Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Niels_Patrick on December 11, 2013, 06:40:43 am
-
Aloha - my Zeiss just arrived. Really nice workmanship - super smooth and accurate manual focus. BUT - not sure if I will keep this lens. Really close to my cheap Nikon 50 mm 1,4. See my quick testing files attached.... If anyone wants to test it PN me. My studio ist located close to Frankfurt / Germany...
So far - Zeiss has more Micro contrast - but for 3499 Euros... ::)
What do you guys think? Keep it?
-
Zeiss left side - Nikon right.
-
If your work is mostly based of such images, it seems like a clear no.
Now, the Zeiss may have a more significant advantage in more challenging light situations, its micro-contrast may be better,... and... you want to keep it, don't you? ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Maybe also checking the new 58 Nikon 1,4 ....
During the waiting period I will give the Zeiss a second chance.
-
According to the first picture, the left lens seems to make cables in the background dissappear better than the right one, so for studio work 3499€ might be worth an investment.
I'd love to have less cables in my studio.
-
Did you focus these pics with live view or through the finder?
-
color more saturated in Zeiss
bokeh perfectly round vs. Nikon elliptical
quite a bit more "micro contrast" I guess. looks "sharper" to me…
-
color more saturated in Zeiss
bokeh perfectly round vs. Nikon elliptical
quite a bit more "micro contrast" I guess. looks "sharper" to me…
That's my reaction too; wouldn't at all mind having it just as long I didn't have to pay for it.
Never seen my Nikkors do that trick with highlights.
It's an unfair life!
Rob C
-
Both pictures focused with no live-view or tripod - just handheld as a quick test...
-
Zeiss left side - Nikon right.
Well, it depends on what you're shooting. For these kind of shots I would suggest returning the Ottus immediately, it's really not worth it.
But, a couple of things are immediately striking, in addition to those already mentioned:
-despite de difference in magnification, which should give a serious advantage to the Nikon lens (see how bigger the door handle appears to be in the right image vs. the one on the left), the Zeiss image appears quite a bit sharper
-again, despite the difference in magnification, the Zeiss image retains a lot more details and tonal gradations both in the highlights and the shadows (especially in the highlights, in this case)
If these plus the other differences mentioned, from these quite mundane images, can be translated into something more substantial into your kind of work, by all means do keep the Ottus - there are very few (if any ! ) lenses who can deliver what this lens can deliver. But the objective and subjective aesthetic requirements of your own work have to provide the correct answers, not someone else on a photography forum.
For the type of images you have just shown, you can surely get by with smaller sensor formats and way cheaper lenses.
-
Both pictures focused with no live-view or tripod - just handheld as a quick test...
Steaming dog-poop! That's no way to test anything! No tripod = close the thread right now.
Rob C
-
I don't think you gave the Otus the real stress test it deserves to show off.
-
The OOF is much smoother.
-
Hi Niels!
Do you have the time to do another test with tripod and live focus?
Henrik
-
I'm testing one right now. So far I would say the lens is extra sensitive to correct focus. I have it on a D800 and LV on a tripod has demonstrated to me that hand-held focusing will result in less perfection than the lens is capable of. Tomorrow I'll be testing against the Zeiss 50 Makro and Nikon 85 1.4G. But I'm telling you that based on what I shot yesterday this lens is crazy sharp.
-
@John.
Maybe you can post some results here. I am not the testing guy... Thanks
If anyone still wants to test my lense - come to Germany 8)
-
I'm testing one right now. So far I would say the lens is extra sensitive to correct focus. I have it on a D800 and LV on a tripod has demonstrated to me that hand-held focusing will result in less perfection than the lens is capable of. Tomorrow I'll be testing against the Zeiss 50 Makro and Nikon 85 1.4G. But I'm telling you that based on what I shot yesterday this lens is crazy sharp.
Hi John!
I would love to see what you found in your tests.
Possible?😊
Henrik
-
So, we finally had some bright sunshine today and I went out for testing. I decided the first test was garbage as it was landscape and we had a decent breeze interfering. I went into town and shot a large sign but because of tripod placement I used one of the left focus dots. I then discovered the new Zeiss was suffering from the left focus problem of some of the D800's. My own lenses were okay. Strange, that. So tomorrow I go to re-shoot the sequence using a center focus and I feel certain I will have the answers to which we all aspire regarding this lens. I was able to generate considerable red fringing shooting into the sun with reflections on the water. Maybe too harsh a test. I have my fingers crossed for tomorrow.
