Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on December 10, 2015, 01:15:40 am
-
Hi,
Canon has a very good 85/1.8 lens at a very reasonable price. Let's check out sharpness compared to the famous Otus. The data here is coming from DxO and covers the field, that is center to corner. DxO is very careful in not describing what their figures measures, so just see this as an input. Theory says that when we stop down lenses at one stage they will be limited by diffraction.
Check the figures below:
At f/1.8 the Otus has a huge benefit and going to f/2.8 it is still there.
Going to f/5.6 the advantage of the Otus is very small.
Now stop down the Otus to f/8 and keep the Canon a f/5.6, now the Canon outperforms the Otus! That is because diffraction is taking it's toll on the Otus compared to the Canon.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
I wanted to keep MTF and "science" out of the first posting, but here is my interpretation of what happens.
A good way to see it is that we can look at MTF and break it up in two parts:
MTF_aberrations and MTF_diffraction.
- MTF_aberration increases monotonously when stopping down, but with diminishing returns at small apertures.
MTF_diffraction decrases monotonously when stopping down
Now, MTF for a system is the product of the MTF of it's components. So MTF_system = MTF_aberrations * MTF_diffraction * MTF_other_factors.
So what we have seen in the first posting is that the Canon lens stopped down to f/5.6 actually outperforms the Otus at f/8. But, if we stop both lenses down to f/8 the Otus still holds a small advantage.
Best regards
Erik
-
Interesting,.....
What your posts really show is that nothing changes. especially the laws of physics.
Back in the 1960's we knew that for critical work lenses for 35mm needed to be stopped down two stops, and that maximum apertures were only for focussing for the photographer and marketing for the camera makers. Many/most lens designs are the same now and are actually very old.
Then, as now, Jap makers were concerned with cost and marketing and European makers could give performance at the cost of bulk and price.
One is reminded of the 'Olympic Sonnar' designed for the 1936 olympics to work at max aperture f2.8....a massive (and expensive) piece of glass......
-
Well, the Canon was released around 1991 or 1992? So not bad at all. This lens has always been good value for money.
-
Erik, please be more careful with overusing the word "outperforms".
First, there is no difference in your charts at higher f stops.
Second, the real world benefits of using lens X versus lens Y can't be measured in a lab, no matter what tests you perform, especially out of context.
I can assure you there will be a Canon DSLR 35mm sensor based limitation in any similar measuring (visible or invisible to human eyes) as Zeiss Otus lens can still, at the end of 2015, show how limited the resolving power of the best current Canon sensors is.
You are right that with the 5DSR, the diffraction kicks in at f/5.6 and beyond that, any lens theoretical testing of sharpness will equalise, that's just physics.
So it's nice to know that old lenses still perform well, no wonder, they were great years ago, there's no reason why they wouldn't perform well today. That can be the conclusion from your posting but nothing else.
As a Canon 5DSR user who has tried many L lenses - I think the oldest I used was the 1996 EF 135mm f/2L, through the popular primes up to the EF 800mm f/5.6L I would like to accent there is more to a lens than an MTF/etc. chart, esp. done by someone from DxO who are notoriously known for misrepresenting results, not including input parameters and providing skewed metrics based on unimportant criteria (I may prepare a dedicated post to this topic).
So if you are, at the end of the day, trying to figure out which lens are you packing with you on a photoshoot where you will use 5DSR with 85mm at f/8 and you are not concerned about any other quality parameter but general sharpness, you can take the 85mm prime, any 70-200 or any other non-Canon lens at given focal length.
However, being a landscape and a cityscape/architecture photographer, even the best Canon L lenses stopped down at the diffraction limit can never *outperform* my Otus, and you can tell pixel peeping using the camera LCD zoomed 16x in the field or better, later during the post on a big screen. Stop even further to f/8 - f/11 and you slightly lose sharpness but the overall quality is still present and Otus can still beat any L lens.
So it safe to say that shown results from DxO prove nothing worth considering in the real world photography and I claim their results are misleading, especially if used separately without a context.
-
Hi,
The need of stopping down to stops is no law of physics. It is absolutely possible to make a lens that performs best at full aperture. But, such lenses will be expensive. Just as an example, microscope lenses can be very expensive. At large magnifications diffraction effects will be very significant, so microscope lenses are striving to very large apertures.
