I’m fairly certain I’m not in the Otus target demographic. I do enjoy the GM primes, in many cases I would struggle with a MF lens. What are the main differences between the CV APO’s and this Otus line? I could potentially see picking up the CV 50 APO or maybe the 35 APO although what I have read the 50 seems like the stronger lens. As someone else said some view the CV APO as the high end, that does fit me.
Jonas B wrote:
Now this is getting tiresome. You don't get any points for trying to belittle others.
I'm not trying to belittle anyone or score any points. I'm pointing out that regurgitating second-hand information that should be taken with a large grain of salt anyway since it's coming from someone trying to sell you a product (themselves, in this case) is pointless without some real world experience of your own to back it up.
Jonas B wrote:
[about the advertising]
My comment on the advertising has of course nothing to do with the quality of the lenses. It was just a general comment I made as I found the Zeiss advertising funny and ridiculous. I don't know why you reacted so strongly to it.
To summarize, I think you can see the difference.
Nikon says the Plena is like a dream, Canon lenses help the photographer getting better images and Sony miraculously make lenses that are better than other lenses. A lot of bullshit as I mentioned.
Zeiss don't do that. Instead they have made a lens for photographers who live to tell stories. The manual focusing is not only about focusing: it is a freaking experience itself and not less than an indispensable tool for the right photographer and his/her creative freedom.
Zeiss wins the bullshit contest hands down. ...Show more →
If you say so. I'm no more bothered by their marketing than anyone else's. They're all trying to convince you that you need their product with slightly different approaches. Saying that one's more full of shit than another seems more like a bias than an objective evaluation of marketing material.
tschopp wrote:
I’m fairly certain I’m not in the Otus target demographic. I do enjoy the GM primes, in many cases I would struggle with a MF lens. What are the main differences between the CV APO’s and this Otus line? I could potentially see picking up the CV 50 APO or maybe the 35 APO although what I have read the 50 seems like the stronger lens. As someone else said some view the CV APO as the high end, that does fit me.
Some of the major differences are size, weight, price, focus throw (very long on the Otus MLs), aperture, and the rendering is quite different in my opinion. I find CV 50 APO to be quite calm and understated and neutral, whereas the Otus ML produces much more dramatic shots in terms of focused point standing out and the overall rendering. CV 50 APO works great for landscapes and cityscapes but I don't find it as exciting for wide open object shots. Personally I prefer CV APO 35/2 over the 50/2. CV 35/2 APO has somewhat more structured bokeh rendering but I find the subject rendering to be more impactful than 50/2.
tschopp wrote:
I’m fairly certain I’m not in the Otus target demographic. I do enjoy the GM primes, in many cases I would struggle with a MF lens. What are the main differences between the CV APO’s and this Otus line? I could potentially see picking up the CV 50 APO or maybe the 35 APO although what I have read the 50 seems like the stronger lens. As someone else said some view the CV APO as the high end, that does fit me.
---------------------------------------------
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Some of the major differences are size, weight, price, focus throw (very long on the Otus MLs), aperture, and the rendering is quite different in my opinion. I find CV 50 APO to be quite calm and understated and neutral, whereas the Otus ML produces much more dramatic shots in terms of focused point standing out and the overall rendering. CV 50 APO works great for landscapes and cityscapes but I don't find it as exciting for wide open object shots. Personally I prefer CV APO 35/2 over the 50/2. CV 35/2 APO has somewhat more structured bokeh rendering but I find the subject rendering to be more impactful than 50/2....Show more →
I'll add that the smaller lenses are more prone to shapely optical and higher natural vignetting that impact more of the frame. Also, the CVs have 12 blades in the aperture, but only maintain a round shape down to f/2.8. After that, they straighten out to give better light stars, but they take on a distinct shape as a result. I think you're back to round at f/16. The Otus have ten rounded blades that keep a decent circle throughout (they still do light stars, but they're smaller and less distinct). Bokeh's a matter of taste, of course, but I prefer the distinctly Distagon bokeh of the Otus (comparing 50 to 50, anyway). And the Otus does a better job of retaining its resolution regardless of focus distance. Neither 50 loses much, but the CV softens up a bit more.