-
My Schneider PC-TS 50mm arrived this morning. It is much easier to apply tilt and shift than the 90mm, rings much easier to turn. Whole different order of "sharp" vs. any Canon or Nikon 50mm. Also better saturation.
I have the Otus on order... hopefully will come soon..
When it does, I will do a battle of the giants. Will post examples of each. Should be good fun...!
-
So, we finally had some bright sunshine today and I went out for testing. I decided the first test was garbage as it was landscape and we had a decent breeze interfering. I went into town and shot a large sign but because of tripod placement I used one of the left focus dots. I then discovered the new Zeiss was suffering from the left focus problem of some of the D800's. My own lenses were okay. Strange, that.
John,
Did you focus with live view?
I am not sure to understand how the focus dots impact if you shoot using live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
John,
Did you focus with live view?
I am not sure to understand how the focus dots impact if you shoot using live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
As I was originally reading the piece you quoted, I had a build up of the giggles: I think John was having some fun at the expense of those of us who expect at least a modicum of stability behind any 'testing' of a camera's systems, to which, to make myself understood properly, I'd better add lenses as being a part of said systems... I think pixie-peepers and sundry extremists were also included in that lighter moment.
At least, I hope so, failing which, I'd better lay off the cornflakes at breakfast.
Rob C
-
John,
Did you focus with live view?
I am not sure to understand how the focus dots impact if you shoot using live view.
Cheers,
Bernard
Now I am lost. How does the AF system (or any fault therein) have any impact when using a manual focus lens?
But I bet that those who have a need for this lens must really regret that Nikon (and other makers) ditched all those sophisticated focussing aids that we used to have in the viewfinders of our old manual film SLRs.
:(
-
Now I am lost. How does the AF system (or any fault therein) have any impact when using a manual focus lens?
But I bet that those who have a need for this lens must really regret that Nikon (and other makers) ditched all those sophisticated focussing aids that we used to have in the viewfinders of our old manual film SLRs.
:(
Like what? You still have the green dot with arrows on each side.
-
Now I am lost. How does the AF system (or any fault therein) have any impact when using a manual focus lens?
But I bet that those who have a need for this lens must really regret that Nikon (and other makers) ditched all those sophisticated focussing aids that we used to have in the viewfinders of our old manual film SLRs.
:(
We really should send a petition to them; but they wouldn't ever pass it on to the right guys anyway.
I'd settle for interchangeable screens or, if only one allowed, give me a split-image with grid and no bundle of tiny micro-prisms around the split!
Rob C
-
We really should send a petition to them; but they wouldn't ever pass it on to the right guys anyway.
Rob C
I did petition them (well, Nikon at least) a couple of years ago and got a very polite reply to the effect that, as everyone now used autofocus lenses, there was no need for such refinements. I think their current crop of gurus are too young to remember that we could line up a split image more quickly than any AF system they have yet invented. (or so it seemed)
-
Ah, the old rangefinder split. I wonder if that could be done in Live View.
-
I did petition them (well, Nikon at least) a couple of years ago and got a very polite reply to the effect that, as everyone now used autofocus lenses, there was no need for such refinements. I think their current crop of gurus are too young to remember that we could line up a split image more quickly than any AF system they have yet invented. (or so it seemed)
I got through to them once too, in Japan, when I was trying to find a combined grid/split-image screen that was suitable for fast lenses. The only one they made was for slower than f5.6, I think. Anyway, the reply wasn't very helpful all, as I remember, though I can't remember what it was exactly; I just do remember it pissed me off. The same happened once when I wrote to Leitz about making their lenses available in Nikon bayonet too... they side-stepped, didn't even try to talk about copyrighted design or anything, just told me about the R6, which I already knew enough about not to buy it, the main problem being well less than 100% coverage in the viewfinder, and if you major in 135 format, then every mm counts a lot, a huge lot, a lot big enough for Safeway to use as a car park!
So really, you often get dumped out in the snow on your ass by these companies.
Rob C
-
I see there have been a lot of responses to my observations. Well, I now have even more to add after shooting all day today comparing three different lenses with my D800. First of all, you can move the focus point around the LCD whether you are AF or manual. I was using manual and checking focus with the LV. I have no explanation for why I got OOF with the Otus and didn't with my other lenses. I can't rule out user error! So today I re-shot my test scenes using a central focus point. Incidentally, I have never noticed a problem with any of the focus points on my camera before and I swear I did not have my customary glass of red wine before I went out. Anyway, the central focus point worked fine and I got my shots. They are all posted on Nikongear as that is where all this stuff was first mentioned.
