount were often sent to Duclos to convert them for cine use (some of the shows and movie segments you've watched have been shot on them) because they were so good.
p.25 #7 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
ftllens wrote:
Oh I skipped through it and missed that he adapted it. I tested The Lux CF on M11 and ML on A7CR, and didn't notice much difference.
Regarding manual focus, this is a stills forum so many might be unaware that Sony E-Mount is the fastest growing preferred mount for cinema usage. There's so many reasons why'd you want a mechanical focus ring even if the linear MF mode is getting quick good on the GMs. For me, I'm going to use the ML as a taking lens for an anamorphic setup occasionally and it's just easier to leave it at infinity and I know it's not going anywhere.
The previous gen Otii in Nikon F mount were often sent to Duclos to convert them for cine use (some of the shows and movie segments you've watched have been shot on them) because they were so good....Show more →
I missed that too. Good catch by Eagle -Eyed Fred. Regardless, the Summilux still looked pretty good on that Sony camera/sensor as I already know firsthand. But like Fred wrote, could have looked even better on a M camera/sensor by comparison.
p.25 #9 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
I am perpetually amazed (and disgusted) that in 2025, almost 2026 now, reviews can’t figure out how to test lenses accounting for sensor stack interference. The effect is they are spreading bad info which really does inform people’s decisions with money.
Then again, it’s a YouTube review. So many grains of salt are needed.
Do we have any word/hint/rumor on a wide Otus ML yet?
p.25 #11 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
nehemiahphoto wrote:
I am perpetually amazed (and disgusted) that in 2025, almost 2026 now, reviews can’t figure out how to test lenses accounting for sensor stack interference. The effect is they are spreading bad info which really does inform people’s decisions with money.
Then again, it’s a YouTube review. So many grains of salt are needed.
Do we have any word/hint/rumor on a wide Otus ML yet?
Bad info on the egonets? Who would've suspected?
I haven't heard anything about the wide, but I'm happy to see some 85 stuff out there. It gives me hope that we will see it before the end of the year.
p.25 #15 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
zlatko wrote:
Leica necessarily makes manual focus lenses for M cameras, but I don't understand why Zeiss (or anyone) would make manual focus lenses for Sony mirrorless cameras.
Well, I don't know what's in Zeiss product planners heads, but I can list the following universal reasons for manual focus lenses.
1. Size and weight. Look at the Voigtlander E-mount lenses and compare them to the AF counterparts. This is a huge benefit for landscape photographers who don't need autofocus, but appreciate compactness.
2. More freedom for lens designers. Autofocus lenses are constrainted by glass mass. All focus motors have torgue limits, so only a fraction of the glass elements can move in an AF lens. But a manual focus lens designer isn't constrained -- one can even move 100% of glass mass when focusing (whole-lens focus). This enables the wider weight-vs-quality trade-off. In other words, you either get away with fewer optical elements to achieve the same quality, or higher optical quality with the same number of elements. There are aficionados out there who prefer whole-lens-focus rendering.
3. Tactile feel of manual focus makes the photo taking more engaging. Personally, I absolutely love the feel of a good MF lens. The advantages of autofocus are not needed for static subjects.
p.25 #16 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
old-gregg wrote:
Well, I don't know what's in Zeiss product planners heads, but I can list the following universal reasons for manual focus lenses.
1. Size and weight. Look at the Voigtlander E-mount lenses and compare them to the AF counterparts. This is a huge benefit for landscape photographers who don't need autofocus, but appreciate compactness.
2. More freedom for lens designers. Autofocus lenses are constrainted by glass mass. All focus motors have torgue limits, so only a fraction of the glass elements can move in an AF lens. But a manual focus lens designer isn't constrained -- one can even move 100% of glass mass when focusing (whole-lens focus). This enables the wider weight-vs-quality trade-off. In other words, you either get away with fewer optical elements to achieve the same quality, or higher optical quality with the same number of elements. There are aficionados out there who prefer whole-lens-focus rendering.
3. Tactile feel of manual focus makes the photo taking more engaging. Personally, I absolutely love the feel of a good MF lens. The advantages of autofocus are not needed for static subjects. ...Show more →
1. Zeiss 50mm f1.4 Otus = 677g
Sony 50mm f1.4 GM = 516g
Canon 50mm f1.4 L VCM = 580g
2. This lens design shows more CA than it should at this price range, plus its not as sharp as other lenses in its class wide open supposedly.
