Zeiss lenses are well known for their stunning optical quality, but along with that quality come high price tags. This great video review takes a look at the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 lens and the sort of performance you can expect from it in practice.
Coming to you from Christopher Frost Photography, this excellent video review takes a look at the Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 lens. The Otus 55mm f/1.4 is a manual focus lens that features a very long throw focusing ring for extra precision. It employs Zeiss' Distagon concept with an apochromatic design that has six anomalous partial dispersion elements for reduced chromatic aberrations and increased clarity, one aspherical element for reduced distortion and spherical aberrations and increased sharpness, Zeiss' T* coating to reduce reflections and increase contrast, a floating elements system for image quality across the entire focusing range, and an all-metal lens barrel with rubberized focusing ring for high durability and control. If you have not shot with a Zeiss lens before, they are certainly a real joy to use and can be rather addictive, but it is also important to consider their price and if the high cost is worth it for your work. Check out the video above for Frost's full thoughts.
It is certainly not for me. I won't spend that much for a lens that doesn't autofocus. YMMV.
I recently purchased the planar 1.4/85 and manually focusing is such a joy. Like putting a vinyl record on a $4000 Oracle turntable.
Of course, if your shooting action or sports, then I agree, Zeiss is not the lens to use
Same for me. It's a beautiful lens, but I can't justify such an expense under any circumstances.
My whole kit isn’t much more than that:) but I’m sure it’s optically amazing.
In Denmark we have a saying; Rich people have many pleasures; poor people have many children.
Seems to me like it's better to spend $4K on a lens than that on a camera body.
You're telling me!!!
What's this lens for?
A 55mm lens is a good general focal length for most things, but nothing specifically
Distortion... If you shoot architecture, you are very interested in distortion, but 55mm is not your lens.
If you shoot portraits, in a studio, this might be a great lens, but there are so many fabulous portrait lenses out there, at more useful focal lengths. The target portrait photographer for this sort of lens probably shoots medium format.
Video. Manual focus lenses are great for video, but those shooters want declicked aperture rings.
Manual focus on digital is a pain, as digital cameras don't have the lovley split focus screens we used to have on film cameras.
I would say for most usage scenarios any advantage gained in optical advancment, is going to to be negated by the user missing focus slightly.
Pointless for a wedding photographer as many rely on autofocus so you don't miss a shot.
Zeiss’s newer lines including Otus and Milivus have a mechanism to easily declick apertures for video artists. Who is the lens for? Many professional photographers such as food and product photographers do not use autofocus. Their clients require the color, sharpness and other qualities that Zeiss does better. I have several Zeiss and manual Leica R lenses adapted for Nikon. I use my autofocus lenses for events and moving subjects. However for certain still subjects or adult portraits, those manual lenses on a tripod give me better end results. Meanwhile the Holy Trinity of Zoom lenses are not the best choices for professional landscape, architecture and product/ food photographers. Different tools for different jobs.
He forgot the usual line: "for a lens of this price..."
For more than $3,000 less you can obtain the Voigtlander 50 F2 APO, which, while slower, meets the optical standards of the Otus in most respects. The Voigtlander is also a compact lens, which the Otus clearly is not.
For $2200, you could get the RF 50mm f/1.2, which, I'm willing to bet, will give this lens a bit of competition, and look like a bargain doing it. The RF lens is already a bit out of my price range, but it is more reasonably priced, and it autofocuses.
I went to B&H photo in Manhattan Tried a high performance Nikon, Sigma Art and Zeiss at the same focal length and shot my friend in ambient light at the same Aperture. When I loaded them into lightroom i compared the images and let my friend, who is not a photographer, do the same. Beyond shooting bricks and test targets. Beyond DXO analysis of sharpness, we both agreed the Zeiss lens drew a more aesthetically beautiful image and had better color rendering. Some Zeiss fans might be the equivalent of people who wear $10,000 handbags with an ostentatious label so everyone knows the price of your bling. Many of us spend the money because lenses the better lenses made by Zeiss simply draw more aesthetically pleasing images. They pop, they please they have a "je ne se quoi” to them that makes those images stand out. For me that is worth the price and the manual focus.
With the capabilities of today’s editing software this all sounds more like waffle to be honest, in fact if it was read out in the voice of the lady from the Ferrero Rocher advert it would be more apt.