While I don't mind doing a double post (and will if someone requests this) I will report that the copy of the Otus I have appears to lack contrast most of all especially compared to my 85 1.4G. And it remains flat even after pp. One of my fellow photographers swears he prefers a flat image because when he prints it comes out enhanced. I don't buy that. Regardless, I don't see enough difference between my 50 Makro and 85 1.4G (the two of which I use for stitching landscapes) and the Otus to buy into the hype.
In continuing to compare this lens and give it every chance to earn a place in my bag, I've decided to shoot some studio comparisons closer up than what I've done up to now in hopes that some magic will happen. (I will have wine then!) And I will post the results.
Thanks for the interest.
-
As the owner of the 15mm, 21mm and 100mm Macro would say that a certain "flatness" is evident in the ones currently owned as well. But the more i compare it to other Canon lenses and looking back at my Nikon images from a couple years ago I don't think it so much "flatness" as very "clean" and lacking any real flavor or color preference. Sort of like fresh, clean water in that it seems pretty pure and devoid of bias or offset.
It's all interpretive though. You may or may not like it. In the focal lengths above it seems to have a great deal of detail in the shadows due to the "sterility".
I see there have been a lot of responses to my observations. Well, I now have even more to add after shooting all day today comparing three different lenses with my D800. First of all, you can move the focus point around the LCD whether you are AF or manual. I was using manual and checking focus with the LV. I have no explanation for why I got OOF with the Otus and didn't with my other lenses. I can't rule out user error! So today I re-shot my test scenes using a central focus point. Incidentally, I have never noticed a problem with any of the focus points on my camera before and I swear I did not have my customary glass of red wine before I went out. Anyway, the central focus point worked fine and I got my shots. They are all posted on Nikongear as that is where all this stuff was first mentioned.
While I don't mind doing a double post (and will if someone requests this) I will report that the copy of the Otus I have appears to lack contrast most of all especially compared to my 85 1.4G. And it remains flat even after pp. One of my fellow photographers swears he prefers a flat image because when he prints it comes out enhanced. I don't buy that. Regardless, I don't see enough difference between my 50 Makro and 85 1.4G (the two of which I use for stitching landscapes) and the Otus to buy into the hype.
In continuing to compare this lens and give it every chance to earn a place in my bag, I've decided to shoot some studio comparisons closer up than what I've done up to now in hopes that some magic will happen. (I will have wine then!) And I will post the results.
Thanks for the interest.
-
It may be telling as much about how good the nikon 85mm f1.4g is.
It may not be as amazingly sharp at f1.4 as the Otus, which explains the lower DxO sharpness score, but it is nonetheless one of the best lenses available today, with remarkable contrast and colors.
I am more and more hesitant about the Otus and each day that passes without B&H shipping my lens is increasing the odds I simply cancel my order.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am more and more hesitant about the Otus and each day that passes without B&H shipping my lens is increasing the odds I simply cancel my order.
Cheers,
Bernard
[/quote]
I have the same thoughts. I am waiting too, but at that price we need to see a real differense.
Henrik
-
I am more and more hesitant about the Otus and each day that passes …
I'm not hesitant, I cancelled.
-
John,
...I would say the lens is extra sensitive to correct focus.
This makes no sense to me. The Otus has the longest focus throw of any lens in its class (possibly any lens in the 35mm format?). Consequently, it provides the user with finer control compared to alternative lenses because a greater rotation of the focus ring is required in order to achieve focus. Alternative lenses with reduced focus throw will provide coarser control. Therefore, the latter is by definition more sensitive to focus than the former.
...I don't mind doing a double post (and will if someone requests this)
I for one would be very interested to see your results.
I will report that the copy of the Otus I have appears to lack contrast most of all especially compared to my 85 1.4G.
Again, this makes no sense to me. Setting aside the difference in focal length, the Otus measurably returns greater contrast, coarse and fine, than the computed MTF of the 85mm f/1.4.
The only way I can imagine an image from the Otus 55mm f/1.4 will look "flat", i.e. clearly lacking in contrast, is if it was shot in low contrast conditions such as on an overcast day, in which case every other lens would perform similarly. That, or the sample you have is poor, but while that may be possible, the probability surely is so vanishingly small as to be all but impossible.
...I've decided to shoot some studio comparisons closer up than what I've done up to now in hopes that some magic will happen. (I will have wine then!) And I will post the results.
Please do.
Cheers,
-
As the owner of the 15mm, 21mm and 100mm Macro would say that a certain "flatness" is evident in the ones currently owned as well. But the more i compare it to other Canon lenses and looking back at my Nikon images from a couple years ago I don't think it so much "flatness" as very "clean" and lacking any real flavor or color preference. Sort of like fresh, clean water in that it seems pretty pure and devoid of bias or offset.
