Otus 35mm
p.2 #1Otus 35mm
Nikon Rumors just added
Shipping will start in Spring 2026
Price: $2,299
Shipping will start in Spring 2026
Price: $2,299
Feb 17, 2026 at 09:37 AM
p.2 #2Otus 35mm
I certainly would have been very interested in a ZF.2 (F-mount) 35mm Otus, in 2018, when I bought my 85mm Otus ZF.2 lens. I could not convince myself to buy the Otus 28mm ZF.2, because the Nikkor 28mm f/1.4E was/is so very good, and much lighter burden to be toting. (One heavy lens is OK. A second heavy lens would have to be absolutely superb to be worth the effort.)
When I finally buy a Z8 or Z9, I will certainly consider buying a 35mm Otus Z-mount lens, though it will have to be notably better than the Zeiss Distagon 35/1,4 ZM, which I already have.
When I finally buy a Z8 or Z9, I will certainly consider buying a 35mm Otus Z-mount lens, though it will have to be notably better than the Zeiss Distagon 35/1,4 ZM, which I already have.
Feb 17, 2026 at 10:31 AM
p.2 #3Otus 35mm
In my own user experience, I prefer the optical performance of the Zeiss Milvus ZF/ZE 35/1.4 over the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 (of course not the size and weight). The new Outs APO 35/1.4 should be better than both. I will be interested in this lens as I use 35mm more than other focal length.
Feb 17, 2026 at 10:59 AM
p.2 #4Otus 35mm
I don't need another 35mm lens, but this could be very tempting to pick up, assuming IQ is inline or better than the 50mm ML. I wonder if they will end up making a 28mm or 25mm as the next wider lens in the series.
I am a bit surprised by all the negativity around the ML series. Zeiss has made a line of Otus level lens that are smaller and basically 1/2 the price. Zeiss was never known for making AF or affordable lenses. They are known for primum build quality, a great MF experience, and their unique rendering. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Zeiss make a true AF series too, but it's nice to see Zeiss back in the photo game, and so far the ML series seems off to a strong start.
I am a bit surprised by all the negativity around the ML series. Zeiss has made a line of Otus level lens that are smaller and basically 1/2 the price. Zeiss was never known for making AF or affordable lenses. They are known for primum build quality, a great MF experience, and their unique rendering. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Zeiss make a true AF series too, but it's nice to see Zeiss back in the photo game, and so far the ML series seems off to a strong start.
Feb 17, 2026 at 12:23 PM
p.2 #5Otus 35mm
DWOfPaul wrote:
I don't need another 35mm lens, but this could be very tempting to pick up, assuming IQ is inline or better than the 50mm ML. I wonder if they will end up making a 28mm or 25mm as the next wider lens in the series.
I am a bit surprised by all the negativity around the ML series. Zeiss has made a line of Otus level lens that are smaller and basically 1/2 the price. Zeiss was never known for making AF or affordable lenses. They are known for primum build quality, a great MF experience, and their unique rendering....Show more →
I think the biggest reason for the lukewarm reception of the ML series Otus lenses is that, at least to me, it felt like they were coming in a bit late. I also don't know how much relevance the Otus series has at the moment. When the original Otus lenses were made, they were, hands down, the best optics available at their focal length and aperture, and they didn't care about size in order to hit that mark.
The mirrorless versions, first of all, aren't quite as good optically relative to their contemporaries, with the 50mm f/1.4 showing noticeable longitudinal CA, and with very good, but not incredible sharpness. This might work OK for a lens that undercuts the competition, or is small and light while maintaining incredible quality, etc....but it is a hard sell in a $2,500 manual focus lens that is still fairly bulky, and doesn't really exceed something like the Sony FE 50mm f/1.4 GM optically, let alone the 50mm f/1.2 GM or RF 50mm f/1.2L, both of which are utterly phenomenal, cost about the same as the Zeiss, are roughly similar in size to the Zeiss despite the faster aperture, and have autofocus.
The 85mm f/1.4 is a very good lens, but again, at $3,000, it's a hard sell with the first party options are now just as good optically, are 1/3 stop to 1/2 stop faster, cost the same, and have autofocus. The rest of the world caught up, while Zeiss sat doing nothing for 5 years, and now the optics are far less of a unique selling point than they once were.
While not as fast you also have small, mechanically beautiful manual focus lenses with optics that are every bit as good, if not even better, with the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar lenses for 1/3 the price.
It's not that the ML lenses aren't excellent lenses with beautiful build and outstanding optics. It's just that there's a lot more choice out there now for similar optics that are the same price but faster and with autofocus, or are smaller and cheaper (while sacrificing aperture).