For any well corrected lens, diffraction will dominate over aberration at medium apertures. So stopping down to medium apertures will bring all decently well corrected lenses pretty close.
What I have noticed, essentially, that all my lenses perform best at around f/5.6 when tested on axis. Of axis testing is a bit difficult as you really want to have at least 50 times the focal length as a shooting distance, and that requires large targets.
I would also add that it is a myth that sensors outresolve lenses. Would that be the case we would never see moiré. A decently well corrected lens will outresolve camera sensors at optimal apertures, at least near the optical axis.
Another point is that large apertures is a selling point. So we have a lot of large aperture lenses having marginal performance fully open. With the Otus lenses Zeiss made a lot of effort to get optimal performance at full aperture. They also have a 135/2 APO Sonnar that performs at similar level, but at half the price. That lens is f/2 and not f/1.4, half the speed at half the price.
The main reason I did not buy the Zeiss 135/2 APO was that I don't feel at home with the 135 mm focal length. Initially I ordered the Zeiss Batis 85/1.8, but decided on the Sony 90/2.8G instead. That may have been a mistake, I don't know.
We cannot make educated choices of lenses unless we have the option to test a few samples of each possible candidates. I think that independent tests are a worthwhile resource to help in making educated decisions. The more well known test sites have some experience in testing lenses and they probable have far less bias than lens owners claiming the excellence of their choices.
Best regards
Erik
Interesting,.....
What your posts really show is that nothing changes. especially the laws of physics.
Back in the 1960's we knew that for critical work lenses for 35mm needed to be stopped down two stops, and that maximum apertures were only for focussing for the photographer and marketing for the camera makers. Many/most lens designs are the same now and are actually very old.
Then, as now, Jap makers were concerned with cost and marketing and European makers could give performance at the cost of bulk and price.
One is reminded of the 'Olympic Sonnar' designed for the 1936 olympics to work at max aperture f2.8....a massive (and expensive) piece of glass......
-
I am sure the images made by the Otus will look better than the Canon lens even @5.6.
It is too easy to judge a lens on one parameter.
I have a Sigma ART 1.4 50mm and a nikkor 1.8 50mm AFS-
@ 5.6 the Sigma screams and the Nikkor is dull.
I would also add that it is a myth that sensors outresolve lenses. Would that be the case we would never see moiré. A decently well corrected lens will outresolve camera sensors at optimal apertures, at least near the optical axis.
I agree that the optical axe is able to resolve more than 100Mp with my best lenses- as i have tested it with my Nikon1 J5 camera.
; the sides and corners are usually not as sharp as 36MP, even @5.6; especially wide angle lenses have a problem- the corners are usually best @f11 and not 36MP.
-
Then, as now, Jap makers were concerned with cost and marketing and European makers could give performance at the cost of bulk and price.
Out of charity I will assume that your use of the derogatory and insulting term "Jap" is from ignorance and not malice. Am I correct?
-
Out of charity I will assume that your use of the derogatory and insulting term "Jap" is from ignorance and not malice. Am I correct?
Yet another thread I may as well abandon right now. Jeeezus!
Rob C
-
...I have a Sigma ART 1.4 50mm and a nikkor 1.8 50mm AFS-
@ 5.6 the Sigma screams and the Nikkor is dull...
Do show!
-
Out of charity I will assume that your use of the derogatory and insulting term "Jap" is from ignorance and not malice. Am I correct?
Here in the USA and after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, "Jap" or "Nip" was used in a highly derogatory manner and admiral Halsey stated "The only good Jap is a dead Jap". The Pacific war was very brutal and American behavior was not exemplary. Today, Japan is one of our closest allies and the term "Jap" is seldom used in the USA by civilized persons. However, Erik is from Sweden and may not be aware of previous American usage.
Bill
-
... previous American usage.
Given that it is the previous usage that was intended as derogatory, one would hope that seventy years later it has lost its edge?
-
Given that it is the previous usage that was intended as derogatory, one would hope that seventy years later it has lost its edge?
Tell that to my wife, of Japanese descent, whose parents were interred in the camps during the war.
