Cosina announced Otus ML 35/1.4 today for April release (no specific date given yet). The official Japan price is same as for 85/1.4, so more expensive than 50/1.4.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Cosina announced Otus ML 35/1.4 today for April release (no specific date given yet). The official Japan price is same as for 85/1.4, so more expensive than 50/1.4.
It is almost the same size as the Otus 50 ML. The same diameter, less than a mm longer, and just 21 g heavier. The MTF charts look really good too with lower astigmatism than the Otus 50 ML. It also has 7 APD elements compared to 4 for the Otus 50 ML and 5 for the Otus 85 ML. All three lenses have 2 Asph elements.
I mean, it looks like it's very nice. I can't say I'm seeing anything in the images that are notably better than what I get with my 35/1.4 GM, though. In a handful of the image samples at medium distances, I also see the bokeh become rather rough with bright green ring outlines, which I was not expecting to see on a lens like this.
I am going to wait until it's officially out and there are more reviews, but so far it's looking very tempting. The sample images definitely have the Zeiss look, the IQ looks to be just as good as the 50mm ML, and I am sure the build quality will be top notch.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Cosina announced Otus ML 35/1.4 today for April release (no specific date given yet). The official Japan price is same as for 85/1.4, so more expensive than 50/1.4.
We're getting a $700 break over the 85 (and a $200 break over the 50's release price, though the E and Z mounts are currently on sale, with the Sony down to $1999). My pre-order's in.
When you posted this video at what was late last night here, I figured I'd be safe to look at it since I figured it was all marketing fluff and lens porn. I didn't expect them to post the MTFs in the video, but they did. So much for my resolve, but I'm happy with what I saw (vignetting does look a bit high, and while distortion is low, it is complex). I think it's going to be a killer lens. Not as transparent as the 85, but close enough for my money.
It seems like every manufacturer is avoiding f/2 like the plague (outside of M-mount), which I really don't understand.
Keith B. wrote:
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'.
My order is confirmed, though if it is the same delivery time as when I ordered the 50 and 85 it will likely be a month after the NY Superstores receive their allotments as I order through my local authorized Zeiss dealer and they don't seem to be as high on the chain. Then again maybe I'll luck out since this time ordered on day one.
I look forward to my new Trinity of Otus lenses 35,50 and 85.
Still have my old trinity if I want to get a workout 28,55,100.
Feb 24, 2026 at 04:18 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
thrice wrote:
It seems like every manufacturer is avoiding f/2 like the plague (outside of M-mount), which I really don't understand.
L mount certainly hasn't avoided f/2 with the Leica SL f/2 APOs and the Sigma Contemporary line both having a large number of offerings. Nikon of course has the f/1.8S lenses that are close to an f/2 line. It is really Sony and Canon that have opted for a full set of top level f/1.4 lenses with very few f/1.8 or f/2 offerings, and the few offerings at f/1.8 or f/2 they have are consumer lenses without much correction. I think that is too bad as I think f/1.8/f/2 is often a nice compromise.
thrice wrote:
It seems like every manufacturer is avoiding f/2 like the plague (outside of M-mount), which I really don't understand.
Steve Spencer wrote:
L mount certainly hasn't avoided f/2 with the Leica SL f/2 APOs and the Sigma Contemporary line both having a large number of offerings. Nikon of course has the f/1.8S lenses that are close to an f/2 line. It is really Sony and Canon that have opted for a full set of top level f/1.4 lenses with very few f/1.8 or f/2 offerings, and the few offerings at f/1.8 or f/2 they have are consumer lenses without much correction. I think that is too bad as I think f/1.8/f/2 is often a nice compromise.
I'd also love a set of optically superb, compact f/2 lenses from Canon (my choice of mirrorless), but I think that is what their f/1.4 VCM line is supposed to be. As I've speculated before, I think they stretched those to f/1.4 (with strong wide open vignetting) rather than being conservative and detuning them to f/2, which I have also speculated is what Leica did with the Cron-SL APO ASPH line. Canon's VCMs and the Leica APOs are very similar in size with respect to optics. Yet one is f/1.4 and the other is f/2. Leica says they designed the Cron-SLs to look/render like faster lenses and it probably helps that the optics are probably larger than needed for f/2. Canon on the other hand probably went for f/1.4 because on paper it looks better than f/1.8 from Nikon, meanwhile Sony has a bunch of really good f/1.4 lenses that Canon needs to compete against. From a marketing perspective, f/1.4 is more sexy and it would be more difficult to convince the average user to spend a similar premium, if perhaps only slightly lower, for 'just' f/2 performance, even if it was competitive with the Cron-SLs at a fraction of what those cost.
