Image courtesy: ThePhoBlographer
–
A couple of weeks ago I reposted that image of the Sony 7r with the superb Zeiss 55mm f/1.4 OTUS lens (Image courtesy: ThePhoBlographer). I was confident that this extravagant combination would not be that popular among A7r owners. Why use a big DSLR lens on a small camera? That is what I thought until today. But we now have two new Otus lens reviews that could convince quite some SAR readers to buy the lens!
Roger from Lensrentals (Click here) writes:
I won’t try to say whether the Otus is worth $4,000 to you. But I can certainly say that Zeiss did what they said they had done: gave it exceptional performance even in the corners at widest aperture. From a resolution standpoint, it is, as Zeiss said it would be, “the absolute best SLR lens in the world today.”
DxOmark (Click here) tested the lens and says the lens has a “Peerless Outstanding Optical Performance”:
With outstanding optical quality, the Carl Zeiss Otus 1,4/55 certainly represents a high water mark for a retrofocus fast standard for DSLRs. However, it might not be the high price that deters people, in practical terms the large size and lack of autofocus may be the more limiting aspects, but there’s no denying optical quality like this demands attention.
In short, if you want the very best lens than you can grab it in Canon or Nikon mount version at BHphoto (Click here). Use and adapter and there you go!
95 Responses
The Canon version of the Otus is actually slightly outperformed in sharpness by the Canon 300/2.8 L IS II. This could well be within the margin of error, nevertheless this Canon lens is impressive, in particular if you compare it to Sony’s 300/2.8 II which scores rather poorly.
The difference between a 300 lens and a 55 is that one is actually a lens that many people could use as an everyday lens. The other is very much a specialty lens for most people. That being said, $4,000 for the 55 means it will be a luxury item for most people. ;~)
This otus is too huge to be an everyday lens. If forget about price difference, APO-Summicron 50 ASPH seems to be a much better choice: only a stop difference with about the same performance (may be slightly worse, but it’s irrelevant, they are both just that good) but in tiny package.
True but the Summicron is 2X as expensive and the Otus isn’t cheap!
on the other hand, somebody investing $4K probably wouldn’t have problem to pay $7K – or wrong?
But the Summicron is a RF lens, and a stop difference would contribute a huge size difference as well. Regarding the size, it’s just as large as a 24-70 and for some people, they use 24-70 as a daily walk around lens, so the Otus won’t be a problem for those group of people.
Both tested on the EOS 5D MarkIII
DXOmark scores the Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM at 28
DXOmark scores the Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Otus at 38
For comparison, the score on the D800 is 45 for the Otus
Addendum:
Sharpness peaks at 21 for both lenses on the Canon, which likely indicates the limits of the sensor. Sharpness on the D800 is 29. If the Canon had an up to date sensor the difference would be more evident.
You forget your second addendum:
Sharpness peaks at 21 for the Otus
Sharpness peaks at 22 for the 300/2.8
Here is what DXOmark has to say:
“In terms of peak sharpness it doesn’t quite topple the recently upgraded Canon EF 300mm f2.8L IS II USM (which achieved a 22P-Mpix score).”
Once again dxomark brainwashes the population in to thinking they can come up with one number that explains different aspects and creates a horde of mindless zombies.
I don’t know if I should blame dxomark or the uneducated who believe in anything shown as numbers they don’t understand. It’s astrology all over again.
Fully agree, my 300 g ii f2.8 may “score” poorly, but performs brilliantly on the A99!
And the Mercedes Actros truck slightly outperforms the Mercedes CSL 63 AMG in horsepower, destroys it in torque and smashes it in weight oh yeah! Oh and it’s also slightly better then Volvo and Scania equivalent, testet on almost the same road in similar climate conditions.
http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-reviews-road-tests/mercedes_benz_actros_2660_v_mercedes_benz_cls_63_amg
Oh wait… I must have clicked the wrong forum sorry!
Brilliant!
You forgot ” boom “.