-
Here in the USA and after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, "Jap" or "Nip" was used in a highly derogatory manner and admiral Halsey stated "The only good Jap is a dead Jap". The Pacific war was very brutal and American behavior was not exemplary. Today, Japan is one of our closest allies and the term "Jap" is seldom used in the USA by civilized persons. However, Erik is from Sweden and may not be aware of previous American usage.
Bill
Yes, and that is why I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I have no reason to think that he is a bigot, just a person who does not know what that word means to many people. Well, now he does know and I hope he takes my comment in the way I meant it.
-
Hi,
This comparison was made between the Canon 85/1.8 and the Otus 85/1.4. The Canon was chosen as it is a very good lens. The short telephoto lenses are often very good, as the relatively narrow angle os view makes optical correction relatively easy.
The point I see is that correcting a lens fully at large apertures takes an immense effort and any good lens will be affected by diffraction when stopped down. Diffraction only depends on aperture.
One issue with DxO figures is that they don't describe their measurements very well, so when they talk about "acutance" it is not clear what they mean. It is obviously an MTF value but at which frequency?
Best regards
Erik
I am sure the images made by the Otus will look better than Canon lens even @5.6.
It is too easy to judge a lens on one parameter.
I have a Sigma ART 1.4 50mm and a nikkor 1.8 50mm AFS-
@ 5.6 the Sigma screams and the Nikkor is dull.
I agree that the optical axe is able to resolve more than 100Mp with my best lenses- as i have tested it with my Nikon1 J5 camera.
; the sides and corners are usually not as sharp as 36MP, even @5.6; especially wide angle lenses have a problem- the corners are usually best @f11 and not 36MP.
-
Can one still use the adage "a lens is sharpest two stops down" in general, with digital also? Or does every single lens have its own sweet spot? I would assume f8 in general. Would not think 5.6 or 4. Have always wondered this. I took at trip to California once and shot an H/p45+ at f22 the entire trip. On tripod. Was shocked how soft the files were. Why even have f22 or 16 on a lens if guaranteed soft?
-
Hi Bill,
I have not used that word...
In general I don't it is meaningful to talk about German and Japanese lenses. Most of the Zeiss lenses are actually made in Japan at Cosina under Zeiss quality control. Cosina used to make affordable lenses, but obviously has the capability to make excellent lenses. Some of the APO Lantar telephoto lenses used to be famous.
Zeiss lenses used to be very good, AFAIK, but that comes from being good design and careful assembly.
Personally, I have a bunch of older lenses from Zeiss for my Hasselblad, and I considered to buy the 135/2.0 APO Sonnar as it is a very good lens and fully corrected wide open, and it is half the price of the Otus. But the Otus has f/1.4 and correcting f/1.4 fully takes a lot of optical effort. As I normally use f/8, large apertures matter little to me.
I actually ordered the Zeiss Batis 85/1.8 for my Sony A7rII, but cancelled it when the 90/2.8G came out.
Best regards
Erik
Here in the USA and after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, "Jap" or "Nip" was used in a highly derogatory manner and admiral Halsey stated "The only good Jap is a dead Jap". The Pacific war was very brutal and American behavior was not exemplary. Today, Japan is one of our closest allies and the term "Jap" is seldom used in the USA by civilized persons. However, Erik is from Sweden and may not be aware of previous American usage.
Bill
-
Hi,
It would be very difficult to design a lens that is "diffraction limited" at a large aperture. In the long telephoto department there are quite a few lenses that perform near optimal at large apertures.
The reason it is difficult to make diffraction limited lenses at large apertures is that the diffraction limit is very high.Check the figures below:
(http://photo.net/learn/optics/mtf/mtf2.gif)
So, a diffraction limited lens at f/4 would need to resolve 450 lp/mm while one that is diffraction limited at f/8 would resolve just 225 lines per mm.
In general, diffraction limits sharpness when a lens is stopped down. On axis, good lenses often reach maximum performance at around f/4 but they can often improve quite a bit off axis when stopped down somewhat more. So I would say that lenses are not sharpest two stops down, but it takes a lot of effort to correct a large aperture lens fully. I would say that the Otus is best at f/4 - f/5.6 when it is stopped down 3-4 stops. But the same Otus is good enough to show moiré at full aperture on a 36 MP sensor.