I've only rented the 35 and 50/2, but I own the AL 28/2 along with the AL 50/3.5. I take them along when I'm hiking with the wildlife kit as my small incidentals and landscape kit, and they're both brilliant. The 28 is such a fine all-arounder, it makes me forget it's not one of my favored focal lengths.
I'll add that the smaller lenses are more prone to shapely optical and higher natural vignetting that impact more of the frame. Also, the CVs have 12 blades in the aperture, but only maintain a round shape down to f/2.8. After that, they straighten out to give better light stars, but they take on a distinct shape as a result. I think you're back to round at f/16. The Otus have ten rounded blades that keep a decent circle throughout (they still do light stars, but they're smaller and less distinct). Bokeh's a matter of taste, of course, but I prefer the distinctly Distagon bokeh of the Otus (comparing 50 to 50, anyway). And the Otus does a better job of retaining its resolution regardless of focus distance. Neither 50 loses much, but the CV softens up a bit more.
I've only rented the 35 and 50/2, but I own the AL 28/2 along with the AL 50/3.5. I take them along when I'm hiking with the wildlife kit as my small incidentals and landscape kit, and they're both brilliant. The 28 is such a fine all-arounder, it makes me forget it's not one of my favored focal lengths....Show more →
CV Apo-Lanthar (E-mount) aperture specs are a bit different between each lens. 50/2 is specified to have round aperture at f2 and f2.8 and f16, and 35/2 is specified to have round aperture at f2, f2.8, f5.6 and f16. 28/2 doesn't have such special aperture design.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
CV Apo-Lanthar (E-mount) aperture specs are a bit different between each lens. 50/2 is specified to have round aperture at f2 and f2.8 and f16, and 35/2 is specified to have round aperture at f2, f2.8, f5.6 and f16. 28/2 doesn't have such special aperture design.
Thanks for the correction. I never noticed the difference between the rented 35 and 50. I love the 12 round on the 28 and wish they'd release AL 65 and 110 updated with that same arrangement. The ten straight blades on the 50/3.5 might be a weakness if I ever used it for anything other than landscapes and panos.
freaklikeme wrote:
Thanks for the correction. I never noticed the difference between the rented 35 and 50. I love the 12 round on the 28 and wish they'd release AL 65 and 110 updated with that same arrangement. The ten straight blades on the 50/3.5 might be a weakness if I ever used it for anything other than landscapes and panos.
I usually shoot all my bokeh shots wide open where the aperture blades get out of the way and I just stop down when I want more depth of field + corner-to-corner sharpness, especially with these AL lenses that are already quite sharp across the frame from wide open. I think this would be different for macro shooting distances though, but I don't personally do macro much at all. I even traded away my Macro APO-Lanthars after having them for a while.
Based on that, I haven't personally cared so much about the additional round apertures or the specific number of aperture blades (nice to have more but I don't find much difference between 10, 12 or more) on these. On the other hand, I would always like to get nice sunstars when stopping down a little and the special aperture designs can sometimes get in the way of achieving that...
Mar 30, 2026 at 03:37 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
freaklikeme wrote:
Thanks for the correction. I never noticed the difference between the rented 35 and 50. I love the 12 round on the 28 and wish they'd release AL 65 and 110 updated with that same arrangement. The ten straight blades on the 50/3.5 might be a weakness if I ever used it for anything other than landscapes and panos.
The aperture shape on the 28 APO aren't round at any aperture except f/2, but the twelve blades make the polygons somewhat hard to see and of course the size of the bokeh balls matters and they get bigger as the aperture is bigger and you focus closer. I find I never notice the polygons of the CV 28 f/1.5 even at f/2 as the bokeh circles are just too small to see the shapes unless you zoom way in. I don't shoot that lens close enough for the bokeh circles to ever get that big and they would be even smaller with the 28 APO.
