Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on September 08, 2015, 06:57:07 pm
-
http://photorumors.com/2015/09/08/new-zeiss-otus-24mm-f1-4-lens-could-be-announced-this-week/
This may be a better long term investment that a new body these days.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting. I may be wrong, but historically (traditionally?) haven't Zeiss produced 25mm lenses, rather than 24mm ones?
A wide angle Otus makes sense, but it possibly requires more "compromises" to be made than with the 50 and 85? If it is optically "perfect" (or near it) as its brothers, the price will be stratospheric...
I would also say that your title is a bit exaggerated? There are already several "excellent" wide angle lenses, right? Just kidding...
-
Interesting. I may be wrong, but historically (traditionally?) haven't Zeiss produced 25mm lenses, rather than 24mm ones?
A wide angle Otus makes sense, but it possibly requires more "compromises" to be made than with the 50 and 85? If it is optically "perfect" (or near it) as its brothers, the price will be stratospheric...
I would also say that your title is a bit exaggerated? There are already several "excellent" wide angle lenses, right? Just kidding...
Indeed, 25mm until now, but they had never done a 55mm till the Otus, so it may be correct.
I did hesitate a bit on the title. ;)
But if you review the absolute sharpness mark of short tele vs wides at lenscore.org, you can only reach the conclusion that there are in fact no excellent wide lenses at this point in time. Even the very best wides are pretty average compared to the current Otus.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes I'm very interested in this too. My question is can 135 compete with the sharpness and resolution you get from medium format tech camera wide angle lenses. If it can, it's a technological break-through. We're talking "large format" image quality in 135 format, it would be fantastic.
Wide angle lenses are the hardest to get sharp, much due to the strong retrofocus design required. Tech cams have less retrofocus and therefore can use other designs which are easier to make sharp.
With Canon's upcoming 120MP sensor and this new wide, perhaps the 80MP MFD backs with Rodenstock Digaron wides get real competition on the resolving power aspect?
As this have no movements the lens is not much interest to a tech cam user anyway of course, but it will be very interesting to see what today's optical technology can do.
-
The true potential of such a lens would be realized on something like an Alpa FPS/ Hcam B1 and an MFDB, not 135 format, IMO.
But that said, given the usual pricing for Otii, I don't think it will be that much cheaper than the Rodenstocks.
-
The true potential of such a lens would be realized on something like an Alpa FPS/ Hcam B1 and an MFDB, not 135 format, IMO.
But that said, given the usual pricing for Otii, I don't think it will be that much cheaper than the Rodenstocks.
Not sure why you are saying so.
IMHO, the main reason why 35mm results can come across as being not as appealing as MF is the lenses. Shoot with an Otus on a AA filter less sensor and you have the same look.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To me the large format creativity is the number one factor. Using a Linhof Techno with tilt, swing and rise/fall and shift on all lenses including the wides as it's builtin to the body (as it should be). Resolving power is number two.
But it's not hard to see that for the majority of MFD tech cam users resolving power is number one, and possibly also number two and three. Alpa FPS is basically just a bulky mirrorless with great resolving power. Its more cumbersome and limited in terms of movements, not at all in the spirit of large format if you'd ask me, but it's hugely more popular than for example the Linhof Techno. I think MFD has become too much about resolving power, and that is a bit unfortunate for the segment when the competition hardens.
I very much appreciate 135 progress though, because it drives down cost of MFD (at least in the second hand space where I'm mostly moving), and if MFD continues in the wrong direction the coming years and loses attraction to me (less large format, more just upsized A7 mirrorless), I can step back to 135 and have about the same thing but at a lower cost.
-
To me the large format creativity is the number one factor.
I can relate to that. Although I rarely have time to play with it, I love working with my Ebony and Betterlight back.
But I don't think that this is what Synn was referring to.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I can relate to that. Although I rarely have time to play with it, I love working with my Ebony and Betterlight back.
But I don't think that this is what Synn was referring to.
Cheers,
Bernard
That is exactly what I was referring to.
A sharp lens is sharp, no matter what system it is on. But on a system that allows for more creative possibilities, it can realize its potential better.
Look at all the incredible work that is done using the Canon TS-Es and MF backs. Sure, the lenses are kick ass on canon (And now sony bodies), but the FPS and the H cam B1 have taken their potential to the next level.
-
That is exactly what I was referring to.
A sharp lens is sharp, no matter what system it is on. But on a system that allows for more creative possibilities, it can realize its potential better.
OK, but what makes you think that the image circle of a lens designed for a 35mm sensor would be larger enough than 35mm to make such applications possible?
We are talking about the Zeiss Otus 24mm f1.4, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
OK, but what makes you think that the image circle of a lens designed for a 35mm sensor would be larger enough than 35mm to make such applications possible?
We are talking about the Zeiss Otus 24mm f1.4, right?
Cheers,
Bernard
Of course, not every 35mm lens will work with such applications, but there have been many that do, as per the owners of the said cameras. This includes non T/S lenses too.
The Otii AFAIK have oversized image circles to provide edge to edge sharpess, so they should be viable candidates for such applications.