A line of premium f/2 lenses IMO also makes a lot more sense if you're going to market a line of f/1.2 halo primes that are massive and expensive. Not everyone wants those and I don't really understand the point of simultaneously marketing similarly performing f/1.4 lenses. I'm thinking of the Sony 50/1.2 and 50/1.4. Here I think Nikon's lineup makes sense - f/1.2 halo lenses and 'premium' f/1.8 'real world' lenses that get the job done. Their two f/1.4 offerings are inexpensive 'character' lenses and therefore fill a justifiable niche. Canon's VCMs do make sense alongside their two f/1.2 halo lenses because the VCMs are uniquely designed to target hybrid use in a way that the f/1.2s don't address. However, Canon's 'budget' f/1.8 lenses are a let down for anyone wanting higher-end performance. They're competent but cut corners in areas such as AF speed and physical design, while being otherwise uninspiring.
Back to the topic of the Zeiss Otus ML lenses... aren't the Loxia lenses supposed to be the 'high quality' f/2 (or thereabouts) line? Does no one like the Loxia lenses? I haven't seen much discussion about them for a long time. I can imagine that the Voigtlander f/2 APOs have had an impact.
rscheffler wrote:
I'd also love a set of optically superb, compact f/2 lenses from Canon (my choice of mirrorless), but I think that is what their f/1.4 VCM line is supposed to be. As I've speculated before, I think they stretched those to f/1.4 (with strong wide open vignetting) rather than being conservative and detuning them to f/2, which I have also speculated is what Leica did with the Cron-SL APO ASPH line. Canon's VCMs and the Leica APOs are very similar in size with respect to optics. Yet one is f/1.4 and the other is f/2. Leica says they designed the Cron-SLs to look/render like faster lenses and it probably helps that the optics are probably larger than needed for f/2. Canon on the other hand probably went for f/1.4 because on paper it looks better than f/1.8 from Nikon, meanwhile Sony has a bunch of really good f/1.4 lenses that Canon needs to compete against. From a marketing perspective, f/1.4 is more sexy and it would be more difficult to convince the average user to spend a similar premium, if perhaps only slightly lower, for 'just' f/2 performance, even if it was competitive with the Cron-SLs at a fraction of what those cost.
A line of premium f/2 lenses IMO also makes a lot more sense if you're going to market a line of f/1.2 halo primes that are massive and expensive. Not everyone wants those and I don't really understand the point of simultaneously marketing similarly performing f/1.4 lenses. I'm thinking of the Sony 50/1.2 and 50/1.4. Here I think Nikon's lineup makes sense - f/1.2 halo lenses and 'premium' f/1.8 'real world' lenses that get the job done. Their two f/1.4 offerings are inexpensive 'character' lenses and therefore fill a justifiable niche. Canon's VCMs do make sense alongside their two f/1.2 halo lenses because the VCMs are uniquely designed to target hybrid use in a way that the f/1.2s don't address. However, Canon's 'budget' f/1.8 lenses are a let down for anyone wanting higher-end performance. They're competent but cut corners in areas such as AF speed and physical design, while being otherwise uninspiring.
Back to the topic of the Zeiss Otus ML lenses... aren't the Loxia lenses supposed to be the 'high quality' f/2 (or thereabouts) line? Does no one like the Loxia lenses? I haven't seen much discussion about them for a long time. I can imagine that the Voigtlander f/2 APOs have had an impact....Show more →
Well, the Loxias are discontinued. The 35 and 50 are modified older designs (the only f/2s of the bunch) while the 21, 25, and 85 are newer designs. There is a Loxia photos thread that is a bit active in the Sony forum.
I can't think of a voice to in the space to take less seriously than Ted...and this is completely apart from him talking about this particular lens. Everything he touches is a "game changer" and the best thing since sliced bread, somehow, all after using it for a full week no less!
RoamingScott wrote:
I can't think of a voice to in the space to take less seriously than Ted...and this is completely apart from him talking about this particular lens. Everything he touches is a "game changer" and the best thing since sliced bread, somehow, all after using it for a full week no less!
I can't think of a person I disagree with more often than you Scott. Ted's been making videos for over a decade at this point and often covers the finer aspects things in photography that most other gear youtubers don't. I would rather more reviewers treat photography like him than the others who are either making Lo-Fi hip hop backed advertising or are shooting brick walls and test charts which tell you almost nothing about real world conditions and rendering.
Also the Otus line is literally made to be the best quality optics you can buy with this one being both much lighter and cheaper than previous versions while simultaneously out performing previous iterations. That's a bigger improvement than just slicing the bread at the store and charging more
JustAHouseCat wrote:
I can't think of a person I disagree with more often than you Scott. Ted's been making videos for over a decade at this point and often covers the finer aspects things in photography that most other gear youtubers don't. I would rather more reviewers treat photography like him than the others who are either making Lo-Fi hip hop backed advertising or are shooting brick walls and test charts which tell you almost nothing about real world conditions and rendering.
Also the Otus line is literally made to be the best quality optics you can buy with this one being both much lighter and cheaper than previous versions while simultaneously out performing previous iterations. That's a bigger improvement than just slicing the bread at the store and charging more
Alright buddy you caught me. I'm definitely Ted. You can tell cause I like to waste time on forums arguing with tiny youtubers instead of taking pictures