Good one. I’m tired of reading about fruits, apples and oranges. This comparision made me laugh 😀
Back to the topic: personally I find this lens ridiculous in everyday shooting (and looks ugly too)
I could use it in a studio, attached on a tripod, but at that point I would probably borrow a medium format camera and appropriate lens.
I might be wrong, but I consider this Otus more as a test to show what Zeiss can do.
What is an acceptable comparison according to your criteria?
Obviously, we can’t compare the Otus to the 300/2.8 because focal lengths differ.
Can we compare the Otus to the Minolta 50/1.4 or is it apples vs. oranges because focal length differ?
Can we compare Otus copy 1 against copy 2? Or is it apples vs. oranges because serial numbers differ?
Mike I think you misunderstood my comment.
Comparing a 300mm to a 50mm is ridiculous, as comparing a truck to a car. Both can be good in what they do, but they do different things in different ways. Ok, they both move 🙂
I simply stated that the example of the truck is funnier than saying “apple vs orange”
I would compare this Otus with any 55mm lens. Let’s include 50mm lenses too. I’d like to see prints from different lenses, hung at a wall, and see how many people would say: this has been taken with great Otus! This has bee taken with bokeh king Summilux! This has been taken with new Voigtländer Nokton! This comes from a crappy Fujinon EBD and so on.
You can compare a 300mm lens to a 55mm lens just as you can compare a truck to a car or an apple to an orange. It all depends on the criteria that are of interest.
If I eat an apple and an orange, which one will give me more vitamin C? The orange (I guess). It’s a good thing to know and a perfectly valid comparison.
Mike, about lenses: is it the same for you to use 55mm or 300mm? Can you link some of your photos please? Now I’m curious.
Dream on. Go and look at some MTF curves; there aren’t any Canon lenses that outperform equivalent Sony/Zeiss A-mount lenses.
This notion that Canon lenses are so outstanding is a recent one promoted by people who don’t know the history of Japanese cameras. I was a Canon user in the 80s and 90s (A1)and one thing we never thought was that our lenses were superior – red ring on them or not. Nikkor, Zuiko and Pentax had a better reputation and usually tested better.
The Ziess/Sony FE 55mm 1.8 is reviewing very highly for image quality. That will do for most A7 users me thinks…
No way!! The most ridiculous combination in terms of size and balance. Plus, Zeiss 55/1.8 is expected to be superb too. Why do I have to invest in this lens even with manual focus??
Where the Otus shines is in the corners wide open, the Sony-Zeiss design is very good but sharpness does fall off a bit in the corners. I think for most it would be more than fine, but a few would like more. Not me, as I cannot even afford to get the A7r let alone a $4000 lens to go on it.
@Oreaily
Totally agree. 55/1.8 is superb and more than enough for most all of us. I absolutely won’t sacrifice $4000 for a bit sharper at corner. Plus, the size and balance between A7 and Otus is really absurd. Remember that we choose mirrorless because of size and weight. This combo will ruin the benefit of mirroless compact camera.
unrelated – but did anybody see this info
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/26/apple-patents-lytro-like-refocusable-camera-for-iphone
interesting
Yeah I saw that, and I also saw this: http://petapixel.com/2013/11/26/google-confirms-raw-capability-burst-mode-way-android/
I remember Steve Jobs visiting Lytro HQ just a month before passing away. The rumor was that hewas interested in adding that technology to Apple smartphones.
The rumor almost passed unnoticed due to the loss, but I remember it.
I was interested in that camera, just for fun, but there are three issues I don’t like: it works with its own program and you can look/modify your pics only through that program; slow files download (2 minutes for each file, maybe they have improved it now); quite an expensive toy.
Still interesting though.
So now I know why ppl buy mirrorless cameras…So they can stick lens that look like plungers on them!
the troll is back again 🙁
I’m a “troll” because i made fun of a lens that actually does look like a big black plunger? You either have no sense of humor, or you are blind, or you can’t accept when someone has an opinion that does not agree with your own. by any chance are you a self centered narcissistic child? If I comment on a pink colored camera being a girls camera, would I be a troll as well? Why don’t you type an opinion of your own instead of riding on my coat tails with your childish accusations?