I don't need another 35mm lens, but this could be very tempting to pick up, assuming IQ is inline or better than the 50mm ML. I wonder if they will end up making a 28mm or 25mm as the next wider lens in the series.
I am a bit surprised by all the negativity around the ML series. Zeiss has made a line of Otus level lens that are smaller and basically 1/2 the price. Zeiss was never known for making AF or affordable lenses. They are known for primum build quality, a great MF experience, and their unique rendering....Show more →
I think the biggest reason for the lukewarm reception of the ML series Otus lenses is that, at least to me, it felt like they were coming in a bit late. I also don't know how much relevance the Otus series has at the moment. When the original Otus lenses were made, they were, hands down, the best optics available at their focal length and aperture, and they didn't care about size in order to hit that mark.
The mirrorless versions, first of all, aren't quite as good optically relative to their contemporaries, with the 50mm f/1.4 showing noticeable longitudinal CA, and with very good, but not incredible sharpness. This might work OK for a lens that undercuts the competition, or is small and light while maintaining incredible quality, etc....but it is a hard sell in a $2,500 manual focus lens that is still fairly bulky, and doesn't really exceed something like the Sony FE 50mm f/1.4 GM optically, let alone the 50mm f/1.2 GM or RF 50mm f/1.2L, both of which are utterly phenomenal, cost about the same as the Zeiss, are roughly similar in size to the Zeiss despite the faster aperture, and have autofocus.
The 85mm f/1.4 is a very good lens, but again, at $3,000, it's a hard sell with the first party options are now just as good optically, are 1/3 stop to 1/2 stop faster, cost the same, and have autofocus. The rest of the world caught up, while Zeiss sat doing nothing for 5 years, and now the optics are far less of a unique selling point than they once were.
While not as fast you also have small, mechanically beautiful manual focus lenses with optics that are every bit as good, if not even better, with the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar lenses for 1/3 the price.
It's not that the ML lenses aren't excellent lenses with beautiful build and outstanding optics. It's just that there's a lot more choice out there now for similar optics that are the same price but faster and with autofocus, or are smaller and cheaper (while sacrificing aperture).
Feb 17, 2026 at 12:40 PM
p.2 #6Otus 35mm
Jman13 wrote:
I am a bit surprised by all the negativity around the ML series. Zeiss has made a line of Otus level lens that are smaller and basically 1/2 the price. Zeiss was never known for making AF or affordable lenses. They are known for primum build quality, a great MF experience, and their unique rendering. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Zeiss make a true AF series too, but it's nice to see Zeiss back in the photo game, and so far the ML series seems off to a strong start.I think the biggest reason for the lukewarm reception of the ML series Otus lenses is that, at least to me, it felt like they were coming in a bit late. I also don't know how much relevance the Otus series has at the moment. When the original Otus lenses were made, they were, hands down, the best optics available at their focal length and aperture, and they didn't care about size in order to hit that mark.
The mirrorless versions, first of all, aren't quite as good optically relative to their contemporaries, with the 50mm f/1.4 showing noticeable longitudinal...Show more →
Exactly my thoughts. These lenses are unfortunately too little, too late in the mirrorless world. Had they been AF and/or more compact they would've been more competitive. The price : performance : features equation just doesn't work in their favor any more.
DWOfPaul wrote
I don't need another 35mm lens, but this could be very tempting to pick up, assuming IQ is inline or better than the 50mm ML. I wonder if they will end up making a 28mm or 25mm as the next wider lens in the series.I am a bit surprised by all the negativity around the ML series. Zeiss has made a line of Otus level lens that are smaller and basically 1/2 the price. Zeiss was never known for making AF or affordable lenses. They are known for primum build quality, a great MF experience, and their unique rendering. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Zeiss make a true AF series too, but it's nice to see Zeiss back in the photo game, and so far the ML series seems off to a strong start.
The mirrorless versions, first of all, aren't quite as good optically relative to their contemporaries, with the 50mm f/1.4 showing noticeable longitudinal...Show more →
Exactly my thoughts. These lenses are unfortunately too little, too late in the mirrorless world. Had they been AF and/or more compact they would've been more competitive. The price : performance : features equation just doesn't work in their favor any more.
Feb 17, 2026 at 12:51 PM
p.2 #7Otus 35mm
Jman13 wrote:
While not as fast you also have small, mechanically beautiful manual focus lenses with optics that are every bit as good, if not even better, with the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar lenses for 1/3 the price.
