I had to be honest, the review reads a bit like an ad. The lens is obviously quite good, but the effusive talk of Zeiss pop is a bit over the top and frankly I don’t see anything that shows different from something like the CV 50/2 APOL (though obviously shallower depth of field.)
There is also one statement that is one of my top pet peeves. You say “At its widest aperture it delivers a beautifully shallow depth of field, elegantly separating your subject from the background. The bokeh is remarkably smooth with soft, round highlights thanks to the lens's ten blade aperture diaphragm.”
You’re talking about wide open aperture, but talk about how the aperture blades are the reason. The aperture blades have exactly nothing to do with wide open bokeh…they aren’t in the light path wide open.
However, I like the image samples and they display a nice snapshot of the lens’s qualities.
I know this comes off quite negative and I’m not trying to be a downer, just those things stuck out to me. It is otherwise a well organized and well done review and I appreciate the report!
Well, having owned many of the best standard lenses ever made for various formats, I must say I agree that the Otus is special.
Photographs I captured years ago with the initial Otus 55mm f1.4 do have something special that I wouldn’t mind calling a pop. It’s even visible in smallish prints.
And yes, I love my Cosina 50mm f2.0 APO-Lanthat in absolute terms and even more considering its compact size. Yes they are made in the same factory as the Otus… but I am not convinced they are equal (regardless of the top aperture difference).
Thanks for posting. Looks really nice. Perhaps it’s my imagination but I think I might see some subtle pincushion distortion. Probably nitpicking but I’d be curious about that. I see it sometimes when shooting street with my CV 50/2 APO.
I agree Bernard. When looking back at pictures that I made with the original Otus 55 I am still impressed about how they look.
bernardl wrote:
Well, having owned many of the best standard lenses ever made for various formats, I must say I agree that the Otus is special.
Photographs I captured years ago with the initial Otus 55mm f1.4 do have something special that I wouldn’t mind calling a pop. It’s even visible in smallish prints.
And yes, I love my Cosina 50mm f2.0 APO-Lanthat in absolute terms and even more considering its compact size. Yes they are made in the same factory as the Otus… but I am not convinced they are equal (regardless of the top aperture difference).
Jman13 wrote:
I had to be honest, the review reads a bit like an ad. The lens is obviously quite good, but the effusive talk of Zeiss pop is a bit over the top and frankly I don’t see anything that shows different from something like the CV 50/2 APOL (though obviously shallower depth of field.)
There is also one statement that is one of my top pet peeves. You say “At its widest aperture it delivers a beautifully shallow depth of field, elegantly separating your subject from the background. The bokeh is remarkably smooth with soft, round highlights thanks to the lens's ten blade aperture diaphragm.”
You’re talking about wide open aperture, but talk about how the aperture blades are the reason. The aperture blades have exactly nothing to do with wide open bokeh…they aren’t in the light path wide open.
However, I like the image samples and they display a nice snapshot of the lens’s qualities.
I know this comes off quite negative and I’m not trying to be a downer, just those things stuck out to me. It is otherwise a well organized and well done review and I appreciate the report!...Show more →
Nothing wrong with constructive criticism. It helps me with the next review. But let me address your points.
Yes. I can see how you may think I may come across as a bit bias in my review. Having owned the original otus and using it on cameras with optical view finder was an enjoyable and rewarding experience. Now with the aid of an evf and a much smaller lens, that level of enjoyment reaches new heights. I knew what I was getting into and have always acknowledged and recognized the "Zeiss Pop" or "3D Pop" so I tend to push that narrative a lot. But yes, I will tone it down a bit and try not to show too much excitement in my other reviews.
I have both the apo lanthar 50 and the 1.0 nokton as you can see in the image i posted. Both are extraordinary lenses and in my opinion the apo lanthar is just as good as the Leica apo. But the zeiss just out shines both the lanthar and nokton n terms of contrast and rendering. The focus transition and ability to maintain separation at most wider apertures is amazing. Colors are gorgeous and highlights are pleasing. Looking at voigtlanders on their own and compared to others, the voigtlanders are the clear choice. But side by side with the otus, different story.
The 1.0 is a charm. But does not maintain the sharpness and contrast at f1 or 1.2 the the otus does wide open.