It's all interpretive though. You may or may not like it. In the focal lengths above it seems to have a great deal of detail in the shadows due to the "sterility".
Allegretto, I think you've hit the nail on the head. I shot in bright sunlight so tonight I'm going out and shoot some Christmas lights at night to check for shadow detail and bokeh.
-
John,
This makes no sense to me. The Otus has the longest focus throw of any lens in its class (possibly any lens in the 35mm format?). Consequently, it provides the user with finer control compared to alternative lenses because a greater rotation of the focus ring is required in order to achieve focus. Alternative lenses with reduced focus throw will provide coarser control. Therefore, the latter is by definition more sensitive to focus than the former.
Frankly I could care less what people say about the long throw - using the focus square on the D800, in and out of focus take place in a 2mm (I'm guessing here) twist. It is incredibly sensitive. But don't take my word for it, try it yourself. In spite of this, it can be hand-held and focused on the fly for street shooting or just zone focused. But I think those who use this lens will be happier shooting on a tripod.
-
John,
Frankly I could care less what people say about the long throw - using the focus square on the D800, in and out of focus take place in a 2mm (I'm guessing here) twist. It is incredibly sensitive.
I didn't question whether focus was sensitive, but that it was, in your words, "extra sensitive". Perhaps I inferred incorrectly, but in the context of your comment, "extra" to me suggests focus more problematic to acquire with the Otus 55mm f/1.4 than other lenses. Given the facts about the lens construction I fail to see how that is possible.
Reading your post to Allegretto above I note that you tested in bright sunlight conditions. Clearly, therefore, the lack of contrast you found was not due to shooting on an overcast day. I look forward to seeing your test images.
Cheers,
-
Reading your post to Allegretto above I note that you tested in bright sunlight conditions. Clearly, therefore, the lack of contrast you found was not due to shooting on an overcast day. I look forward to seeing your test images.
Flare comes to mind as one possible reason.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
AreBee, I have posted a new series of shots of our Christmas parade over on NikonGear. I can re-post them here if you wish. They are all shot at 1.4 in overcast conditions. They demonstrate very well the separation of subject from bg that Zeiss is famous for. I'm not a street shooter per se, but am happy with the results. I also have written that I think my comparison was ill-advised and I should just have shot the lens as I normally would and treat the results as I would any other image. It is nice that it is so highly corrected but there is a bit of vignetting wide open.
-
From what I've heard about this lens,it's main reason of the design,that is is optimised to be used at F1.4
No real benefit to other lenses at F8
-
Roger at LensRentals has listed an MTF chart for the Zeiss 55 1.4. It's highest resolution occurs at 5.6, just as many other lenses. Due to the Zeiss design the lens may be shot wide open without many of the usual problems such as field curvature, heavy vignetting, chromatic aberration, color casts etc.
-
Can you please post them here also?
Henrik
-
Okay, here you are. All shot at 1.4 w/D800.
-
And a second batch. The most popular was the "Wave" - two skateboarders riding on a large blue plastic sheet with two assistants pulling the sheet over them as if a wave was pushing them along. It was funny and popular. You must imagine how it looked from the front as my images are from the side.
The Christmas parade in Folly Beach is an old tradition. We're not your conventional beach town. Anyone may participate as long as they or their ride is dressed in "holiday style" and you must throw candy or souvenirs. I hope you enjoy these.
-
Thank you, John!
Nice pics.
What city is this and what state?
-
Thanks John. Much appreciated.
-
Thank you, John!
Nice pics.
What city is this and what state?
Thank you, Henrik. Folly Beach, South Carolina - just outside Charleston.
-
Here's my kind of lens review. The 55mm Otus, by Ming Thein.
Part one: http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/12/17/zeiss-otus-1-4-55-part-i/#more-7756
Part two: http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/12/18/zeiss-otus-1-4-55-part-ii/#more-7758
-Dave-
-
Thanks for sharing Dave ;-)
-
great review
Some Zeiss lenses DO just look different
This is why I do not understand why some answer questions about zoom vs. prime with a calculator… it's just not that easy for me. Perhaps it's a fertile imagination or sensitivity, maybe "micro-contrast"
But whatever it is, I have a dime that says a pic with this lens will not look like a zoom of similar or even down-res to its size. Sometimes you just have to taste the food and quit analyzing the recipe.
Here's my kind of lens review. The 55mm Otus, by Ming Thein.