With the current advances in lens design, you'd think now would be the "golden age" of really good lenses that are smaller, but no. I'd love a Zeiss f/2 or f/2.8 line of primes. Cosina is the only company doing 'smaller but still good'.
While not as fast you also have small, mechanically beautiful manual focus lenses with optics that are every bit as good, if not even better, with the Voigtlander APO-Lanthar lenses for 1/3 the price.
With the current advances in lens design, you'd think now would be the "golden age" of really good lenses that are smaller, but no. I'd love a Zeiss f/2 or f/2.8 line of primes. Cosina is the only company doing 'smaller but still good'.
Feb 17, 2026 at 01:30 PM
p.2 #8Otus 35mm
Jman13 wrote:
I am a bit surprised by all the negativity around the ML series. Zeiss has made a line of Otus level lens that are smaller and basically 1/2 the price. Zeiss was never known for making AF or affordable lenses. They are known for primum build quality, a great MF experience, and their unique rendering. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Zeiss make a true AF series too, but it's nice to see Zeiss back in the photo game, and so far the ML series seems off to a strong start.I think the biggest reason for the lukewarm reception of the ML series Otus lenses is that, at least to me, it felt like they were coming in a bit late. I also don't know how much relevance the Otus series has at the moment. When the original Otus lenses were made, they were, hands down, the best optics available at their focal length and aperture, and they didn't care about size in order to hit that mark.
The mirrorless versions, first of all, aren't quite as good optically relative to their contemporaries, with the 50mm f/1.4 showing noticeable longitudinal...Show more →
I agree, about 5 years with no new photo lenses and two arguably unfinished E mount lines did cause people to move on and find their lenses elsewhere. There is a strong argument to be made that Zeiss botched their transition to mirrorless.
I do wish there were more real world comparsions between the 55mm Otus and 50mm Otusm ML, but according to the Zeiss Data sheets, the MTF charts are very similar, with arguably the ML having a slight advantage over most of the frame. That's not bad for a smaller, cheaper, and wider lens.
I wonder how the market would have reacted if Zeiss stuck to the original Otus philosophy of making large and expensive lenses with IQ being above basically all else. Persoanlly it probably wouldn't interest me as much as the ML line, as even though the 55mm Otus can be found used for a reasonable price now, and was a dream lens of mine for years. I just don't see myself taking such a large and heavy lens around often at this point. In someways photography has changed in the last decade. With modern cameras and lenses, we can get photos quicker than ever, with less weight, and some of the best IQ we have ever seen. While I am only one person, I just don't know if there is a market anymore for a 4k 4lb+ 50mm MF lens.
DWOfPaul wrote
I don't need another 35mm lens, but this could be very tempting to pick up, assuming IQ is inline or better than the 50mm ML. I wonder if they will end up making a 28mm or 25mm as the next wider lens in the series.I am a bit surprised by all the negativity around the ML series. Zeiss has made a line of Otus level lens that are smaller and basically 1/2 the price. Zeiss was never known for making AF or affordable lenses. They are known for primum build quality, a great MF experience, and their unique rendering. Don't get me wrong, I would like to see Zeiss make a true AF series too, but it's nice to see Zeiss back in the photo game, and so far the ML series seems off to a strong start.
The mirrorless versions, first of all, aren't quite as good optically relative to their contemporaries, with the 50mm f/1.4 showing noticeable longitudinal...Show more →
I agree, about 5 years with no new photo lenses and two arguably unfinished E mount lines did cause people to move on and find their lenses elsewhere. There is a strong argument to be made that Zeiss botched their transition to mirrorless.
I do wish there were more real world comparsions between the 55mm Otus and 50mm Otusm ML, but according to the Zeiss Data sheets, the MTF charts are very similar, with arguably the ML having a slight advantage over most of the frame. That's not bad for a smaller, cheaper, and wider lens.
I wonder how the market would have reacted if Zeiss stuck to the original Otus philosophy of making large and expensive lenses with IQ being above basically all else. Persoanlly it probably wouldn't interest me as much as the ML line, as even though the 55mm Otus can be found used for a reasonable price now, and was a dream lens of mine for years. I just don't see myself taking such a large and heavy lens around often at this point. In someways photography has changed in the last decade. With modern cameras and lenses, we can get photos quicker than ever, with less weight, and some of the best IQ we have ever seen. While I am only one person, I just don't know if there is a market anymore for a 4k 4lb+ 50mm MF lens.