Although lenses loose a lot of MTF at small apertures it is still possible to restore sharpness fully, as long as resolution is not affected. The trick is to sharpen the image without increasing noise.
I sometimes make two exposures and combine one at small aperture for maximum DoF and one at medium aperture focused where I want maximum sharpness and combine both images in Photoshop. I actually often have 3-4 exposures with different focus and blend in Photoshop.
Best regards
Erik
Can one still use the adage "a lens is sharpest two stops down" in general, with digital also? Or does every single lens have its own sweet spot? I would assume f8 in general. Would not think 5.6 or 4. Have always wondered this. I took at trip to California once and shot an H/p45+ at f22 the entire trip. On tripod. Was shocked how soft the files were. Why even have f22 or 16 on a lens if guaranteed soft?
-
Personally, I have a bunch of older lenses from Zeiss for my Hasselblad, and I considered to buy the 135/2.0 APO Sonnar as it is a very good lens and fully corrected wide open, and it is half the price of the Otus. But the Otus has f/1.4 and correcting f/1.4 fully takes a lot of optical effort. As I normally use f/8, large apertures matter little to me.
Erik,
you are right the Zeiss Apo-Sonnar 135mm f/2 is almost as good as the Otus. Not as good but very close. What I don't understand is the flimsy lens cover and the silver ring in front, so overall the 135mm could employ a better design, I think about it as a predecessor to the Otus.
I think many people would prefer to buy a lighter Otus f/2 (24mm/35mm/55mm/85mm/100mm) if only such lenses would've been manufactured. I believe the additional f-stop to f/1.4 was a must to show Zeiss craftsmanship and it served them greatly for marketing purposes.
-
Hi,
A good site for comparing lenses is www.the-digital-picture.com .
They have comparison images between different lenses, including both the Canon 85/1.8 and Otus 85/14.
In this images corners are definitively sharper on the Otus at f/8 compared to the Canon at f/5.6.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=957&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6
Yes, I know that contradicts the DxO results. I could speculate to find some explanations, but with too many unknowns I don't want to that.
Best regards
Erik
-
I think many people would prefer to buy a lighter Otus f/2 (24mm/35mm/55mm/85mm/100mm) if only such lenses would've been manufactured. I believe the additional f-stop to f/1.4 was a must to show Zeiss craftsmanship and it served them greatly for marketing purposes.
Actually Zeiss sort of did it already: Batis 25 f2, Sony Zeiss 55 f1.8, and Batis 85 f1.8. This trio is very high quality, kind of mini-Otuses. Of course they are Sony E mount...
-
Actually Zeiss sort of did it already: Batis 25 f2, Sony Zeiss 55 f1.8, and Batis 85 f1.8. This trio is very high quality, kind of mini-Otuses. Of course they are Sony E mount...
E mount doesn't solve anything for Canon guys. Having Zeiss EF with AF is many photographers' dream combination.
-
E mount doesn't solve anything for Canon guys. Having Zeiss EF with AF is many photographers' dream combination.
I know that, I have used Canon EOS for 20 years, sometimes with ZE glass. I think we will never see Zeiss AF glass for Canon or Nikon, as the mount is proprietary and Zeiss is not willing to reverse-engineer, and Canon is not willing to open it.
Actually, being able to use Zeiss AF glass (Batis) and Zeiss MF glass but with electronic contacts that allow for easy MF (Loxia) is a very good reason to use Sony Alpha E mount system:)
-
Well, this is a pretty darn good advert for Canon, at least on a landscape photography site where most photographers are stopping down their lenses! The price ratio between Otus 85 and Canon 85 f/1.8 is over 10 fold. Particularly when not needed f/1.4-f/2 and when wanting a less conspicuous or lighter or AF-capable lens, that Canon looks pretty darn good, and I might be inclined to give it a try. However, I love my 125 mm f/2.5 macro Apo-Lanthar, and now carry that as my short tele landscape/macro lens.
I bet the wedding and portrait photographers with enough money and with a taste for manual focus are all drooling over that Otus, though!
-
Hi,
The lens discussed here, the 85/1.8 is a quite old one, but it seems it is quite good. Now, the DxO-mark figures may not tell the full story.
