Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.14 #11 · ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced! | |
Jman13 wrote:
Man, the DPReview sample images are, well, bad. It's hard to do too many takeaways given that they missed focus a lot of the time, or used shutter speeds way too slow for what they were shooting, or they underexposed, or whatever. (Reall, 1/60s for birds? Even if they're standing still, anyone who shoots birds know they twitch and blur themselves all the time).
Anyway, even in the ones that are focused correctly, I'm very confused on the 50/1.4. It doesn't look as sharp as any of the current top end 50s from any of the big 3 manufacturers, and has more longitudinal CA as well. Quite a bit more, to be honest. I do think the bokeh overall looks really nice outside of the color fringing, but the samples seem to lack a lot of the Zeiss bite that its lenses usually show.
I'm not saying the lens looks bad, but lenses have progressed quite a lot in the last 10 years, and these look like they'd be really good quality from a lens in 2015. But today, we have the 50/1.2L, Z 50/1.2S and FE 50/1.2GM, and all three are absolutely spectacular lenses, are $500 cheaper, have AF, AND all appear to be optically superior to the Otus 50/1.4 ML. Less fringing, sharper, higher contrast at the focus point. Less mechanical vignetting.
Like, at these prices, and manual focus, these lenses basically needed to be optically perfect to really justify the cost. ...Show more →
I agree that the samples are pretty bad with a lot of silly mistakes. I do think that makes comparing the performance to other lenses difficult. After seeing the MTFs from Zeiss, I am not worried about sharpness. I do think the lens will not be as sharp at the Sony, Nikon, and Canon lenses even though it has a narrower aperture. It will not be unsharp, however, and it is actually pretty close to the level of sharpness that I like wide open on a fast lens. I like a lens to be a little less sharp wide open, but then sharpen up stopped down, which gives me some flexibility in how I shoot.
That said, I have no doubt that many will react with concerns that the lens is not sharp enough wide open. That, lack of full sharpness wide open, however, is typical with Zeiss lenses. Even with all the original Otus lenses, except the 100. I think we will need more testing to determine the correction for axial CA. The samples show there is some, but I think we really need side by side tests in the same situation to evaluate it well. From the samples I get a different impression. I don't think it is as bad as you suggest, but I agree with theses samples that is hard to judge.
Finally, I also agree that this lens is priced a bit high. I was hoping it would come in at $2,000 to be more in the price range of the Sony/Nikon/Canon lenses, that are $2000, $2,100, and $2,200 respectively. In some ways, it is really is a different market, because if you want AF, then these Otus lenses are not likely to draw you away from the premium Sony/Nikon/Canon options, but if you like MF, as I do, then it would be nice if you weren't paying a premium for it. At least the 85 Otus ML is in the price range of the 85 f/1.2 lenses from Nikon and Canon (and presumably where Sony would price a lens if they build an f/1.2 lens).
|