Feb 17, 2026 at 04:58 PM
p.2 #9Otus 35mm
I have had six Otus/Milvus lenses that I thought were exceptional. The Milvus 25 f/1.4, the Otus 28 f/1.4, the Milvus 35 f/1.4, the Otus 55 f/1.4, the Milvus 85 f/1.4, and the Milvus 135 f/2 APO. I haven't used the new Otus ML lenses, but they seem to be of a similar quality to these top level lenses from Zeiss and they are at least a little smaller and are priced more like the Milvus lenses than the Otus lenses. I think they would have done better to price them more in the range of the Milvus lenses, but I still think they would not have been a big sellers.
It seems that people who want manual focus lenses want rangefinder like manual focus lenses and the market for larger manual focus lenses is small. I am still quite interested in these lenses. I like them and their performance, but I am kind of ok with sales seeming to lag. I think that will mean that prices in the used market will drop faster. I am hopeful that in five years or so they will be at a price that I could consider getting two or three of them.
It seems that people who want manual focus lenses want rangefinder like manual focus lenses and the market for larger manual focus lenses is small. I am still quite interested in these lenses. I like them and their performance, but I am kind of ok with sales seeming to lag. I think that will mean that prices in the used market will drop faster. I am hopeful that in five years or so they will be at a price that I could consider getting two or three of them.
Feb 17, 2026 at 06:40 PM
p.2 #10Otus 35mm
Where did we land on that early concern/speculation that, based on price and size and CA correction and this and that, the "Otus ML" maybe should've been called "Milvus ML"?
Because here's the thought that sorta hangs me up: even if 2025 technology allows these new ML lenses to meet or exceed the [OG] Otus lenses (which, as Steve hints at, even some of the latest Milvus SLR lenses narrowed that gap), then I'm still wondering if those same technological advancements could've allowed them to call these "Milvus" and also bulid something *even more* amazing under the [OG] Otus "size weight and price no object" design brief.
Because here's the thought that sorta hangs me up: even if 2025 technology allows these new ML lenses to meet or exceed the [OG] Otus lenses (which, as Steve hints at, even some of the latest Milvus SLR lenses narrowed that gap), then I'm still wondering if those same technological advancements could've allowed them to call these "Milvus" and also bulid something *even more* amazing under the [OG] Otus "size weight and price no object" design brief.
Feb 17, 2026 at 07:31 PM
|
p.2 #11Otus 35mm
ocean2059 wrote:
In my own user experience, I prefer the optical performance of the Zeiss Milvus ZF/ZE 35/1.4 over the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 (of course not the size and weight). The new Outs APO 35/1.4 should be better than both. I will be interested in this lens as I use 35mm more than other focal length.
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2021/20210103_0925-ReaderComment-ZeissZM35f1_4-vs-ZeissMilvus35f1_4.html
In my own user experience, I prefer the optical performance of the Zeiss Milvus ZF/ZE 35/1.4 over the Zeiss ZM 35/1.4 (of course not the size and weight). The new Outs APO 35/1.4 should be better than both. I will be interested in this lens as I use 35mm more than other focal length.
https://diglloyd.com/blog/2021/20210103_0925-ReaderComment-ZeissZM35f1_4-vs-ZeissMilvus35f1_4.html
Feb 17, 2026 at 09:28 PM
p.2 #12Otus 35mm
Lee Saxon wrote:
Where did we land on that early concern/speculation that, based on price and size and CA correction and this and that, the "Otus ML" maybe should've been called "Milvus ML"?
Because here's the thought that sorta hangs me up: even if 2025 technology allows these new ML lenses to meet or exceed the [OG] Otus lenses (which, as Steve hints at, even some of the latest Milvus SLR lenses narrowed that gap), then I'm still wondering if those same technological advancements could've allowed them to call these "Milvus" and also bulid something *even more* amazing under the [OG] Otus "size...Show more →
"We" meaning the armchair CEOs of the world?
I can understand why people were disappointed in the 50. The 55 certainly outperforms it so far as color correction, but that's not true for the 85, which is both spectacularly well-corrected and ahead in overall resolution versus its larger, heavier counterpart. It's very much a contender for best lens of its type available now.
I don't know what the 35 holds in store for us. It might perform more like the 50 or it might perform closer to the 85. Either way, I'm keen to answer all my questions myself.
Where did we land on that early concern/speculation that, based on price and size and CA correction and this and that, the "Otus ML" maybe should've been called "Milvus ML"?