I have thought a lot about the aperture shape, probably much too much, as I noticed Cosina has been so variable on this issue. My favorite aperture shape for Cosina lenses is the M mount 90 f/2.8 APO, it is round at f/2.8, f/4, and f/22. So when shooting portraits you can get nice round balls at wider apertures but sunstars at narrower apertures, but can still avoid them at f/22 if it was important to you to avoid them. This shape works because I prefer the round aperture for portraits and that is available through f/4 where I would shoot almost all my portriats, and I prefer having sunstars for most of my stopped down shooting. The 50 f/2 APO, for Sony and Nikon (but not M) mounts is quite similar with round apertures at f/2, f/2.8, and f/16. I am less of a fan of the aperture shape of the 50 f/2 APO on the Leica M mount lens (which is the same aa the 35 f/2 APO on all mounts) with round apertures at f/2, f/2.8, f/5.6, and f/16 as you can't get good sunstars until you stop down pretty far. All the other CV lenses have either 10 or 12 blades that have a round aperture only at the widest. I think futzing with the aperture shape was something Cosina tried but in the end it looks like they don't think it was that good of an idea.
The alternative is making the aperture shape round at all apertures and Voigtlander doesn't do that with any of their own current offerings, but as Brad says they do with the new Zeiss Otus ML lenses. They also did that with all the Zeiss classic, Milvus, and the original Otus lenses. I prefer the round shape at all apertures for portraits and especially for macro lenses as I find for macro the bokeh balls can often be very large and the shapes quite noticeable. Ideally for me a lens would have round bokeh balls up to f/8 and good sunstars starting at f/8. One of the strengths of the Otus ML lenses, for my tastes, is they basically achieve that.
addieleman wrote:
There goes my hope that Zeiss will do an Otus 28mm now that an Otus 35mm is in the making. Bugger.
Never say never! There's an original Otus 28 and there's a Nano Prime 24... so maybe something is in the works? The original Otus was a lineup of 4 lenses, the Nano Primes have 6 so that might be a sign there's more on the way for the ML Otus series?
Mar 30, 2026 at 06:25 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Alan Parker wrote:
Never say never! There's an original Otus 28 and there's a Nano Prime 24... so maybe something is in the works? The original Otus was a lineup of 4 lenses, the Nano Primes have 6 so that might be a sign there's more on the way for the ML Otus series?
The Nano primes are 18, 24, 35, 50, 75, & 100 all T1.5 (so likely f/1.4). I doubt Zeiss will make an Otus ML 18 f/1.4 (that would be an interesting lens but probably even Zeiss might see it as too big and expensive at that focal length to generate many sales. Astro people might love it, but I am not sure the market would be big enough. And given that they made an Otus ML 85 which is of course kind of between the 75 and the 100, we probably won't see a 75 Otus ML and even a 100 Otus ML might be pretty unlikely (although they did make both an 85 and a 100 in the original Otus series).
Given those speculations, if we see another Otus ML I think the most likely one to be made is a 24. Just a guess of course and I suppose we could see 18, 24, and 100 to closer match the Nano primes. On the other hand, this may be the last one Zeiss makes because as has been discussed in this thread the sales may not be what Zeiss had hoped.
addieleman wrote:
There goes my hope that Zeiss will do an Otus 28mm now that an Otus 35mm is in the making. Bugger.
The ZF2 line had 21mm, 25mm, 28mm, 35mm. So there is still hope for a 28mm. If Zeiss skips 28mm I hope they go to 21mm or 25mm. 24mm just never hit me as a prime focal length I really enjoy using. Maybe it's becuase so many zooms already start or stop at 24mm.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I quite like the Otus ML 50/1.4 and I've never noticed CA on my shots with it (I've used it wide open a lot). However, it probably helps that I'm not too sensitive to CA and I don't actively look for it on my shots. It hasn't shown up in any way that would have caught my eye though.