Of course, no one will know for sure until it's out. But I am willing to make a moderate wager that Stefan Steib will order one on day one. ;)
-
That is exactly what I was referring to.
A sharp lens is sharp, no matter what system it is on. But on a system that allows for more creative possibilities, it can realize its potential better.
Look at all the incredible work that is done using the Canon TS-Es and MF backs. Sure, the lenses are kick ass on canon (And now sony bodies), but the FPS and the H cam B1 have taken their potential to the next level.
Ok. I don't agree on this, but I'm aware there may be more than agree with you than me. Putting the TS-E lenses on the FPS and HCam makes them more wide angle with less movements. Although the wide angle records of the HCam does have it's own niche for those that love ultra-wide perspective distortion ;) (or more real application, for architecture photographers working in tight spaces and have no other option except stitching), the problem I have with these cameras is that they are not designed in the spirit of the large format tradition where movements are an integral part of composition. They also move towards more longer flange distance, making it impossible with symmetric wide angles, which make wide angles much more complex to design, larger heavier more expensive and requiring digital distortion correction.
In the medium format genre there is a possibility to make a really nice tradeoff between complexity and resolving power. You can make those symmetric small aperture lenses as you allow yourself to narrow down the type of photography the camera is useful for. In 135 all lenses must be wide aperture and retrofocus to just be more all-around for hand-held easier viewing etc. With the Alpa FPS and retrofocus tech cam wides I see a convergence, and I'm not so sure that's good for MFD in the longer term, but perhaps that's the only option that sells cameras.
-
I agree with you torger that a simpler, view camera approach is more in the spirit of large format tradition. I myself am more of a fan of this, as you have seen recently elsewhere. ;)
But as you said, the frankencamera approach sells now and it does help some people do things that were not possible before.
Anyway, we are digressing.
-
The Otii AFAIK have oversized image circles to provide edge to edge sharpess, so they should be viable candidates for such applications.
Yes, but they are optimised to deliver excellent image quality in the 35mm area. I wonder how well corrected they still are farther away from the centre, especially in a non symmetrical tilt scenario. On the other hand, the T/S lenses are typically average performers because they sacrifice resolution in the central part of their image circle in favour of a larger image circle.
Anyway, I may still have a 4x5 lens board enabling to mount 35mm lenses on my camera. I could try to measure the usable image circle of the Otii on the Betterlight if I have nothing else to do some day. I don't know when that would happen though.
In the mean time I'll keep shooting those on the DSLR on my favourite model. ;)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/570/21277783861_c1f8d63111_o.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/658/21081861998_71b897b400_o.jpg)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5618/21082816739_67363f13bb_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That would actually be an interesting experiment. Hope you will find the time to do it.
-
I have shot a Rodenstock versus Otus test. It took a loupe and 24" prints to see the difference. It was truly splitting hairs, but the Rodie was just a bit sharper. A foot away you couldn't tell the difference.
I hope the 24 is something special because it will have to make a very persuasive case to replace my Zeiss 21. That and I'm not particularly interested in spending another 4 grand for a lens which weighs in around 2 pounds. The 55 is heavy enough, I sent back a Zeiss 135 because I just couldn't deal with the weight no matter how sharp.
-
It will be interesting to how this lens, when and if it happens, handles Coma. So far, none of the 1.4 wides, (Canon, Nikon, Sigma, or Fuji) handle coma aberrations well at all. As I assume this lens will cost over 4K, hopefully Zeiss will address coma.
Paul
-
synn, Bernard,
The Otii AFAIK have oversized image circles...
The Otus 55mm f/1.4 (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/sony/51166-final-version-hcam-master-ts-14-24mm.html#post595774) image circle is at most 3mm oversized.
The Otus 85mm f/1.4 (http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-and-digital-backs/42497-lenses-hartblei-hcam-alpa-fps-2.html#post626506) image circle is 10mm oversized.
-
Bernard, your little girl is so cute!
-
I would prefer a 35mm Otus.
-
I need a wide lens that is backlight/flare resistant.
The Rodies are too weak in these situations. That's why I prefer the Schneiders, but they need
CF and they are also weak in backlight....... ???
So it's a lot of post processing..........
If the new Otus handles flare perfect, it's a reason to use my Nikon more....(although I don't like the colors :-[)
-
Zeiss did try a super-speed 25mm in the distant past...I think they never took it past prototype because it was gigantic and not that good optically.
-
The non annoucement of the Otus 24mm f1.4 may mean that they are having a hard time coming up with something significantly better than existing offerings... or it may just be product planning, who knows.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The non annoucement of the Otus 24mm f1.4 may mean that they are having a hard time coming up with something significantly better than existing offerings... or it may just be product planning, who knows.
My sources, who do know, when asked about the fact that the new Zeiss Otus wide-angle was not announced, responded with the word: "Patience," so it would seem that it is coming. Probably needs its own space and time separate from the Milvus announcement.