Part one: http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/12/17/zeiss-otus-1-4-55-part-i/#more-7756
Part two: http://blog.mingthein.com/2013/12/18/zeiss-otus-1-4-55-part-ii/#more-7758
-Dave-
-
I agree. ALL of the Zeiss lenses I've used, ZF, ZM and ZE, have a very different charachter than their Nikon, Leica or Canon analogues. Even what is thought of asd a "dog", the 50 1.4 planar, just LOOKS better, to my taste, than the Nikon or Canon 50 1.4. Same with teh ZE/ZF 35 F2. The differences in look are not measured, so looking at charts and DXO tests is a waste of time, if you intend to actually make images.
My favorite example of DXO insanity is their pronouncement that the Leica M9 sensor is the worst of all full frame sensors. Fine. I'm not disputing their test. But the M9, to me and many others, make a prettier file the high scoring sensors. There is art in photography that isn't measurable.
great review
Some Zeiss lenses DO just look different
This is why I do not understand why some answer questions about zoom vs. prime with a calculator… it's just not that easy for me. Perhaps it's a fertile imagination or sensitivity, maybe "micro-contrast"
But whatever it is, I have a dime that says a pic with this lens will not look like a zoom of similar or even down-res to its size. Sometimes you just have to taste the food and quit analyzing the recipe.
-
I agree. ALL of the Zeiss lenses I've used, ZF, ZM and ZE, have a very different charachter than their Nikon, Leica or Canon analogues. Even what is thought of asd a "dog", the 50 1.4 planar, just LOOKS better, to my taste, than the Nikon or Canon 50 1.4. Same with teh ZE/ZF 35 F2. The differences in look are not measured, so looking at charts and DXO tests is a waste of time, if you intend to actually make images.
My favorite example of DXO insanity is their pronouncement that the Leica M9 sensor is the worst of all full frame sensors. Fine. I'm not disputing their test. But the M9, to me and many others, make a prettier file the high scoring sensors. There is art in photography that isn't measurable.
Amen!
It's just like the blues: how do you even start to 'rate' performers?
Rob C
-
I want one of those horned helmets, plus a nice curvy breastplate - I always wanted to sing opera - motorcycle would be an entirely suitable mount for a Valkyrie.
Is that guy with the rifle hunting Rudolph? It IS hunting season out here in the Midwest, but really!
Thanks for sharing!
I am still mucking around with leftover ancient film lenses - Nikon 50mmm f/1.2, Mamiya 55 mm f/1.4. I have to pick a good modern normal lens sometime, but it sure isn't going to be $4,000.00 worth of Otus, no matter how nice it is. Among amateur photographers, only Otolaryngologists can afford the Otus. Feel free to abuse my bad puns.
-
miss your meds this morning, again?
envy is an unattractive hue, and oh so unnecessary to composition… it's Christmas. C'mon over and we'll have a nice dinner. The world will look brighter
I want one of those horned helmets, plus a nice curvy breastplate - I always wanted to sing opera - motorcycle would be an entirely suitable mount for a Valkyrie.
Is that guy with the rifle hunting Rudolph? It IS hunting season out here in the Midwest, but really!
Thanks for sharing!
I am still mucking around with leftover ancient film lenses - Nikon 50mmm f/1.2, Mamiya 55 mm f/1.4. I have to pick a good modern normal lens sometime, but it sure isn't going to be $4,000.00 worth of Otus, no matter how nice it is. Among amateur photographers, only Otolaryngologists can afford the Otus. Feel free to abuse my bad puns.
-
That Mamiya 55 rules. I bought one at stoop sale, along with a Mamiya camera, for $10. Love that lens.
For modern 50mm the Planar is great.
I want one of those horned helmets, plus a nice curvy breastplate - I always wanted to sing opera - motorcycle would be an entirely suitable mount for a Valkyrie.
Is that guy with the rifle hunting Rudolph? It IS hunting season out here in the Midwest, but really!
Thanks for sharing!
I am still mucking around with leftover ancient film lenses - Nikon 50mmm f/1.2, Mamiya 55 mm f/1.4. I have to pick a good modern normal lens sometime, but it sure isn't going to be $4,000.00 worth of Otus, no matter how nice it is. Among amateur photographers, only Otolaryngologists can afford the Otus. Feel free to abuse my bad puns.
-
That Mamiya-Sekor 55mm f/1.4 and its sib the Mamiya-Sekor 60mm f/2.8 1:1 macro just bring back so many memories... magic time machine to my teenage years. Rendition and colors in the old lenses can be very pleasing, although the bokeh in the macro can be downright silly - think "onion rings" but hexagonal with crosshatching! I am grateful that I started photography when in-camera metering was a Radical New Design and everything was done manually.