I definitely don't need as many 50mm lenses as I have but I find Otus ML to be one of the most exciting ones. For event shooting with AF I have 50/1.4 GM (and still kept my older Sony Zeiss 50/1.4). I also have CV 50/1, 50/1.2 SE, 50/2 APO and a whole bunch of adapted rangefinder 50mm lenses + some other miscellaneous SLR ones. CV 50/1 is also among my favorites.
I didn't go for the Otus ML 85/1.4 but I'm looking forward to adding the 35/1.4 to my set, so that there will be a pair of them....Show more →
Great photos! I definitely look forward to seeing your thoughts on the 35mm ML. If I end up getting the 35mm, I will probably get the 50mm eventually to pair it with too. Is it worth the size, weight, cost primum, and lack of AF to get the Zeiss look? That seems to be the question. The look is definitely still there in the ML lenses.
DWOfPaul wrote:
If Zeiss skips 28mm I hope they go to 21mm or 25mm. 24mm just never hit me as a prime focal length I really enjoy using. Maybe it's becuase so many zooms already start or stop at 24mm.
Same. I found a trick though that makes the 24mm more tolerable. Switch to 4:3 aspect ratio if your camera supports it. First of all, the standard 3:2 is too wide for 90% of photographs anyway and has never been used outside of 35mm derived cameras for that reason. But for our purpose, the 4:3 view makes the 24mm feel much closer to 28mm as you're framing. Somehow from your brain's perspective it is absolutely not the same as cropping in post. You will get better images this way.
old-gregg wrote:
First of all, the standard 3:2 (...) has never been used outside of 35mm derived cameras for that reason.
As far as I know, the 6x9 format corresponds to 2:3. 😉
Here are a few examples:
Zeiss Ikon: Ikonta (520/2, 521/2, 524/2), Super Ikonta (530/2, 531/2, 532/2)
Agfa: Billy Record, Billy Record II, Isolette
Voigtländer: Bessa I, Bessa II, Bessa RF, Avus
Kodak: Vigilant, Monitor, Six-20, Brownie
Moskva: Soviet replicas of the Super Ikonta (Moskva 1 to 5)
Adox: Adox Sport
Hapo: Hapo 10, Hapo 45
Coronet: Tiranty folding cameras
Cap Nord, Cyclope
Linhof: Technika-Series
Horseman: Press 960, 970, 985, VH-R, 760, 785
Fujifilm: GW690, GSW690, GW690II, GSW690II, GW690III, GSW690III ("Texas Leica")
Brooks-Plaubel: Veriwide 100
Plaubel: Peco jr. 6x9
Graflex: Century Graphic, Crown Graphic 2x3
Zero Image: 6x9 Basic Pinhole
Nifty Fifty wrote:
As far as I know, the 6x9 format corresponds to 2:3. 😉
Ah crap, I forgot about that one. Anyway, my point is: the usefulness of the FOV of your lens is tied to the aspect ratio you shoot. And with 2:3 being the least historically useful ratio by far, the lack of 28mm options on the market is not as as bad as it seems. A 24/25mm lens is a decent replacement for a 28mm one once you chop off those "ears" that ruin most compositions anyway, just look at the image threads here. Most images can be improved by chopping off crap on both sides, and it's 100% the case for vertically oriented compositions. I don't think I've ever seen a vertical print on a wall in 3:2.
With that said, I would love me a compact 25mm/2.0 lens. It would be a perfect companion for the A1 for documentary/street.
old-gregg wrote:
I don't think I've ever seen a vertical print on a wall in 3:2.
Cartier-Bresson's "Rue Mouffetard" immediately comes to mind. It's undoubtedly hung, and still hangs, on countless walls. And even the 2:3 aspect ratio wasn't quite sufficient at the bottom.😄
But all joking aside, I know what you mean. And as a fan of 50mm, I also think that a 40mm is best cropped to 3:4 and a 35mm to 1:1.😉
...