Maybe people consider your repetitive comments about mirrorless camera’s and big lenses trolling? Just a guess.
he is upset because his mom won’t buy him one.
Hey, try not changing your name so much, that way, I can take your comment more seriously.
And “dann” my mother already has a plunger. I dont need another one for over a grand. You may, but I don’t…”dann”.
That’s not a plunger it’s a dildo, it’s the only things she gets.
“alphaguy?” LOL. Can you be more of a fan boy? LOL Stick the dildos in yourself, that way you can massage yourself with the Sony logo on it. LOL
If you think about it, it is even more useless on DSLR because:
1. No AF means fast PDAF is wasted.
2. Most DSLR focusing screen was not designed for manual focus lens. EVF is better because of focus peaking feature.
3. Otus is big, pairing it with big DSLR means you ended up with a medium format camera setup. Literally – large and heavy. Mirrorless cut the weight a bit.
“mirrorless cut the weight a bit” Dude, you have NEVER held a heavy ass lens on a mirrorless camera have you? the problem is not necessarily weight, it is called BALANCE. the lens is so front heavy you need to put a sling on the damn lens. Why do you think lenses today are made of plastic or magnesium alloy? Try putting a big ass metal lens from the 60’s on your mirrorless and tell me how you like holding a boulder in front of your camera? And if you think todays big tele slr lenses are heavy, you should try using the same metal teles made 30 years ago. It’s like having a fat kid sit on your lens. Why ppl would stick heavy ass lenses with an adapter which makes them stick even further out, while twisting ans turning the focus collar to line up red dots is beyond me. Technology is making things easier, not harder.
I tested the a7r with the Otus. It felt fine to me, the balance was better than a 70-200 2.8 on a canon 5d. The battery grip makes it more dslr m- like if balance is an issue for a user when mounting a large lens.
|Wow, youre comparing this plunger of a lens, which is 55mm to a canon and a 70-200 2.8? Why dont you compare it to a canon 600mm F4 while you’re at it. Has logic left you for brand hugging?
Oh, and the last time I checked, even old 55 1.4 slr lenses made over 40 years ago isnt even half the size of that black plunger. Are you going to say that’s technology? Or are you going to compare that to Canons biggest lens on their catologue?
@Fargo: Zeiss has a lot of lenses that are just all hype but the 55 1.4 is a very different kind of lens. You might want to look in to what lens design is to get an idea of how different it is.
@fargo: oh yes… It does look disgusting. The Touit lenses are ugly and this one is big and ugly.
If I was brand hugging I would have said Sony axx not canon. I use both canon and Sony depending I the job.
You were bitching about balance and using heavy lenses. The 70-200 is a very commonly used lens and for comparison’s sake I can tell you firsthand from actually testing the Otus + a7r setup that the balance is better than that to give you a frame of reference. Perhaps you cannot even use a 70-200 because your wrists are week so I cannot speak to your situation but many I. Here can get a sense of the balance from the comparison.
I hope that clears up the logic issue that you referenced although most trolls are logic-vacuums – sucking hard so they can only hear their own complaints for self-amusement. No more troll-feeding, I have enough family to feed today.
Yeah, that’s a thing you’ll have to learn: taking a camera by the lens. Coming from an Olympus OM2, I learned that a long time ago 🙂
You’ll see it’s the logical way, always in balance, whether you use long teles, zooms or standardish lenses. Just beware of UWA’s.
We’re reaching the time when a camera is merely a digital back, like it or not.
Taking a camera by the lens…where have I heard that one before? Oh yes, from you! Dude, that freaking plunger is a 55mm lens. Its not a telephoto, its a 55mm prime…you know, they made those things really small 40 years ago. You hold a TELEPHOTO by the lens, not a 55mm. Do you want me to repeat that again? YOU HOLD A TELEPHOTO LENS BY THE LENS, NOT A 55MM PRIME WHICH IS SUPPOSE TO BE SMALL, NOT A PLUNGER. Do you want every single prime lens from fisheye to 85mm to be as big as a plunger? Oh wait, you do, cause you enjoy holding prime lenses by the lens. Try some logic man, do you have logic? Do you know what logic is? Or are you going to compare this 55mm lens to canons biggest TELEPHOTO LENS?
