Jman13 wrote:
I know APO doesn’t always mean completely free of CA, but this has quite a lot. More than the 50/1.2 GM. More than the 50/1.4 GM (of which it is more closely a direct competitor), and more than the RF 50/1.2L. I haven’t used the Z 50/1.2 enough to make a call.
It would be one thing in an $800 lens, but this has more CA than my $600 Nikon Z 50/1.8S, even when it’s stopped down to f/1.8.
If you’re paying $2,500 for a large manual focus prime, it really needs to be aberration free or darn close to it to be worth the extra cost. When the competition’s AF 50mm are better and cheaper, it becomes an issue.
Outside of the CA and some wonky mechanical vignetting it’ll renders quite beautifully, but I sort of expected something along the lines of the Nikon Plena bokeh (worh low mech vignetting) with Voigtländer APO-Lanthar levels of CA correction and sharpness. Maybe that was too high of expectations, but a $2,500 manual focus 50/1.4 raises those expectations.
Steve Spencer wrote: Jman13 wrote:
I will say the Art of Photography video shows significantly better sharpness and contrast than the DPReview samples do (amazing what competence can do). Still significantly more CA than I’d expect for a $2,500 APO lens. And it’s still going to be a very hard sell vs the first party AF 50s, which are all also exceptional.
I agree with you on everything except the CA issue. Sure there is some, but that is generally true of all f/1.4 and faster lenses. Having owned both the Zeiss 28 Otus and the 55 Otus, it was true of both those lenses too. As I know you know, APO by definition is not a lens totally free from axial CA, but rather exactly what Zeiss quotes in their promotional material which is identical focusing of three specific wavelengths. So, I don't know whether these lenses are totally APO or not, but there obviously is a fudge factor in this definition because what precision level are we talking with "identical."
Personally, I don't get hung up on the label as it has been used to describe lenses with a wide variety of performance. For example, I had a Voigtlander 90 f/3.5 APO lens for Canon EF mount and it had among the worst purple fringing of any lens I have owned. What really matters is how the lens performs and how it performs relative to other lenses and for that we are going to need to see side by side comparisons in the same situation. I am not sure at all that it will do better than the premium Sony/Nikon/Canon alternatives, but I don't expect it to be much worse either, but that awaits to be seen. I have used the Sony f/1.2 GM extensively and it is remarkably low in CA in my experience, but it too is not free from axial CA.
So, it is early and we will just have to wait to see how this lens performs as more people get it in their hands and can test it more thoroughly. The samples are great. They do tell us that the lens will not be free from axial CA, but that was a lot to expect with an f/1.4 lens. I don't think they tell us about relative performance, however.
I have noticed some GM lenses can and do perform quite well in this regard and don't include APO in their tech specs. Since we are on this topic, I'll do some testing with the GM 50 1.2 with a bit of well-lite chrome objects to check this out again--since its been a while since I tested this lens.
Feb 25, 2025 at 11:53 AM
Previous versions of LBJ2's message #16760738 « ZEISS Otus ML line officially announced! »