3. AF is needed by almost everyone that shots anything involving people and animals. Zeiss made a mistake by making this new Otus line MF only considering the platforms they are intended for and the competition from other companies.
p.25 #17 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
SNJOps wrote:
3. AF is needed by almost everyone that shots anything involving people and animals.
IMHO this isn't quite as true as it was in the DSLR days, what with WYSIWYG EVFs with 1:1 zoom, especially with more manufacturers finally offering the much-overdue feature of eye/face detect working during manual focus mode to put the zoom box in the right place, *especially* if these lenses have (I dunno whether they do) the sensors to detect that the manual focus ring is being moved and activate said 1:1 zoom automatically.
Oct 10, 2025 at 05:25 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.25 #18 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
2. This lens design shows more CA than it should at this price range, plus its not as sharp as other lenses in its class wide open supposedly.
3. AF is needed by almost everyone that shots anything involving people and animals. Zeiss made a mistake by making this new Otus line MF only considering the platforms they are intended for and the competition from other companies.
Are we talking about MF lenses more generally or the Otus ML lenses in particular. On point #1 old-greg mentioned Voigtlander lenses in particular and they and several other manufacturers do in fact have smaller lenses. The Voigtlander 50 f/1.2 SE that I own weighs 381g on my scale. That is substantially lighter and it is physically quite a bit smaller than most AF lenses that have a half stop slower aperture.
On #2 freedom in lens design does not always mean designing a lens with less CA. IMO, the Otus 50 ML's design emphasizes a rare combination of sharpness in the focal plane, a flat field with little field curvature, and excellent bokeh. They also cleaned up axial CA nicely started at f/2 rather than f/1.4. No one else, in my view has made this set of tradeoffs and I do think that not having to worry about AF speed does allow extra freedom in lens design and perhaps even the specific tradeoffs that were made with this lens.
On #3, I personally do not need AF for almost all shots that involve people or animals. As long as they aren't moving fast, walking not running for example, I can easily use MF. Street photography as just one example as a genre has tons of MF shooters. Needed is a pretty loaded word. I think a lot of people like AF for shots of people or animals. I think with practice almost no one needs AF for these shots except for very fast movements (e.g., running instead of walking) and I know I don't. Heck I can even shoots running if I prefocus and time the shot to where I have focussed. You do realize that 50 years ago people shot even sports and wildlife with MF, so it can be done. It isn't absolutely needed, but yes people want AF for shots of people and animals.
p.25 #19 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
SNJOps wrote:
Gorgeous images, love the colours Seeing some nice 3d pop as well.
Thanks-
Honestly the thing that really has surprised me is the cooler rendering of the colors. I wasn’t really interested in this lens on announcement but after using it, I am appreciative of the difference from my typical 50mm lens.
I also like I have a lens this good in a weather sealed package. My favorite 50 (Leica 50 Lux) isn’t sealed. So in weather, I can still have a fun MF lens to use vs being forced into an AF lens when I don’t want it. The experience with this one is great-
2. This lens design shows more CA than it should at this price range, plus its not as sharp as other lenses in its class wide open supposedly.
3. AF is needed by almost everyone that shots anything involving people and animals. Zeiss made a mistake by making this new Otus line MF only considering the platforms they are intended for and the competition from other companies.
Anyone saying it’s not sharp really just needs to not re-evaluate whats important in lens design (100% not saying you) This lens is bitingly sharp from edge to edge even wide open. I have no idea how anyone could ever look at this lens and say that. I haven’t noticed CA yet but I am sure some is present. It always is
Also I shoot MF lens 95% of the time even if owning The entire collection of RF primes from Canon. That is almost used exclusively for video or sports/faster action where I can’t be slower and more methodical. Although some of my favorite actions shots of all time are with a Leica MF lens.
When I shoot MF, my rate of keepers is so much higher than when using AF. Thats just my style though and I think more people would love it they really dug in.
All that said, I am early 40’s and started with AF lenses. I once thought why on earth would anyone use them- Now it’s by far my favorite way to take pictures.
Seeing some nice 3d pop as well.