I’ve been unimpressed with Casenave as product manager. They need a disruptor as pm. A corporate entrepreneur. Not a lifer. They need someone like what Viltrox has.
Notice how Zeiss is always “behind the market”. Only once a market is firmly established do they start developing for it. So they are always 5 years late to the party. They never start the party. Problem is the party doesn’t last for much longer than 5 years. So by the time Zeiss enters, the party is almost over.
kotmj wrote:
I think the Milvus is for the DSLR with its sensor stack. The Classic was for film.
The radii of the lens elements would have changed as the Classic optical designs were adapted for digital sensors. So a mechanical redesign was necessary.
Zeiss will eventually get the hang of Sony’s “lens designs will be updated every 10 years”. It sells products. Sony and Fujifilm are doing it this way now.
Maybe check the Milvus specs more carefully as I believe all except for the 50 and 85 were not optically updated (except maybe coatings?). A great thing about Cosina's website is they state the release date of each lens. The 'Classic' ZE/ZF 50 and 85 are stated to have been released well into the digital age in 2010. Milvus was in 2017. So not decades. https://www.cosina.co.jp/zeiss/. But maybe still a decade as I believe the ZE/ZF Classic lenses first appeared around 2006-2008 according to this site.
Along the line of Classic to Milvus 'repackaging,' to me it would be logical that the new mirrorless 'Otus' lenses are stills versions of the Nano Prime line. But unlike how the Milvus versions grew in size, it would be an opportunity to shrink the Nanos further by ditching the desire for dimensional consistency across cine lenses within a family. Though the Nanos appear to all be different lengths and weight, they are consistent at 86mm filter size, which is too large for f/1.4 full frame stills lenses. Stills versions can be 'right sized' according to front element size. The little commentary I have read about the Nano Primes suggests they are not intentionally optically near perfect, with some residual flaws/character. At least one sample image struck me with the amount of optical vignetting resulting in significant cat's eye bokeh/swirl. Even one DOP compared it to the Petzval look... I'm not sure I like this, as I'm somewhat averse to significant cat's eye optical vignetting, but it's likely a tradeoff for a more compact design.
So if indeed these are repackaged Nano Primes, I'd temper my expectations slightly.
We'll know more on the 25th what these are - whether totally new optics, or rehoused cine lenses.
You would need to know the radius of the curvature of each optical surface to know if Classic is identical optically to Milvus.
Read up on the definition of radius.
rscheffler wrote:
Maybe check the Milvus specs more carefully as I believe all except for the 50 and 85 were not optically updated (except maybe coatings?). A great thing about Cosina's website is they state the release date of each lens. The 'Classic' ZE/ZF 50 and 85 are stated to have been released well into the digital age in 2010. Milvus was in 2017. So not decades. https://www.cosina.co.jp/zeiss/. But maybe still a decade as I believe the ZE/ZF Classic lenses first appeared around 2006-2008 according to this site.
Along the line of Classic to Milvus 'repackaging,' to me it would be logical that the new mirrorless 'Otus' lenses are stills versions of the Nano Prime line. But unlike how the Milvus versions grew in size, it would be an opportunity to shrink the Nanos further by ditching the desire for dimensional consistency across cine lenses within a family. Though the Nanos appear to all be different lengths and weight, they are consistent at 86mm filter size, which is too large for f/1.4 full frame stills lenses. Stills versions can be 'right sized' according to front element size. The little commentary I have read about the Nano Primes suggests they are not intentionally optically near perfect, with some residual flaws/character. At least one sample image struck me with the amount of optical vignetting resulting in significant cat's eye bokeh/swirl. Even one DOP compared it to the Petzval look... I'm not sure I like this, as I'm somewhat averse to significant cat's eye optical vignetting, but it's likely a tradeoff for a more compact design.
So if indeed these are repackaged Nano Primes, I'd temper my expectations slightly.
We'll know more on the 25th what these are - whether totally new optics, or rehoused cine lenses.
I’ve seen many people speculating on different forums that the new Zeiss Otus lenses are simply rehoused Nano Primes (including myself earlier in this thread).
Right now, the discussion is dominated by a lack of information. And whenever there’s an information gap, rumors and vague assumptions quickly fill the void - especially on the internet. This whole situation reminds me of what’s known as the “first story” effect.