-
My sources, who do know, when asked about the fact that the new Zeiss Otus wide-angle was not announced, responded with the word: "Patience," so it would seem that it is coming. Probably needs its own space and time separate from the Milvus announcement.
I was told "patience, it is coming" about a replacement for the 18/3.5 (which is probably the weakest lens in their lineup) by the president of the Zeiss camera lens division about 16 months ago ;)
-
I do not believe in a 24mm 1.4 Otus lens- simply too expensive/difficult to make within Otus limits.
I do believe in a 35mm 1.4, and probably this year. I guess it will be about 5000€
-
In the mean time I'll keep shooting those on the DSLR on my favourite model. ;)
Oh dear, cuteness overdose. Off to look at photos of Donald Trump as an antidote
-
Oh dear, cuteness overdose. Off to look at photos of Donald Trump as an antidote
LOL ;D
He may look more attractive shot with an Otus?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
New post on SAR that it may be 28mm, to be announced mid October:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-new-zeiss-otus-is-a-28mm-lens/ (http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-new-zeiss-otus-is-a-28mm-lens/)
-
28 is pretty boring, but that goes to show just how difficult it is to design a true wide angle that is edge to edge sharp, wide open and does not look and cost like the Large Hadron Collider.
-
I have all three of the recent Zeiss APO lenses, including the Otus 55mm and 85mm. A 28mm Otus may not be as wide as I would like, but if it is as useful as these other three (and as well corrected), I can't wait to have one. Here is one recent shot with the 55mm APO. I love these lenses.
Nikon D810, Zeiss Otus 55mm APO
-
28 is pretty boring, but that goes to show just how difficult it is to design a true wide angle that is edge to edge sharp, wide open and does not look and cost like the Large Hadron Collider.
Agreed. I'll probably skip it if it not at least 25mm.
Brilliant, more unexpected savings! ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Disappointed at 28mm... was hoping for 24mm at least.
Unless they skip 24mm and 35mm and end up giving us 14/15mm, 21mm, 28mm, 55mm and 85mm.
No need to do too much on the longer end - there are heaps of super-sharp options in the 70-200mm range from many manufacturers, and AF performance also tends to matter at that end, too. But we really need the sharp UWAs (and, hopefully, a Zeiss tilt-shift).
-
It's impossible to please everyone. I, on the contrary, will be quite happy if it is a 28/1.4 (APO) lens. How many 28/1.4 lenses are there? Just two samples from Leica and Nikon? We do need more choices for 75° FOV. Bring it on Zeiss!
-
28 is pretty boring, but that goes to show just how difficult it is to design a true wide angle that is edge to edge sharp, wide open and does not look and cost like the Large Hadron Collider.
It is boring for some, not boring for others, whatever rocks your boat. I for one like 28mm; starting with the venerable Ricoh GRV film compact back in 2000, of which the current GRX is the spiritual successor. The latter I don't have, but I do shoot with the Sony FE 28 f2, small, not expensive, and a good performer.
-
Sorry to have waited so long to reply to this, but I'm just left scratching my head about the inanity of the title.
There have been excellent WA lenses forever.
-
I'd be pleased with a 28mm f/1.8 that is sharp corner to corner, wide open, with no CA/fringing, like the current line. If it was a 24/25 1.4, I would expect to pay $8,000 to $10,000.
Some people like 35 or 28 for portraits, including me.
I personally hope it's not a 24 or 25. :)
My crazy prediction that makes no sense: It will be a 32mm. You heard it here first, folks!
-
Sorry to have waited so long to reply to this, but I'm just left scratching my head about the inanity of the title.
Well, there are a few very good 35mm wides, but none are excellent.
http://www.lenscore.org
If you think that some wides are excellent, it means that either you have never had the chance to use an excellent prime or at least never on a body revealing their quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
28 is pretty boring,
I wouldn't agree. I've been using the cheap and cheerful Nikon 28 1.8G since I switched from Canon and I'm now a real fan of the length and the image quality.
It's wide enough to have some impact without losing the point of the subject or getting bogged down in distortion.
A really really high quality 28 would interest me - though not sure about Otus money.
-
Music to my ears, a 28mm Otus. I have a lot of lenses, carefully collected. I have been selling many of them off since the advent of the Otus group. Selling lenses I will never use is an easy way to pay for a new Otus. I don't use most of my Nikon glass, anymore. I would not sell the many industrial lenses that I have, like the El Nikkor APO 105, the Nikkor CRT, and so on. Now, I wish Zeiss would make a macro Otus!
-
Bernard,
28 is pretty boring...
Agreed. I'll probably skip it if it not at least 25mm.
Is 30mm boring?
-
28 is pretty boring, but that goes to show just how difficult it is to design a true wide angle that is edge to edge sharp, wide open and does not look and cost like the Large Hadron Collider.
That'll come as a shock to William Klein!
;-)
Rob C
-
Bernard,
Is 30mm boring?
I don't see any focal length as boring, but I don't find 28mm wide enough for the applications where I would benefit most from an excellent wide, which is typically landscape.