What I have noticed is that Canon may really be on the go. The new 24-70/2.8 LII is said to be stunning and may be the next lens I would buy. I recently got my 16-35/4L and it may not be optimal on the Sony A7RII I have but it still delivers good image quality right into the corners.
No, I did not compare with alternatives from the Zeiss Otus line, but as long a lens is good for 30x40" prints (or something like that), I don't really care.
Just to mention, Lensrentals just dissected the Canon 35/1.4, a stunningly well made lens with a surprising amount of attention to fine detail:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown
Best regards
Erik
Well, this is a pretty darn good advert for Canon, at least on a landscape photography site where most photographers are stopping down their lenses! The price ratio between Otus 85 and Canon 85 f/1.8 is over 10 fold. Particularly when not needed f/1.4-f/2 and when wanting a less conspicuous or lighter or AF-capable lens, that Canon looks pretty darn good, and I might be inclined to give it a try. However, I love my 125 mm f/2.5 macro Apo-Lanthar, and now carry that as my short tele landscape/macro lens.
I bet the wedding and portrait photographers with enough money and with a taste for manual focus are all drooling over that Otus, though!
-
Well, this is a pretty darn good advert for Canon, at least on a landscape photography site where most photographers are stopping down their lenses! The price ratio between Otus 85 and Canon 85 f/1.8 is over 10 fold. Particularly when not needed f/1.4-f/2 and when wanting a less conspicuous or lighter or AF-capable lens, that Canon looks pretty darn good, and I might be inclined to give it a try. However, I love my 125 mm f/2.5 macro Apo-Lanthar, and now carry that as my short tele landscape/macro lens.
I bet the wedding and portrait photographers with enough money and with a taste for manual focus are all drooling over that Otus, though!
Unfortunately, those of us shooting environmental portraiture on fast glass find the MF OTUS line somewhat redundant given the sad state of modern DSLR focusing screens. I'd take the Canon 85 f/1.8 over the OTUS, simply for ease of use. There's really only one FF camera that's any use for running an OTUS wide-open and that ironically is the one with the wrong native mount, Sony, and as someone already mentioned, a BATIS is the better option there too.
-
There's really only one FF camera that's any use for running an OTUS wide-open and that ironically is the one with the wrong native mount, Sony…
I imagine Zeiss is playing a long game here, betting on most new camera VFs being of the electronic variety in the medium if not short term.
-Dave-
-
I imagine Zeiss is playing a long game here, betting on most new camera VFs being of the electronic variety in the medium if not short term.
-Dave-
To be honest Dave, I've never met an average DSLR shooting pro willing to spend that kind of money on an OTUS, most are smart enough to see there's virtually no quality return for that kind of capital outlay. Most would rather drop that kind of coin on an FS5 or a C100. I think the OTUS is aimed squarely at hobbyist/semi-pro landscape photographers, those with good incomes and lots of discretionary cash. Look at Canon's latest lens offerings, they're absolutely wonderful, beautifully consistent in their manufacture and sharp to boot. The only thing Canon are really missing right now is a normal lens that performs per the recent 55's, we know it's coming, and it'll be 1/3rd the price of an OTUS and twice as useful. ~Chris
-
Hi,
The need of stopping down to stops is no law of physics. It is absolutely possible to make a lens that performs best at full aperture. But, such lenses will be expensive.
I guess Canon could release a 85mm f/5.6 based on the current f/1.8 design where aperture selection is simply capped at f/5.6. I assume that production costs would be the same (and thus that sales price could be the same and still be profitable), and that lens might perform its best at full aperture.
Taking into account more of the world as I know it, I guess that making lenses that perform well at "large" apertures tends to be hard/expensive. When the engineers are able to make an f/5.6 lens that performs excellent, they can perhaps stretch that design to perform "adequate" at f/1.8. If they can, why should they constrain users from using that setting if/when really needed? And why should they constrain marketing from selling that setting if it increases sales?
Thus I think that the need of stopping down is not a law of physics, but a "law" of economics or human nature or some such thing.
A slightly more complex and (perhaps) second-order question is if availability and quality of very large maximum aperture affects quality at moderate apertures in a negative way. Canon has some f/1.2 lenses. Do they have to sacrifice some f/5.6 quality in order to reach those max apertures? While something like a Ferrari might be a joy to use on the racing track, it may (or may not) be difficult to drive in rush hour at low speed with many stops for red light etc.