Lastly, in my defense I did clearly state it was very subjective review with my own impressions. The scientific charts and zooms of details in far edges will be left to other to review.
I will say, some of the larger images which don't show well on web browser are just ridiculously sharp and contrast. I should put a couple up for download but they are somewhat limited due to 24mp.
Thanks for the feedback.
JT
Here are just a few moew
If you want to see larger versions, remove the med_ from the link
Jman13 wrote: I had to be honest, the review reads a bit like an ad. The lens is obviously quite good, but the effusive talk of Zeiss pop is a bit over the top and frankly I don’t see anything that shows different from something like the CV 50/2 APOL (though obviously shallower depth of field.)
There is also one statement that is one of my top pet peeves. You say “At its widest aperture it delivers a beautifully shallow depth of field, elegantly separating your subject from the background. The bokeh is remarkably smooth with soft, round highlights thanks to the lens's ten blade aperture diaphragm.”
You’re talking about wide open aperture, but talk about how the aperture blades are the reason. The aperture blades have exactly nothing to do with wide open bokeh…they aren’t in the light path wide open.
However, I like the image samples and they display a nice snapshot of the lens’s qualities.
I know this comes off quite negative and I’m not trying to be a downer, just those things stuck out to me. It is otherwise a well organized and well done review and I appreciate the report!...Show more →
No kidding. The two quotes below caught my eye.
This design, combined with an apochromatic correction, ensures that there is no distracting color fringing in the out of focus areas, a common imperfection in lesser lenses.
And yet there's clear LoCa on samples I've seen from DPR and other sources.
While some modern lenses rely on in camera corrections to achieve a similar level of performance, the Otus is designed to be optically flawless, delivering its remarkable sharpness and contrast without any digital trickery.
I could be wrong, but sharpness and contrast are not optical properties that are typically corrected by digital lens profiles. Usually digital corrections are for distortion, vignetting, focus breathing, and chromatic (and other) aberrations, aren't they?
Thanks for your subjective evaluations of the Otus 50/1.4.
I don't like size (77x115 mm, or 3.04"x4.53") and weight (718 g, 1.58 lbs, for the Z version). It's as large as, and slightly heavier than, my Zeiss ZF ("Classic") 100/2 Makro-Planar.
I'll continue using my CV 50/2 Apo and the 40+ y.o. AI 50/1.4. Smaller, lighter lenses are more likely to be in my bag when there is a photo to be taken
Let me remind that the 50/2 AL is smaller and lighter (67.6 x 64.3 mm; 347 g) than the Z 50/1.8 S (415 g; 76 x 87 mm). The greater compactness of the CV lens, which is just as fast (and optically better), is probably attributable to i) the absence of the AF motor and ii) the use of numerous anomalous partial dispersion (APD) elements (5 out of 10). The Otus 50/1.4 ML uses only 4 APD elements out of a total of 14 elements/11 groups. I wonder if the use of a Distagon (retrofocus) design, same as Otus SLR lenses, and the limited use of APD elements, are responsible for such a bulky lens, which is almost as large as the excellent and faster Sony GM 50/1.2 AF.
Wezre wrote:
And yet there's clear LoCa on samples I've seen from DPR and other sources.
I guess if they had used more APD elements, LoCA could have been better corrected.
Wezre wrote:
I could be wrong, but sharpness and contrast are not optical properties that are typically corrected by digital lens profiles. Usually digital corrections are for distortion, vignetting, focus breathing, and chromatic (and other) aberrations, aren't they?
I don't know, but the level of details DxO PureRaw5 is able to extract (by applying digital lens profiles) from my lenses is really superior to my other raw converters (ACR, Capture One Pro 22, NX Studio).
For those of you that have concerns about the LoCa and based on what someone wrote a while ago have a look at this
?si=VZwaEstmPjCxKkwS
Skip to 5:55 or simply watch it all.
I would say unless you use the lens and you are simply knocking it down because of of something you read, you are will be missing out on something you may otherwise really like. Kind of like not watching the lord of the ring trilogy because you read a critic say something negative about it.
I have scrutinized the DPReview files (acquired with a Sony a7R V, i.e., a 60 Mpix monster) and LoCA is visible in some pictures taken @ f/1.4 (e.g., glasses' picture; toolbox images taken at different apertures show LoCA af f/2 too).