The "first story" effect is a cognitive bias where the first piece of information we receive strongly influences our thinking. It acts like an anchor, making us focus on the initial information and treat it as the starting point for our reasoning. The problem, especially online, is that once the first story is established, it becomes dominant, and later versions struggle to gain equal footing. Even if Zeiss were to officially confirm that the new Otus lenses are based on brand-new optical designs, people might still associate them with the Nano Primes. That's how the internet, the 'information super high way', works!
But there are many reasons to think differently:
- Otus is all about ultimate image quality. I don’t think Zeiss would tolerate any trace of chromatic aberration (CA), as Phillip mentioned about the Nano Primes - especially knowing how sensitive photographers are to CA.
- Nano Primes are a budget-friendly version of the Supreme Primes, which are designed for cinematographers. Photographers have different aesthetic needs, and Zeiss certainly knows this. Given their ambitious approach, it’s safe to assume that they would design the new Otus lenses specifically to match photographers’ requirements. After all, Otus represents the high-end lens lineup.
- Even if Zeiss is leveraging knowledge from the Supreme Primes and Nano Primes for the new Otus series (which I personally hope they are), that doesn’t mean they’re just “rehousing” the Nano Primes. They could use the same design principles and optical insights (since the R&D has already been done) but apply them differently. For example, they might focus less on minimizing focus breathing and instead prioritize chromatic aberration correction. And so on..
- And finally, Zeiss has a strong reputation for innovation and engineering excellence. Simply rehousing Nano Primes into a new product without considering the specific use case doesn’t align with their philosophy. I, for one, expect more from them.
As I’ve said before, I have no idea what Zeiss will actually release - and that’s exactly the point! I try to keep an open mind because we don’t know yet. I don’t want to assume a connection to the Nano Primes when there might not be one. Or maybe there is. We’ll just have to wait and see what Zeiss tells us.
kotmj wrote:
Notice how Zeiss is always “behind the market”. Only once a market is firmly established do they start developing for it. So they are always 5 years late to the party. They never start the party. Problem is the party doesn’t last for much longer than 5 years. So by the time Zeiss enters, the party is almost over.
Kalainen wrote:
The "first story" effect is a cognitive bias where the first piece of information we receive strongly influences our thinking. It acts like an anchor, making us focus on the initial information and treat it as the starting point for our reasoning. The problem, especially online, is that once the first story is established, it becomes dominant, and later versions struggle to gain equal footing. Even if Zeiss were to officially confirm that the new Otus lenses are based on brand-new optical designs, people might still associate them with the Nano Primes. That's how the internet, the 'information super high way', works!
....Show more →
Not really. All it takes is Zeiss to publish the new design diagrams and then anyone claiming otherwise would be easily refuted ...
It is so specific that they tell you some surfaces of some Milvus was AR coated differently. But no mention of subtle changes of surface radii to account for the sensor stack. So, I think they’re optically identical unless otherwise specified.
From the link you posted Dave, seems pretty definitive to me...
Are there differences in performance between ZEISS Milvus and ZEISS Classic lenses?
The main idea why we launched the MILVUS lens family was to provide a new range of modern SLR lenses with consistant characteristics and performance across all focal lengths.
The ZEISS Classic family’s less complex optical designed focal lengths of 3.5/18, 2/25, 2.8/25, 2/28, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, and 1.4/85 exhibit specific characteristics and should be stopped down accordingly for best imaging performance. When used wide open, they typically provide a relatively soft result ("vintage look") or a higher amount of optical aberrations.
ZEISS Milvus 2.8/18, 1.4/25, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, and 1.4/85 lenses have been completely redesigned to guarantee consistent imaging performance over all focal lengths.
All Milvus lenses show the latest improved T* coating for best possible transmission and highly effective reflex suppression.
p.7 #11 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
tsdevine wrote: ZEISS Milvus 2.8/18, 1.4/25, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, and 1.4/85 lenses have been completely redesigned to guarantee consistent imaging performance over all focal lengths.
FWIW that's not quite accurate, they probably phrased it that way for expediency. Only the 35, 50, and 85 were literal redesigns, while the 18/2.8 and 25/1.4 were new models that didn't have a "Classic" predecessor.
p.7 #12 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
Lee Saxon wrote:
FWIW that's not quite accurate, they probably phrased it that way for expediency. Only the 35, 50, and 85 were literal redesigns, while the 18/2.8 and 25/1.4 were new models that didn't have a "Classic" predecessor.