28, 30, 32, 35 are all interesting street focal length, but corner perfection is not that important. Look is important (bokeh,...), but the wide Nikons will remain hard to beat on that front because it is one of their top design priorities.
In other words, the Nikkor 28mm f1.8 at one fifth the price is likely to be a better street option thanks to AF and look, regardless of the price.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, there are a few very good 35mm wides, but none are excellent.
http://www.lenscore.org
If you think that some wides are excellent, it means that either you have never had the chance to use an excellent prime or at least never on a body revealing their quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
LOL! I don't consider 35mm wide, and there are plenty of prime WAs and UWAs that are excellent and have been around forever.
What are you talking about?
-
There are good wides, even zooms, like the Nikon 14-24, but none of them are as sharp at f/1.4 as other lenses are at 5.6, with insane corner to corner sharpness, and no CA or fringing. That's what a wide Otus should be, and hopefully will be. Otherwise, there's no point in releasing a wide Otus.
-
LOL! I don't consider 35mm wide, and there are plenty of prime WAs and UWAs that are excellent and have been around forever.
35mm was meant here as FF (24x36).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
...I don't find 28mm wide enough for the applications where I would benefit most from an excellent wide, which is typically landscape.
Stitched landscape?
28, 30, 32, 35 are all interesting street focal length...
Are they interesting focal lengths for landscape?
-
35mm was meant here as FF (24x36).
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes, I know. I don't consider those wide, FF or otherwise.
18mm? Sure?
35mm? Not even remotely.
-
According to one of the rumour sites the new Otus is a 28. 1.4
thenewcamera.com - Otus 28 (http://thenewcamera.com/confirmed-otus-28mm-f1-4-coming-on-oct-12-16/)
Can't wait to see how it compares to the Nikon.
-
Yes, I know. I don't consider those wide, FF or otherwise.
18mm? Sure?
35mm? Not even remotely.
You are not trying to understand me, are you?
I didn't use "35mm" to designate the focal length of a lens, I used "35mm" to designate the format also knows as 24x36 or FF, or FX. I am fully aware that a 35mm on a 35mm camera isn't very wide, only a total idiot wouldn't.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Stitched landscape?
Are they interesting focal lengths for landscape?
Nope, I find 28mm too wide as a stitching lens, I hardly ever use wide than 50mm.
As answered already, I personally don't find the 28-40mm range of focal lengths to be a good match for my landscape style. I believe that I am far from being alone in this.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A 28 mm could respect the ontological hierarchy of the mountain landscapes better than a wider lens.
-
You are not trying to understand me, are you?
I didn't use "35mm" to designate the focal length of a lens, I used "35mm" to designate the format also knows as 24x36 or FF, or FX. I am fully aware that a 35mm on a 35mm camera isn't very wide, only a total idiot wouldn't.
Cheers,
Bernard
How about using 135 as a name for 35mm cine film still miniature cameras and digital cameras with the same size sensor?
-
Wide angles for landscape look amazing on 8x10 film, but in 24x36, I prefer normal to telephoto landscapes, and slightly wide angle for certain portraits. The 35mm focal length is a nice perspective.
-
by "Boring", I mean that it is the same FoV as the typical APSC kit lens on its wide end. Been there, done that, got the T shirt.
24mm to me is a true wide, without being outrageously wide as ultrawides (Which I have started to despise, lately). a longer focal length like 50 or longer gives a more pleasing perspective, for single shot and stitching. 28 to me is neither here, nor there.
-
Bernard,
As answered already, I personally don't find the 28-40mm range of focal lengths to be a good match for my landscape style.
Not answered already:
...28, 30, 32, 35 are all interesting street focal length, but corner perfection is not that important. Look is important (bokeh,...)...
You referred specifically to Street photography.
synn,
24mm to me is a true wide, without being outrageously wide as ultrawides (Which I have started to despise, lately)...
Why have you started to despise ultrawides?
-
Used to be a fan of the stretchy widey look, but now I find it to be aesthetically unpleasant.
-
Used to be a fan of the stretchy widey look, but now I find it to be aesthetically unpleasant.
I agree... i also dont like the stretched ultrawide look any more; but i have just made one 360º x100º that looks great
and to go back on topic: i think you need to stitch to get a solid looking wide angle lens...
see http://www.beeld.nu/#/1/1
and on the ptgui - site a zoomable version: http://www.ptgui.com/gallery
-
Not answered already:
You referred specifically to Street photography.
What did I write in the line above those you quoted?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
What did I write in the line above those you quoted?
You wrote:
I don't see any focal length as boring, but I don't find 28mm wide enough for the applications where I would benefit most from an excellent wide, which is typically landscape.
You also wrote on an earlier occasion:
Agreed.
In response to the following comment by synn:
28 is pretty boring...
Over approximately a five day time period, what caused your opinion of a 28mm focal length to change from boring to not boring?
-
Over approximately a five day time period, what caused your opinion of a 28mm focal length to change from boring to not boring?