Because here's the thought that sorta hangs me up: even if 2025 technology allows these new ML lenses to meet or exceed the [OG] Otus lenses (which, as Steve hints at, even some of the latest Milvus SLR lenses narrowed that gap), then I'm still wondering if those same technological advancements could've allowed them to call these "Milvus" and also bulid something *even more* amazing under the [OG] Otus "size...Show more →
"We" meaning the armchair CEOs of the world?
I can understand why people were disappointed in the 50. The 55 certainly outperforms it so far as color correction, but that's not true for the 85, which is both spectacularly well-corrected and ahead in overall resolution versus its larger, heavier counterpart. It's very much a contender for best lens of its type available now.
I don't know what the 35 holds in store for us. It might perform more like the 50 or it might perform closer to the 85. Either way, I'm keen to answer all my questions myself.
Feb 17, 2026 at 11:13 PM
p.2 #13Otus 35mm
As well as being a direct successor to the previous 35mm f1.4 Milvus this will also serve as a de facto one to the 35mm f1.4 Distagon on emount which has wonderful rendering but suffers in other ways optically.
Personally I'm hoping for a ML 100mm f1.4 Otus 🙏
Personally I'm hoping for a ML 100mm f1.4 Otus 🙏
Feb 18, 2026 at 01:59 AM
p.2 #14Otus 35mm
freaklikeme wrote:
Because here's the thought that sorta hangs me up: even if 2025 technology allows these new ML lenses to meet or exceed the [OG] Otus lenses (which, as Steve hints at, even some of the latest Milvus SLR lenses narrowed that gap), then I'm still wondering if those same technological advancements could've allowed them to call these "Milvus" and also bulid something *even more* amazing under the [OG] Otus "size weight and price no object" design brief."We" meaning the armchair CEOs of the world?
I can understand why people were disappointed in the 50. The 55 certainly outperforms it so far as color correction, but that's not true for the 85, which is both spectacularly well-corrected and ahead in overall resolution versus its larger, heavier counterpart. It's very much a contender for best lens of its type available now.
I don't know what the 35 holds in store for us. It might perform more like the 50 or it might perform closer to the 85. Either way, I'm keen to answer all my questions myself.
Hi Brad,
I always appreciate your perspective.
I understand why people were disappointed with the 50, but I don't share that disappointment. Yeah, it has quite a bit of axial CA at f/1.4, and it would have been good if that was corrected. That is a flaw, but in my view what the lens does well to my eyes wasn't really appreciated. It is really sharp without being too sharp for portraits and has wonderful bokeh at f/1.4 and stopped down just a little it still has great bokeh and that axial CA cleans up really early. It also has really strong close up performance. The lens looks absolutely lovely at f/2 with very little remaining axial CA. It reminds me a lot of the ZM 35 f/1.4 with all of it strengths but with less axial CA (less at ff/1.4 and with the CA clearing up faster at wider apertures) and none of the outer frame weirdness that shows up some of the time with the ZM 35 f/1.4. It isn't a perfect lens but it is still a really strong lens in my view. The lack of perfection, however, was roundly bashed and it is true that the f/1.2 lenses from Sony/Canon/Nikon and the Leica SL 50 lux all provide very stiff competition albeit at a bigger size. On balance, however, and for my tastes I still like the look of the Otus ML 50 a bit more than all these very good lenses (well, I actually love the look of the SL 50 lux, but it is way bigger and way more expensive than even the Otus ML).
I agree with you that the Otus ML 85 is close to perfection. It looks to me like the Otus 100 f/1.4 in a bit smaller size at 85mm instead of 100mm. It is that good and that wasn't discussed much. I would find the lens useful for a lot of things, but for my tastes it is sharper than I would like (I like sharp but not that sharp) wide open complicating the taking of portraits and at 85mm I take a lot of portraits. I would want to soften most of them in post processing with that lens. I like both the Otus ML 85 and 50, but in real use I think the "perfect" ML 85 would lead to the need for post processing a lot more than the "imperfect" ML 50. Yeah, that axial CA would be a problem sometimes, but in high contrast settings I could just stop down to f/2 and that super sharpening would needed to be knocked down a peg in almost all my portraits with the ML 85. That together with the size has me wanting the ML 50 more than the near perfect ML 85. That is just me and that is without shooting either lens, so maybe I have this all wrong.
Given that thinking it probably isn't surprising that I hope the ML 35 is a bit more like the ML 50 than the ML 85. It certainly looks closer in size to the ML 50, although it will be a touch bigger it seems from the pictures and won't be small at something like 750g. I do hope it corrects axial CA better than the 50, but that is a tall order for a 35mm lens, but mostly I hope the sharpness profile is more like the ML 50 than the ML 85. I would like to see MTFs with percent contrast of 90/80/60 at 10/20/40 lp/mm instead of the 95/90/75 we see wide open with the ML 85. It will be interesting what we get. We will know about the sharpness soon, but the CA will take some testing and time to tell.