Isn't that just semantics in this context? I mean truly "new" lenses are still new designs, whether there were a prior lens that was redesigned. But good call out.
I mean in this context, I guess it gives some hope that these new lenses are truly new designs, but again this is all a conjecture game at this point.
The thought that these will most likely be stills versions of the Nano's because they wouldn't have had time to develop new lens designs seems to imply that they would have had to design ALL of the new lenses up front. I would think it's possible that they designed one or two to start with and can work through other lens designs over time.
p.7 #13 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
tsdevine wrote:
The thought that these will most likely be stills versions of the Nano's because they wouldn't have had time to develop new lens designs seems to imply that they would have had to design ALL of the new lenses up front. I would think it's possible that they designed one or two to start with and can work through other lens designs over time.
With the cinema-lenses it makes sense to design the whole set at once, because one needs to sell the whole set to production teams. With photo-lenses it's different as most users just buy one lens at a time - though some of us end up collecting hundreds of them anyway...
p.7 #14 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
kotmj wrote:
Notice how Zeiss is always “behind the market”. Only once a market is firmly established do they start developing for it. So they are always 5 years late to the party. They never start the party. Problem is the party doesn’t last for much longer than 5 years. So by the time Zeiss enters, the party is almost over.
Maybe not so far behind the Full Frame mirrorless market party at least for Emount:
-Sony introduced the A7r Full frame Emount mirrorless in 2013 ( Party-starter for sure)
-Zeiss introduced the Loxia Emount line in 2014 ( Ideal for video but also a very good hybrid lens)
-Zeiss introduced the Batis line in 2015 ( Turned out to be Much better than many on the forum predicted)
BTW, contrary to what many people talked on this forum, my Batis lenses have held up just fine, the focus ring is NOT a dust roller and still looks and operates like brand new. Oh and the digital distance scale is accurate/always has been and still functions bright as day-one *at least on my Batis lenses.
p.7 #15 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
LBJ2 wrote:
Maybe not so far behind the Full Frame mirrorless market party at least for Emount:
-Sony introduced the A7r Full frame Emount mirrorless in 2013 ( Party-starter for sure)
-Zeiss introduced the Loxia Emount line in 2014 ( Ideal for video but also a very good hybrid lens)
-Zeiss introduced the Batis line in 2015 ( Turned out to be Much better than many on the forum predicted)
BTW, contrary to what many people talked on this forum, my Batis lenses have held up just fine, the focus ring is NOT a dust roller and still looks and operates like brand new. Oh and the digital distance scale is accurate/always has been and still functions bright as day-one *at least on my Batis lenses. ...Show more →
I have the 18, 25, 40 and 135...I find mine seem to gather more dust on the focus ring than a lot of my other lenses. But It's not a hill I'm going to die on, it's just an opinion and I could be wrong.
tsdevine wrote:
I have the 18, 25, 40 and 135...I find mine seem to gather more dust on the focus ring than a lot of my other lenses. But It's not a hill I'm going to die on, it's just an opinion and I could be wrong.
p.7 #17 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
I'm late to the party, but still here are my two cents. Assuming the design shown off in that teaser shot posted above is accurate, it looks better than the Batis design, which I wasn't particularly fond off. A relatively compact series of fast primes with relatively few compromises might sell better than the moderately fast earlier e-mount offerings.
I had the Batis 85 and 135 at one point, both were/are very good lenses to be sure, but I was no fan of either. Like others, I felt the Batis lenses could have been more compact. I also happen to like tele lenses that offer a greater magnification than either long Batis. I like the Loxia series much better and the 21 remains my most frequently used UWA.
p.7 #18 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
kotmj wrote:
It’s silicone rubber. Extensively used in cooking implements/potholders. It’s sticky. But it does not degrade over time like other rubber compounds.
p.7 #20 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced!
j4nu wrote:
Nah, you're right - I had Batis 40 and I had to clean that ring nearly every time I took the lens out of the bag ...
I wonder why. Not that you two are the only ones to complain about this on the forums. Just that I'm not experiencing any unusual dust magnet experience with my Batis focus rings--and as I wrote the non traditional material focus ring so many warned about on the forum, has held up for me very well and I have never had to clean the Batis focus rings more than any of my other lenses of varying materials.
Interestingly, I notice white dust specs most often on my Leica M lenses all-metal focus rings.
...