Rob,
Not much to add really... but let me spell it out for you one last time:
- 28mm is a focal length that is interesting for street but not wide enough for my liking for landscape,
- perfect corner image quality is less important for street photography than bokeh and AF and I suspect that the bokeh of the Otus 28mm will not be superior to that of the excellent Nikon 28mm f1.8,
-> I would not spend 4,000 US$ for an Otus to do street photography and do therefore find a 28mm Otus boring.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
Thank you for clarifying.
...28mm is a focal length that is interesting for street but not wide enough for my liking for landscape...
Single-shot landscape?
-
Bernard,
Thank you for clarifying.
Single-shot landscape?
28mm isn't wide enough for most wide single-shot landscapes (and generally not long enough for the not-so-wide ones) but is too wide to be worth stitching with in most situations (35mm or 50mm being much better for stitching wide panoramas - at 28mm the gain in resolution over a single shot with a wider lens often isn't worth it).
-
What’s funny to me is all this talk about how 28mm is not what we want. Then, Zeiss will come out with the Otus 28mm APO f/1.4 lens. It will be remarkable, of course, and, despite our protests, many of us will all want one. And I have the experience. I have the Otus 55mm and 85mm Otus and the previous Zeiss 135mm APO… and I am a close-up photographer. It doesn’t make sense, but I do it anyway.
I find myself adding the least extension (5.8mm) to the 55mm Otus, just to get closer. So, I imagine I will be doing the same with the Otus 28mm, doing whatever I can to use this lens because… it is so damn good.
-
Rob,
Not much to add really... but let me spell it out for you one last time:
- 28mm is a focal length that is interesting for street but not wide enough for my liking for landscape,
- perfect corner image quality is less important for street photography than bokeh and AF and I suspect that the bokeh of the Otus 28mm will not be superior to that of the excellent Nikon 28mm f1.8,
-> I would not spend 4,000 US$ for an Otus to do street photography and do therefore find a 28mm Otus boring.
Cheers,
Bernard
Each focal length presents its own perspective of course by how close it encourages us to confront our subject in its environment.
There are some excellent WA in my opinion. I personally find the Leica Elmarit R 28mm (later type), the Zuiko 24 2.8, and the Leica 28-90 Elmarit all superb. The Sigma Art 35 1.4 Ive recently got is pretty amazing, all on EOS FF.
-
The Otus 28mm has been announced, the samples are out and they are... meh.
Here's the official sample from the Zeiss Flickr page.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5654/21512479303_e23cf7b8ac_o.jpg)
(Right click, view image to see at 100%)
Here's an old sample of mine from the Credo 40 and my USD 500 used Mamiya 35mm AF.
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3803/12266936635_8e7d38bdd2_o.jpg)
(Right click, view image to see at 100%)
I am sorry, I don't see this whole "MF rivaling" quality that one is supposed to get at USD 5k (Or whatever they will price it at). Plus, mine autofocuses.
-
Synn, one is shot at f/1.4 at infinity and the other f/11. Your point being? I see pretty sharp stars out there in the corner. Foreground out of focus.
-
My mistake for not noticing that the Otus was wide open. Either way, I wasn't talking about the foreground, but the mid and background.
Fair enough, here is the Otus at f/10
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5737/22120997452_44da3bdd92_o.jpg)
Nope, still not seeing it.
-
Those photos are taken by non professionals and usually shoot jpg out of the camera. See the halation's at edges. I've never seen any good sample images coming from manufactures.
-
That's a fair point, but the Zeiss Flickr has some very high quality samples, usually. The Batis 85 and the Otus 55 are two that come to my mind.
One thing I will give to the Otus 28 sample is that corner sharpness does seem to be consistent with the center.
-
Those photos are taken by non professionals and usually shoot jpg out of the camera. See the halation's at edges. I've never seen any good sample images coming from manufactures.
Indeed, the sharpening is rather sub-par. There seems to be better quality hidden in that file, waiting to be unleashed.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Unfortunately the rumors were true about the focal length.
On a different note, I am a bit sad to see Zeiss join the paper launch trend. Com'on, more than 6 months to availability... that's Leica 007 class.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Come on, image samples are usually not worth looking at. Was it RAW? Which program was used to process? What kind of sharpening? Image taken with a tripod? Hand held? Who the hell knows! lol
Only judge stuff you have in your hands. :)
-
On a different note, I am a bit sad to see Zeiss join the paper launch trend. Com'on, more than 6 months to availability... that's Leica 007 class.
The first Otus was introduced about a year before hitting the shops...
The 28mm will be the most difficult lens they had to make so far- i had suspected it would be a 35mm and that it would stop there.
What i don't understand is that they did not make the Otus range perfectly fit for video. They are optically ideal for it.