Exactly. As pointed out earlier, the A7/A7R is similar in size as old film cameras like the classic Olympus OM series. I’ve never seen anybody whine about big heavy serious glass on those cameras. The talk about destroyed balance and ergonomics can only come from people still holding their mirrorless cameras like a P&S.
/A guy that owns and uses an A7R and OM1 and a heap of big serious glass.
Agreed ! The A7r is the closest thing to a digital back we’ve ever been offered at a reasonable price.
@fargo lighten up, no one’s forcing you to buy that lens. But I’ve used the OTUS on a D800 and focusing is a nightmare. The OTUS, although big, doesn’t feel that heavy. Focusing smoothness and accuracy is second to none. And live view on a Sony A7r is way better than on a Nikon D800e (I own / owned both). That lens/body combo probably makes perfect sense for many photographers.
To each his own, but I, personally, really love that lens and would buy it if I could justify the cost. That said, I’m not convinced a bokeh lens (Nokton, C-Sonnar, Rokkor ?) + a sharpness king (45mm Contax G ?) wouldn’t be just as good for less money.
Go out and use your camera instead of posting pointless crap here. Maybe then your mad picture-taking skillz will improve to the point where you’d realize your posts are pointless and it’s much better to go out take pictures. BOOM!
I am waiting for Zeiss to make an Otus 18mm wide angle. Paired with the A7r sensor, it would be the ultimate landscape system!
Oh at 4k price range you’d better outperform all other lenses 😛
But you know it won’t There’s not one zeiss or leica lens worth all of the money they ask for. the emperor has no clothes…never did.
lol !!!
OMG look at that lens and camera. Is that a secret milary weapon? Digital bazooka perhaps?
A 55 1.4 lens that’s as big as a 135mm f2. My, technology has really increased…literally.
Maybe in about 15 years Zeiss can design a new 55mm lens that’s as fat and long as a 300mm 2.8.
It’s not hard to design a big heavy lens and make it “incredible”. It takes talent to make an incredible lens small. So this Otus, should really be branded Oated. As in, BLOATED.
Andrea, with the rumoured Z mount will it be possible to have auto focus with this lens?
It’s funny to see people here believing in DxO lens reviews quality.
They are completely useless.
The only thing DxO does acceptably well is sensor comparison.
But considering lacking quality of their raw software I’d take care interpreting them. Dpreview is more useful for me.
I agreed.
You do know that dpreview takes the lens review data from DXO, don’t you?
I own the Sony Zeiss 85mm F1.4 and I think that with the adapter can be a good fast lens for the A7R for less.
I would like to see reviews of A mount lenses plus adapter on these latest Sony E cameras.
this just shows how ridiculous it is to claim that mirrorless cameras are better because they’re smaller. stick a lens like this on and suddenly you will not be able to keep it in your pocket. It will take up a bit less space in the camera bag though (compared to most modern DSLR cameras), not enough to fit one more lens in but enough to make it a bit easier to pack. I know this from experience with a shoulder bag and the A7-sized Minolta 9000 versus the canon 350d.
lenses are always compromises. To get the best possible image quality in this lens they sacrificed size and autofocus.
Sigma in their 50/1.4 made a compromise between size, autofocus and image quality where keeping autofocus and having good image quality were obviously a bit more important than keeping the lens compact.
people who want mirrorless because they can be made smaller shouldn’t consider large sensors. Large sensors will dictate large lenses. especially if you want the best image quality possible.
There is the FE 55 1.8 for the A7 at 1/3 of the size and 1/4 of the weight, perfect for handling on A7. The Otus is designed for DSLR, that’s one of the reasons why it’s so big. The other one is that it’s a lens without compromise in picture quality, so size doesn’t matter. It’s not a walkaround lens, it’s probably made for Studio and tripod use.