Lee Saxon wrote
Where did we land on that early concern/speculation that, based on price and size and CA correction and this and that, the "Otus ML" maybe should've been called "Milvus ML"?Because here's the thought that sorta hangs me up: even if 2025 technology allows these new ML lenses to meet or exceed the [OG] Otus lenses (which, as Steve hints at, even some of the latest Milvus SLR lenses narrowed that gap), then I'm still wondering if those same technological advancements could've allowed them to call these "Milvus" and also bulid something *even more* amazing under the [OG] Otus "size weight and price no object" design brief.
I can understand why people were disappointed in the 50. The 55 certainly outperforms it so far as color correction, but that's not true for the 85, which is both spectacularly well-corrected and ahead in overall resolution versus its larger, heavier counterpart. It's very much a contender for best lens of its type available now.
I don't know what the 35 holds in store for us. It might perform more like the 50 or it might perform closer to the 85. Either way, I'm keen to answer all my questions myself.
Hi Brad,
I always appreciate your perspective.
I understand why people were disappointed with the 50, but I don't share that disappointment. Yeah, it has quite a bit of axial CA at f/1.4, and it would have been good if that was corrected. That is a flaw, but in my view what the lens does well to my eyes wasn't really appreciated. It is really sharp without being too sharp for portraits and has wonderful bokeh at f/1.4 and stopped down just a little it still has great bokeh and that axial CA cleans up really early. It also has really strong close up performance. The lens looks absolutely lovely at f/2 with very little remaining axial CA. It reminds me a lot of the ZM 35 f/1.4 with all of it strengths but with less axial CA (less at ff/1.4 and with the CA clearing up faster at wider apertures) and none of the outer frame weirdness that shows up some of the time with the ZM 35 f/1.4. It isn't a perfect lens but it is still a really strong lens in my view. The lack of perfection, however, was roundly bashed and it is true that the f/1.2 lenses from Sony/Canon/Nikon and the Leica SL 50 lux all provide very stiff competition albeit at a bigger size. On balance, however, and for my tastes I still like the look of the Otus ML 50 a bit more than all these very good lenses (well, I actually love the look of the SL 50 lux, but it is way bigger and way more expensive than even the Otus ML).
I agree with you that the Otus ML 85 is close to perfection. It looks to me like the Otus 100 f/1.4 in a bit smaller size at 85mm instead of 100mm. It is that good and that wasn't discussed much. I would find the lens useful for a lot of things, but for my tastes it is sharper than I would like (I like sharp but not that sharp) wide open complicating the taking of portraits and at 85mm I take a lot of portraits. I would want to soften most of them in post processing with that lens. I like both the Otus ML 85 and 50, but in real use I think the "perfect" ML 85 would lead to the need for post processing a lot more than the "imperfect" ML 50. Yeah, that axial CA would be a problem sometimes, but in high contrast settings I could just stop down to f/2 and that super sharpening would needed to be knocked down a peg in almost all my portraits with the ML 85. That together with the size has me wanting the ML 50 more than the near perfect ML 85. That is just me and that is without shooting either lens, so maybe I have this all wrong.
Given that thinking it probably isn't surprising that I hope the ML 35 is a bit more like the ML 50 than the ML 85. It certainly looks closer in size to the ML 50, although it will be a touch bigger it seems from the pictures and won't be small at something like 750g. I do hope it corrects axial CA better than the 50, but that is a tall order for a 35mm lens, but mostly I hope the sharpness profile is more like the ML 50 than the ML 85. I would like to see MTFs with percent contrast of 90/80/60 at 10/20/40 lp/mm instead of the 95/90/75 we see wide open with the ML 85. It will be interesting what we get. We will know about the sharpness soon, but the CA will take some testing and time to tell.
Feb 18, 2026 at 05:22 AM
p.2 #15Otus 35mm
I also think at least /some/ of the market for large, very high performance lenses has shifted to 44x33 setups. I would be /far/ more interested in these lenses for Fuji GFX than for Nikon Z, which I'm now using as my lightweight system.