(Or maybe they were afraid it would hurt their even more expensive line of cinelenses)
-
You may wish to look at the newly announced Loxia 21/2.8. Its MTF is quite impressive. I also use the WATE, and for now I am trying to resist ordering the Loxia despite its MTF besting the WATE at 21 because of the flexibility and not wanting to carry 2 primes as the WATE is very good indeed. Still, tempted....;)
-
You may wish to look at the newly announced Loxia 21/2.8. Its MTF is quite impressive. I also use the WATE, and for now I am trying to resist ordering the Loxia despite its MTF besting the WATE at 21 because of the flexibility and not wanting to carry 2 primes as the WATE is very good indeed. Still, tempted....;)
Yup, I started a thread a few days ago on the relevant forum, but it seems no one is interested in the Loxia 21:)
Well, I know I am, as the lens, at least on paper, seems to be a winner. Unfortunately, taking as exemples the existing Loxias and Batis lenses, they take a really long time to become available, even at oficial Zeiss country dealers (talking about Portugal here). I have yet to see or handle such a lens in the flesh...
-
Also, the new Sigma 20 f/1.4.
I had the old 1.8 version from Sigma and apart from the ho hum build quality (Horrible, flaking rubberized coating)and the poor extreme corners, this lens was actually quite good.
If they have managed to improve the corners (We know they are doing much better in terms of build), this would be the WA lens many were waiting for.
20mm sits nicely between not so wide and stupidly wide as well.
-
If they have managed to improve the corners (We know they are doing much better in terms of build), this would be the WA lens many were waiting for.
I believe that the nikon 20mm f1.8 has been that lens for more than a year.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Will be interesting to see a comparison between the Nikon and the Sigma for sure. The extra brightness of the latter is certainly interesting for some applications.
-
Will be interesting to see a comparison between the Nikon and the Sigma for sure. The extra brightness of the latter is certainly interesting for some applications.
Indeed, bokeh will be the deciding factor as far as I am concerned.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For me, how corrected the lens is will be, for me, the deciding factor. I have the Sigma 24mm ART lens, and it is OK, holding the place in my bag until the Zeiss Otus 28mm arrives.
-
Will be interesting to see a comparison between the Nikon and the Sigma for sure. The extra brightness of the latter is certainly interesting for some applications.
There is an interesting review of the lens on the Polish site lenstip.com
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=457
Is seems the 20mm is very good indeed and has a fast autofocus.
(unlike the 24mm art lens)
-
How much focusing does a 20mm lens need, at landscape f/stop selections? :D Yes I can see the use of good autofocus in doing band photography or other low light reportage at f/1.4.
-
There is an interesting review of the lens on the Polish site lenstip.com
http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=457
Is seems the 20mm is very good indeed and has a fast autofocus.
(unlike the 24mm art lens)
Sounds good - maybe a good lineup to have would be 20/35/50/85, instead of the more usual 24/35/50/85. It also leaves room for a potential 28mm lens, as well as the inevitable Art-series UWA zooms (Sigma being a pioneer in that field).
Although I hope they fix the 24 Art, since it's the weakest of the Art lenses by far, being weaker than both this lens and the 24-35 zoom. The existence of the 20/1.4 proves it can be done, since 24mm is a significantly less challenging lens design.
-
Sounds good - maybe a good lineup to have would be 20/35/50/85, instead of the more usual 24/35/50/85. It also leaves room for a potential 28mm lens, as well as the inevitable Art-series UWA zooms (Sigma being a pioneer in that field).
Although I hope they fix the 24 Art, since it's the weakest of the Art lenses by far, being weaker than both this lens and the 24-35 zoom. The existence of the 20/1.4 proves it can be done, since 24mm is a significantly less challenging lens design.
As someone who owns the Sigma 24/1.4 Art, the Sigma 24-35/2 Art Zoom, and the Nikon 24/1.8G (and 20/1.8G), who has also in the past owned the Nikon 24/1.4G, who has spent several months shooting the 24 art prime in parallel with other lenses and who has done some pretty serious evaluation with the new Art zoom and Nikon prime as well, I would strongly caution you from thinking the Sigma 24/1.4 Art is the "weakest of the art lenses by far". I also own the other art primes, so I have a good reference.
Field curvature explains the difference between most of the better lenses in this broader 24mm segment, as does the balance between optimizing for across the field performance versus center sharpness. The Sigma art prime is a very good far distance landscape lens in that it can hold corner and edge sharpness at distance better than most of the competition. The Sigma art zoom is the inverse; it seems to be biased for closer subject distances and more central sharpness. The field curvature on the art zoom can greatly benefit things near to you: near corners, but corners/edges that are distant will not be handled anywhere as well as the art prime. Field curvature doesn't always magically improve by stopping down either, so really to evaluate these lenses, a simple test chart (or even the better option of a bench MTF test) won't tell the whole story. One has to work with the lenses in the photographic scenarios they encounter, for a while, to really determine which is the best, and often it ends up being one lens isn't an overall best, but rather a better fit for a scenario.
Note: Since I disagree with this sites decision to paywall everything including the forums, I will not be reading responses to this as I am pulling the plug on LL. Paywalled forums are things I do not support, so it's time to go. However, I've been meaning to reply to Shadowblades post for a while now, so this is it from me, not that I've ever been much more than a lurker here anyway.
-
Note: Since I disagree with this sites decision to paywall everything including the forums, I will not be reading responses to this as I am pulling the plug on LL. Paywalled forums are things I do not support, so it's time to go. However, I've been meaning to reply to Shadowblades post for a while now, so this is it from me, not that I've ever been much more than a lurker here anyway.