The picture just shows that it’s possible to mount the best FF lens in the world onto a camera with the best FF sensor in the world, nothing else. Picture quality will be superb, but yet people complain because it won’t fit into their pocket…
You missed a key point in your rant. Choice of size. A mirrorless camera allows the user to choose the compromise that fits his style best or even more so, he can choose which package (including size and weight) fits a single event or outing best. The A7R with 35mm lens even fits the larger pocket of my winter coat or one of the smallest system camera bags and still offers great image quality. If I want to use larger apertures and larger lenses, I can. A DSLR is not as flexible in that specific regard as it will never be as small or lightweight.
I’ve found that my 350D (yes, I know it’s old) can be made to be very compact, only problem being I don’t have any really compact lenses. A pancake lens on that and it fits easily in a pocket in my jacket. It’s not the most comfortable setup to work with with the small grip but it works. the A7 would be a bit more compact, but would lenses of the same focal length and aperture be smaller for the A7 vs the 350D? Some of the APS-C lenses seem to be. I guess we will know as more full-frame E-mount lenses become available.
Let’s not forget that the context here was FF cameras….
The Rebel would have to measure up to something like a 5T with pancake.
There’s a big difference between a pancake and a plunger.
its funny to read the comments of the old mans talking about the past and the gear from 1970 and bla bla BS … yeah this lens its big , its expensive and its a very good lens … maybe not so good to make stupid photos of your cats and your old wife and your old life …. take your old gear and make a proof that the hole world its insane
You could also buy a Leica 50mm f2 APO lens (which admittedly does cost over 6k) and get the same, if not better resolution for a fraction of the weight… you know, just in case you want to keep the size and weight of your small camera down a bit
I know Leica users like to claim all kinds of wonders about their glass however in this case I seriously doubt that the Leica options will be any better though smaller { bonus} they are even more extortionate.I think I will make do with the FE 55MM
I think, I think, I think, I think …. yes, you think, which means you do not know
given that the price of this lens is almost comparable to APO-Summicron, has anyone compared the 2in terms of image quality? I find it remarkable that the leica is downright diminutive in comparison.
Is the Otus better than an adapted 50/1.4 Summilux Asph? Why should I buy the otus when the lux is cheaper and way smaller and both are manual focus?
By all reviews I have seen the Otus is better than any photographic lens ever made by anybody. The problem for me is its massive size.
It isn’t as bad as it seems – it looks big on an a7r because that camera is so small. It is similar in size to a retracted 24-70 but lighter (than the Sony zeiss 24-70).
Zeiss Otus 55, manual focus, A7r, 36 MP, EVF with Focus Peaking, sounds very good to me. At least for landscape and travel. Sports, etc. might be different. I am using the A7r already with some very fine lenses. And I get things sharp by focus peaking, I never dreamed off before. But yes I need 1-2 sec for that.
I don’t know who can compete with that presently. And I make the combo even bigger with a battery grip. If size is an issue, I can still use the 24-70/f4 and coming 70-200/f4.
But sure if you are a Pro, with studio, flashes, etc this is not the right cam.
My Canon stuff is on eBay.
I can only dream of an a-mount Otus: focus peaking + IBIS would be hot.
Once upon a time a mate and I worked out that if we got good, very good, jobs and did not eat or spend anything for a year we could afford an Aston Martin DB4 each. James Bond was a guy in old books who drove an old tired Bentley at the time. So he was no influence, it was just the height (almost) of lust.
We were brought back to the real world by his mother. She added that we could not drive it as petrol cost money and we had none. Besides the fact at 15 who would pay us that sort of money.
Bit like this lens. Nice yes, but in reality what does it do having one?
Funny, still want the DB4. But the lens? Naaaaa.
It is being positioned and marketed as a cheaper alternative to shooting medium format (when combined with the higher resolution sensors of the d800 or a7r and sensors to come).
Hi there, Jim! Haha nice story! Exactly my thought btw. I admit (from early reviews) that this lens is awesome (and ugly), still I can’t think about it on a daily use: 55mm is a focal lenght good for everything, from street to portraits to photojournalism to landscape. I would use it in studio only, for portraits, perhaps still life too, BUT at that point I can ask a friend his Medium Format gear.