Feb 18, 2026 at 07:59 PM
p.2 #16Otus 35mm
Steve Spencer wrote:
Because here's the thought that sorta hangs me up: even if 2025 technology allows these new ML lenses to meet or exceed the [OG] Otus lenses (which, as Steve hints at, even some of the latest Milvus SLR lenses narrowed that gap), then I'm still wondering if those same technological advancements could've allowed them to call these "Milvus" and also bulid something *even more* amazing under the [OG] Otus "size weight and price no object" design brief."We" meaning the armchair CEOs of the world?
I can understand why people were disappointed in the 50. The 55 certainly outperforms it so far as color correction, but that's not true for the 85, which is both spectacularly well-corrected and ahead in overall resolution versus its larger, heavier counterpart. It's very much a contender for best lens of its type available now.
I don't know what the 35 holds in store for us. It might perform more like the 50 or it might perform closer to the 85. Either way, I'm keen to answer all my questions myself.Hi Brad,
I always appreciate your perspective.
I understand why people were disappointed with the 50, but I don't share that disappointment. Yeah, it has quite a bit of axial CA at f/1.4, and it would have been good if that was corrected. That is a flaw, but in my view what the lens does well to my eyes wasn't really appreciated. It is really sharp without being too sharp for portraits and has wonderful bokeh at f/1.4 and stopped down just a little it still has great bokeh and that axial CA cleans up really early. It also has really...Show more →
Thanks, Steve. I think very highly of your contributions, even when we disagree, which we don't here. I was sold on the charms of the 50 when I tested it at work. It'd be worth working around the minor CA issues (that, in my opinion, got way overblown in the influencer reviews) for all the other good things that lens does. My problem with it was one of focal length. If I'm carrying a 50, it's usually a macro. I'll probably attempt a cartwheel if they ever announce an Otus MP 50 or 60/2, but a 50/1.4 just doesn't do it for me, no matter how good optically or comfortable in use it may be.
So the 85 was bound to be a more natural fit for me, but, like you, I had concerns about it being a bit much. Those concerns evaporated when I took a rental copy with me to Oslo in January. Now, three days into ownership, I feel a little foolish for putting off the purchase. I could wax poetic about it for a good while, but I'll spare you that and just say it's all about transparency and a distraction free draw, regardless of aperture and focus distance. I'm not saying it's the lens for you. I just wouldn't write it off based on the MTFs.
I think I'm going to do my best to remain ignorant of the data sheet and influencers for the 35 until after I can order and receive it. The rumored lower price point already has me worried that Zeiss is telling us to lower our expectations. Anyway, I want the lens to show me what it can and can't do without any preconceived notion.
freaklikeme wrote
Lee Saxon wrote
Where did we land on that early concern/speculation that, based on price and size and CA correction and this and that, the "Otus ML" maybe should've been called "Milvus ML"?Because here's the thought that sorta hangs me up: even if 2025 technology allows these new ML lenses to meet or exceed the [OG] Otus lenses (which, as Steve hints at, even some of the latest Milvus SLR lenses narrowed that gap), then I'm still wondering if those same technological advancements could've allowed them to call these "Milvus" and also bulid something *even more* amazing under the [OG] Otus "size weight and price no object" design brief.
I can understand why people were disappointed in the 50. The 55 certainly outperforms it so far as color correction, but that's not true for the 85, which is both spectacularly well-corrected and ahead in overall resolution versus its larger, heavier counterpart. It's very much a contender for best lens of its type available now.
I don't know what the 35 holds in store for us. It might perform more like the 50 or it might perform closer to the 85. Either way, I'm keen to answer all my questions myself.
I always appreciate your perspective.
I understand why people were disappointed with the 50, but I don't share that disappointment. Yeah, it has quite a bit of axial CA at f/1.4, and it would have been good if that was corrected. That is a flaw, but in my view what the lens does well to my eyes wasn't really appreciated. It is really sharp without being too sharp for portraits and has wonderful bokeh at f/1.4 and stopped down just a little it still has great bokeh and that axial CA cleans up really early. It also has really...Show more →
Thanks, Steve. I think very highly of your contributions, even when we disagree, which we don't here. I was sold on the charms of the 50 when I tested it at work. It'd be worth working around the minor CA issues (that, in my opinion, got way overblown in the influencer reviews) for all the other good things that lens does. My problem with it was one of focal length. If I'm carrying a 50, it's usually a macro. I'll probably attempt a cartwheel if they ever announce an Otus MP 50 or 60/2, but a 50/1.4 just doesn't do it for me, no matter how good optically or comfortable in use it may be.