Hey, forums will stay free, so do not go… Mike… Ah well...
-
Note: Since I disagree with this sites decision to paywall everything including the forums, I will not be reading responses to this as I am pulling the plug on LL. Paywalled forums are things I do not support, so it's time to go. However, I've been meaning to reply to Shadowblades post for a while now, so this is it from me, not that I've ever been much more than a lurker here anyway.
[/quote]
why the hell should it be for free? If its not viable to rely on advertising etc to pay the bills, why should Michael be expected to provide a quality product for no return? Nothing of value if free.
Free on the internet is promoted by the likes of google so they can make money out of others efforts. I will happily pay $1 a month, $12 a year for christ sake!
-
For what it's worth: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-24mm-f-1.8G-ED-Review-High-quality-wide-angle-lens-for-landscape-and-architecture-photography
-
For what it's worth: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-24mm-f-1.8G-ED-Review-High-quality-wide-angle-lens-for-landscape-and-architecture-photography
Yep, I'll probably sell my 24mm f1.4 and get this one instead. Nikon is doing something special with their f1.8 series.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep, I'll probably sell my 24mm f1.4 and get this one instead. Nikon is doing something special with their f1.8 series.
Cheers,
Bernard
I find 24mm lenses very problematic. I have 3 nikkors 24mm PCE; 24mm 1.4G and the 14-24mm lens..
They all have their quirks. Real personalities. Together they are a team.
A test is not enough to judge...
I have tested the 24mm sigma Art- It is better optically but not enough to say goodbye to my 1.4G Nikkor that has much faster autofocus.
The sides and corners @infinity are usually the problem areas. In the central area they are all fine.
The sample images @lenstip.com of the new 1.8G 24mm Nikkor show some good results in this area even wide open.
PS on some review sites i see photos of the new Otus 28mm and i am not very impressed. But as usual the photographers are the weakest link...
( some Zeiss arranged otus28 promotion boat trip that is not working to show the quality of the lens)
-
As someone who owns the Sigma 24/1.4 Art, the Sigma 24-35/2 Art Zoom, and the Nikon 24/1.8G (and 20/1.8G), who has also in the past owned the Nikon 24/1.4G, who has spent several months shooting the 24 art prime in parallel with other lenses and who has done some pretty serious evaluation with the new Art zoom and Nikon prime as well, I would strongly caution you from thinking the Sigma 24/1.4 Art is the "weakest of the art lenses by far". I also own the other art primes, so I have a good reference.
I agree there is too much bias against 3rd party lenses, often by people who have never tried them.
I have no experience with Nikon lenses, but I can say (with zero reservation) that people should really pay attention to what Sigma is doing with its lenses now.
They blow away the Canon equivalents, as far as macro goes, and even into the super-teles (e.g., the Sigma 100-300 is optically-superior to the Canon 100-400 II across the board ... and only trails behind the venerated Nikon 200-400 II, by fractions, across the board ... and for less than half the price).
FACT: Sigma makes more lenses than any other manufacturer.
FACT: Sigma's "Global Vision" is to upgrade beyond what the current Brand Names offer, for less money.
Consider this:
Fastest 20mm in the World (http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8842072076/wide-angle-sigma-s-new-art-lens-is-fastest-20mm-in-the-world)
The Only f/2.8 180 mm Macro Lens in the World (https://fstoppers.com/product/fstoppers-reviews-sigma-180mm-f28-macro-lens-5523)
The Best 50 mm in the World (http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/50mm-f14.htm) (pre-Otus, and still at a fraction of the cost).
I understand being partial to the brand you've decided to go with, but when your "brand" is decimated by the stats, across the board, and by another brand which is equal-to (or less) in price, it's time to ditch the brand name 8)
-
There is little doubt that Sigma produces excellent glass, in particular with their art series, while maintaining very affordable prices.
My first hand experience with some of them confirms their technical excellence, but I have been a bit less impressed by their look (bokeh, CA). Not bad but not great. The new Sigma 20mm f1.4 seems to improve on this though.
For what it's worth, some of them (including the 35mm f1.4 I own a copy of) are not really well regarded by Japanese photographers I know due to this look aspect. Most guys in Japan consider look by far the most important aspect of a fast prime and I know for a fact that at least Nikon ranks this also as more important than technical perfection when deciding design priorities.
I believe that Sigma is now designing lenses with DxO in mind since they understood that a high score is a huge sales booster outside Japan, while some key very senior people in Nikon and Canon still design the lenses they, and a handful of photographers whose opinion they respect, like to produce images with.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sigma also (at least from my experience) has a bit of quality control issues.
Finding a non-de-centered 24mm 1.4 Art was quite an experience. 3 copies. The Bokeh on the 24mm 1.4 is strange to me. For up close work it's very nice, but on a traditional landscape shot, the foreground seems to get a bit of a worried/busy look. But to me the deal breaker was the terrible coma in this particular lens. Also a very well known issue, in fact sadly something that the 20mm also carried forward.