Those pictures were acquired with a pre-production sample. The video guy also hypothesizes that it could depend on sample variation, or pre-production samples were different from production ones ... BTW, DPReview images are there.
In any case, even my Zeiss 135/2 Apo Sonnar is not completely free from LoCA.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
For those of you that have concerns about the LoCa and based on what someone wrote a while ago have a look at this
?si=VZwaEstmPjCxKkwS
Skip to 5:55 or simply watch it all.
I would say unless you use the lens and you are simply knocking it down because of of something you read, you are will be missing out on something you may otherwise really like. Kind of like not watching the lord of the ring trilogy because you read a critic say something negative about it.
Or we're being critical of a lens that claims to be apochromatic, while it also costs $2,500, is large/heavy, and is manual focus. It's essentially the same size and weight (even slightly heavier than the Sony) as the Canon RF 50mm 1.4L and Sony 50mm 1.4 GM, except those both have top tier AF motors and cost $1,000+ less than the Zeiss.
The only reason why I sold the Otus 55mm and 85mm was ugly texture in the oof bokeh balls. To me it made the lens unusable in some situations. Very similar to the Canon 28-70mm f2.0.
They fixed it in the 100mm f1.4 and apparently also in the ML lenses.
To me that turns it into something very appealing. Together with its price in Japan that is nearly 50% lower at 261,000 yen.
It always was an impossible task to convince some about the value. You just need to use the lens and compare it to the very best alternatives to figure out what the fuss is about.
RoamingScott wrote:
Misinterpreting that "value" is universal amongst all people is the fool's folly, not the convincing. The convincing is just a buzzing mosquito.
Exactly, hence the impossibility. The non universality of value is plain obvious isn’t?
And I am not even talking about the price here.
We are all somewhere along a winding path and what matters changes.
Very nice images. However, the amount of contrast, microcontrast and pop (whatever that is) from your samples and dpreview samples seem quite different and I would not think that it is from the same lens.
Also Zf and A7r V color is going to be that much more different. Just wondering how much post processing you did with the image. Your image certainly grab my attention much more than dpreview gallery did
Also dpreview gallery seems to be more of a snapshots of variety of scenes and condition while yours are more deliberated in away. It would be nice to see sample pictures taken by 50/1.2s and Otus side by side. Nowaday, I am spending a lot more money on my travel than my camera gear so
certainly curiosity needs to be relied on other people
suteetat wrote:
Very nice images. However, the amount of contrast, microcontrast and pop (whatever that is) from your sample of dpreview sample seems quite different and I would not think that it is from the same lens.
Also Zf and A7r V color is going to be that much more different.
The files from a Sony body processed through LR vs those of a Nikon body processed through C1 Pro (not sure where it was the case with these but they look very similar to what I am getting colorwise) look pretty different. I personally prefer the latter. If you grade your images significantly then Sony is completely fine but, per my own experience with a9II, a7rIV and a9III it takes more work to get files that look both natural and pleasing. Pop just seems to be missing a bit.
I think that this may indeed be part of the reason why these look better and further highlight the quality of the lens.
I find the bokeh balls to be more pleasing here also. But that is probably scene dependent. The significant cat eyes in the DPreview samples are the one aspect that get me a bit worried. I shoot with the 35mm f1.2 S and Plena a lot recently and once you get used to highly circular bokeh balls cat eyed ones look ugly.
bernardl wrote:
The files from a Sony body processed through LR vs those of a Nikon body processed through C1 Pro (not sure where it was the case with these but they look very similar to what I am getting colorwise) look pretty different. I personally prefer the latter. If you grade your images significantly then Sony is completely fine but, per my own experience with a9II, a7rIV and a9III it takes more work to get files that look both natural and pleasing. Pop just seems to be missing a bit.
I think that this may indeed be part of the reason why these look better and further highlight the quality of the lens.
I find the bokeh balls to be more pleasing here also. But that is probably scene dependent. The significant cat eyes in the DPreview samples are the one aspect that get me a bit worried. I shoot with the 35mm f1.2 S and Plena a lot recently and once you get used to highly circular bokeh balls cat eyed ones look ugly.
... BTW, DPReview images are there.
