DWOfPaul
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Jman13 wrote:
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).
...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.
|