So the 85 was bound to be a more natural fit for me, but, like you, I had concerns about it being a bit much. Those concerns evaporated when I took a rental copy with me to Oslo in January. Now, three days into ownership, I feel a little foolish for putting off the purchase. I could wax poetic about it for a good while, but I'll spare you that and just say it's all about transparency and a distraction free draw, regardless of aperture and focus distance. I'm not saying it's the lens for you. I just wouldn't write it off based on the MTFs.
I think I'm going to do my best to remain ignorant of the data sheet and influencers for the 35 until after I can order and receive it. The rumored lower price point already has me worried that Zeiss is telling us to lower our expectations. Anyway, I want the lens to show me what it can and can't do without any preconceived notion.
Feb 18, 2026 at 11:10 PM
p.2 #17Otus 35mm
Tomorrow we'll find out what this new 35mm f1.4 has to offer. Its has some VERY strong competition on both E and Z mount so for Zeiss' sake I hope its more than good.
Feb 23, 2026 at 07:54 AM
p.2 #18Otus 35mm
SNJOps wrote:
Tomorrow we'll find out what this new 35mm f1.4 has to offer. Its has some VERY strong competition on both E and Z mount so for Zeiss' sake I hope its more than good.
Yep, it's going to be very interesting to see how this lens performs optically. If Zeiss manages to pull the same or better IQ than the 50mm in a wider lens and at a bit cheeper of a price, it could cause a nice buzz for the ML series. If the IQ is lacking, the ML series may have an uphill battle in gaining photographers' interest.
While I don't "need" another 35mm lens, I am hoping this is a standout lens 🤞
Tomorrow we'll find out what this new 35mm f1.4 has to offer. Its has some VERY strong competition on both E and Z mount so for Zeiss' sake I hope its more than good.
Yep, it's going to be very interesting to see how this lens performs optically. If Zeiss manages to pull the same or better IQ than the 50mm in a wider lens and at a bit cheeper of a price, it could cause a nice buzz for the ML series. If the IQ is lacking, the ML series may have an uphill battle in gaining photographers' interest.
While I don't "need" another 35mm lens, I am hoping this is a standout lens 🤞
Feb 23, 2026 at 12:03 PM
p.2 #19Otus 35mm
It will be interesting to see the genre Zeiss-Cosina is aiming for here. We will get a fair idea from the focus throw, weight and rendering of fine detail. We can expect them to be similar in these specifications to the longer ML Otuses.
The concept of 'performance' is changing under our feet. Never more true than for fast 35mm lenses, which many believe are made (mostly) for people photography and environmental settings, with 75% plus of the frame given over to fade/bokeh and for which gradual transitions are key. For what it is worth, here are the 40 lpmm on-axis MTF for a range of beloved fast manual focus 35mm lenses:
L
Summilux-R 58%
Summilux-M (CF): 52%
Z
CY 35mm: 37%
ZM 35mm: 57%
ZEF 35mm: 43%
Milvus 35mm: 56%
And a couple more recent M lenses, for comparison:
Noctilux 35mm (f1.2): 67%
APO-Summicron-M 35mm (f2): 90%
The concept of 'performance' is changing under our feet. Never more true than for fast 35mm lenses, which many believe are made (mostly) for people photography and environmental settings, with 75% plus of the frame given over to fade/bokeh and for which gradual transitions are key. For what it is worth, here are the 40 lpmm on-axis MTF for a range of beloved fast manual focus 35mm lenses:
L
Summilux-R 58%
Summilux-M (CF): 52%
Z
CY 35mm: 37%
ZM 35mm: 57%
ZEF 35mm: 43%
Milvus 35mm: 56%
And a couple more recent M lenses, for comparison:
Noctilux 35mm (f1.2): 67%
APO-Summicron-M 35mm (f2): 90%
Feb 23, 2026 at 05:03 PM
p.2 #20Otus 35mm
Appears announcement on the 24th. Did a google search and this was returned but the page itself is not found. Looks like price is $2299 US.
Zeiss 35mm f1.4 OTUS ML - Canon RF
Camera West
https://camerawest.com › products › zeiss-35mm-f1-4-ot...
The ZEISS Otus ML 35mm f/1.4 for Canon RF represents a refined approach to professional manual focus optics. Engineered for full-frame mirrorless systems, ...
US$2,299.00
Zeiss 35mm f1.4 OTUS ML - Canon RF
Camera West
https://camerawest.com › products › zeiss-35mm-f1-4-ot...
The ZEISS Otus ML 35mm f/1.4 for Canon RF represents a refined approach to professional manual focus optics. Engineered for full-frame mirrorless systems, ...
US$2,299.00
Feb 23, 2026 at 11:54 PM