Any one who worships at the altar of image quality has to lust over this camera/lens package. Sony has focused (pun intended) on image quality as the benchemark, and now Nikon will have to retaliate. The winners are us, as each pushes better technology and lower price!
The missing comparison is the Leica 50mm f2 Summicron. For almost my entire life that lens, and the Leica 35mn f2, Zeiss 50mm 1.4 Planar and Zeiss 35mm 2.8 Distagon were my four favorite lenses, and I couldn’t say anyone was better than the other. (If I had to, I would prob pick the Leica 35mm f2.) But even used these lenses are wildly expensive.
There is one darkhorse in the race. While the Minolta Maxxum standard fifties were good, they were not great until slightly stopped down. You can pick one up on Craigslist for under fifty bucks. OR…you can hunt for the Minolta Maxxum 50mm 2.8 Macro. This lens will blow you away, and I got one for sixty dollars. (And it auto-focuses brilliantly, and yes, you can also take macro shots!)
As a tech-weenie, I would be curious to see a lab comparison test between the Otus at 2.8 and the Minolta Macro. However in the real world, I don’t think you would see any difference in the quality of the photographs until you were shooting billboards, and really, how many billboards have you shot this week?
BTW, happy Thanksgiving!
Why would anyone want to buy such a small camera to put a huge lens on it?
This is really funny. I’d reather use it on Canikon.
The size of your lens is equivelant to this size of your wang. Once you go Otus you never go back.
No, that would be the sensor. the size of the lens just mean you like using plungers alot, like a woman.
Yep, this size combination seems to be quite usuall way to go with full frame mirorless. No way to make compact lenses for FF, except very middle focal lenght primes with mediocre quality…
+1 That adapter looks rediculous too.
Bulls%%t. This Otus lens was designed for SLR cameras to make room for mirror to swing, that’s why its so big. It’s essentially 85/1.4 Planar with permanently attached wide angle adaptor.
For mirrorless cameras, lens designers have more choices to add extra correcting elements where SLR mirror would sit, getting more aberration correction per each element addded. They could have used symmetric Biogon instead of Distagon, making lens much smaller with same quality, or, with same size getting much higher quality (like, for coming 54 MP cameras). Symmetric f=55 Biogon would have no problems with edge smearing on digital sensors, as f=55 Planars don’t have (Both are symmetric designs and have same position of exil pupil, it’s just we used to think that normals are Planars and Biogons are wideangles)
*AUTOFOCUS* lenses for mirrorless cameras are often larger because lens designers usually try to compensate inefficiency of camera’s basic AF with more accurate lens motors – which consume more space. Note, canon EF-s 18-55 STM is noticeably larger than older 18-55.
So any lens design is plagued with some of those of non-optical constraints:
1. need to make clearance for mirror
2. need to make AF motor convenient for CDAF focus hunting
3. rangefinder coupling
4. angle of incidence to the sensor
when 2. and 4. be solved, you’ll be amazed how smaller lenses will become.
I hope everyone complaining about the size realizes that 25% of the length of the it in the above photo is the lens hood.
from zeiss’ pdf datasheet (
http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/downloadcenter/datasheets_otus/otus_1455.pdf):
length (without lens caps): ZE 127.3 mm
length (with lens caps): ZE 144 mm
How does that make 25% ??
Either way, it still weights over than kilogram. “Huge” Sony FE 24-70 is barely more than 400 grams.
oops pardon
Hood or cap?
this lens is all metal, have higher quality glass (which probably weight more then the glass found in the FE 24-70), and the primary design goal for this lens is performance wide open, not weight or size or price. The FE 24-70 f/4 on the other hand has to balance those 4 factors up so they’ll be some compromise somewhere, and size and weight would be a priority for Sony.
Its uglier than sin. Ugly- you have met your match.
In person it looks svelte and feels amazing (the focus ring is the best I’ve felt – compared to vintage lenses, current Canon L lenses or Sony Zeiss lenses).
Nice pocket camera.