The 35mm 1.4 seems to be in a bit different league, from my experience. Excellent bokeh and probably the best coma correction in a fast Moderate wide I have seem.
As for Coma, it's not just Sigma, as all the Nikon fast wides I have tried have terrible coma, 24mm 1/4, 20mm 1.8 and in my past life so did the Canon fast wides. But Canon may have improved, I have not used their glass since 2012.
Sigma also only has a 1 year warranty, which is a bit surprising, but I believe Canon only has 1 year still also. Tamron is 4. and Nikon 5, (limited)
Paul C
-
I got the 24 1.8 today and I was looking side by side with the Fuji 16 1.4 as they both have same FOV and are quite fast. I was quite surprised to see they are roughly the same weight and almost the same size due to Fuji being all metal. While the Fuji felt like a high precision instrument somehow I felt less confident in it making it after a drop vs the polycarbonate of the Nikon (not that I dropped lenses so far).
And despite being on sale the Fuji was more expensive; remains 1.4 and WR though, equivalence be damned.
PS. I just checked, the Fuji is heavier
-
As I just processed few shots the focus seems fast enough and flare resistance seems ok but not great.
-
As I just processed few shots the focus seems fast enough and flare resistance seems ok but not great.
I just used the nikkor 24mm 1.8G lens and i think it is a very good lens with very good flare resistance.
The coating is great. F1.8 makes already very sharp images on a d810. Very good controlled Chromatic and spherical aberration.
Very natural bokeh.
It is not made for manual focus. AF is very fast and spot on.
My only complaint is that it is clearly not made as a professional grade item although the optical quality is.
and the copy i have used has a tilted focus about 15 degrees left -right.
So make sure to get a good copy.
-
For me great flare resistance means no flare, from there everything goes down and it's all very relative.
Here are couple more shots for bokeh and contrast. First has some significant manual distortion correction and second was shot at 6400 and 1/20.
-
If i have a better copy i think i can make a F1.8 photo @infinity that is sharp across the frame on an 36Mp sensor. That would be very special for a 24mm.
I wish everybody here a good 2016 ! :)
the photo (s) was made with the 28mm1.8G and you can see it in full size on my site
made a mistake it was the 24mm 1.8G :o
http://www.beeld.nu/2016/
cheers!
Pieter Kers
-
No need for that if you use Canon. The recently introduced 35mm f 1.4L II is the new king, without a doubt (Said while looking sadly at my Sigma 35mm Art ;))
You can see the comparison here (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=994&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=829&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0)
IMO, you should read the whole review more carefully. In summary,
- Alternatives to the Canon EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM Lens
"The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art Lens is the real contender in my mind. The Sigma 35 Art is a very nicely designed and classy-looking lens that performs very well for, the BIG advantage, a much lower price. The Canon is sharper at f/1.4 and I find the Canon to autofocus accurately more consistently, but certain is that many will find the Sigma to be a better value for them due to the price difference."
There is also this review (http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii), which (while showing the Sigma to be only slightly surpassed in resolution by the new Canon) is still only half the price of the slightly-better new lens. In bokeh quality (arguably more important to "art" than resolution), they are identical, with the Sigma enjoying the slight edge:
Bokeh Quality:
- "One of the single best qualities of the Canon’s performance is in the bokeh transition performance. The lens really transitions from focus to defocus beautifully, and produces a very creamy bokeh region when shooting at close distances that produces stunning subject isolation.
"When comparing the Sigma 35A and Canon 35L II side by side at a wide open f/1.4 aperture it is actually surprising how similar the bokeh highlights looked.
Stopping down to f/2 helps correct the lemon or cat-eye shape, but also further accentuates the signature of both lenses. The Sigma is bit more “patterned”, and the concentric circles are slightly more defined on the Canon. The Sigma does a slightly better job of retaining circular shape, with the Canon showing the first hints of the shape of the aperture blades.
Little changes at f/2.8, although now both lenses show the slight shape of their aperture blades at a 1:1 level to a similar degree.
By f/4 both lenses are producing highlights looking more “nonagonal”. The shape of the aperture blades is now clear, though the result is far less objectionable than the odd shape of the old 50mm f/1.8 and its five blades. There is also far more light bleed around the edges of the shapes, but roughly at an equal level from both lenses.
Alternatives:- "The Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART referenced in this review continues to be a solid budget alternative to the 35L II with nearly as good optical performance. It is held back somewhat by focus issues, but there are many delighted users of the lens. It retails for half the price of the 35L II and is hard to ignore."
Therefore, in the end I personally don't see anything "sad" about the Sigma being essentially an equal-quality lens as the new Canon 35, for half the price.
I also happen to like the Sigma Global lens line-up's "Glock-like" appearance.
In fact, the new Sigma Global lenses remind me of the Glock's simplicity and durability also.
In the end, the new Canon lens looks to have replaced the Sigma as the best 35mm lens available, ever-so-slightly, but the fact that it is twice as expensive negates its overall value IMO.
Jack[/list][/list]