-h
-
I imagine Zeiss is playing a long game here, betting on most new camera VFs being of the electronic variety in the medium if not short term.
I wonder how I manage to get so many keepers shot wide open with my Otus 85mm f1.4 on the D810?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess Canon could release a 85mm f/5.6 based on the current f/1.8 design where aperture selection is simply capped at f/5.6. I assume that production costs would be the same (and thus that sales price could be the same and still be profitable), and that lens might perform its best at full aperture.
Hi,
In theory they could, but I don't think people will like the dark viewfinder compared to what an f/1.8 can offer. Also accurate focusing gets much more difficult, and there is much less capability to separate the main subject from the background. I do not think it would sell well.
Taking into account more of the world as I know it, I guess that making lenses that perform well at "large" apertures tends to be hard/expensive. When the engineers are able to make an f/5.6 lens that performs excellent, they can perhaps stretch that design to perform "adequate" at f/1.8.
The optical design options/limitations are sooo different, they'll more likely wind up with completely different optical optimizations and constructions.
Thus I think that the need of stopping down is not a law of physics, but a "law" of economics or human nature or some such thing.
I think it's first and foremost a creative decision, the choice for less or more DOF. Only specific uses are dictated by technical performance instead of creative reasons. Sometimes, e.g. with stationary subjects, special techniques like stitching or focus stacking or drizzle/super-resolution can be used to defy the laws of physics.
A slightly more complex and (perhaps) second-order question is if availability and quality of very large maximum aperture affects quality at moderate apertures in a negative way. Canon has some f/1.2 lenses. Do they have to sacrifice some f/5.6 quality in order to reach those max apertures?
In general, I do not think that better performance wide open will negatively impact image quality at narrower apertures. Maybe there can be a trade-off in how bokeh is affected. A very creamy bokeh is likely caused by an under-corrected lens, which would not perform at its best when used wide open. But if cost is no objection, they can design pretty much anything as far as image quality is concerned, even if it results in an unpractical lens to use and a lens that only few would buy or can even afford.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I think the OTUS is aimed squarely at hobbyist/semi-pro landscape photographers, those with good incomes and lots of discretionary cash.
This is certainly how the Otus line functions in the marketplace. But I personally don't think Zeiss cares much about how many Otii they sell or who the buyers are. The lenses exist as a statement of capability: "Here's what we can do!" The cameras they natively mount on aren't even optimally equipped to operate them, Bernard's apparent focusing skills notwithstanding. And if some of the tech makes it into more affordable products, all the better.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
Almost any new camera has magnified live view, so I think they can make full use of the Otus.
My take is that there are cheaper lenses if the 1.4 aperture is not needed, but for f/1.4 aperture shots the Otus may be worth the money. Zeiss offers some interesting alternatives themselves. The Milvus 85/1.4 and Batis 85/1.4. The 100/2.0 Macro Planar seems also be very sharp, but has poor less than optimal correction of axial chromatic aberration.
Best regards
Erik
This is certainly how the Otus line functions in the marketplace. But I personally don't think Zeiss cares much about how many Otii they sell or who the buyers are. The lenses exist as a statement of capability: "Here's what we can do!" The cameras they natively mount on aren't even optimally equipped to operate them, Bernard's apparent focusing skills notwithstanding. And if some of the tech makes it into more affordable products, all the better.
-Dave-
-
Hi Eric
Getting back to your original two posts, I think what you show there is well supported by theory and measurement. Just out of interest, attached are some MTF50 measurements I took on my D610. The notations about with and without AA filter refers to the fact that the D610 appears to have an AA filter that operates in the vertical direction only (and MTF measurements were taken in both directions). These measurements are at the centre of the lens only.
The other issue with lens comparisons which doesn't seem to get much coverage is the basic contrast that the lens produces. By that I refer to the contrast that is not related to the contrast reduction that occurs as line spacing gets closer (MTF), but rather the overall contrast characteristic of the lens which I believe is particularly caused by veiling flare. In this regard, the AF-S 50 has better contrast than the AF-S 24-85 and this helps give a more favourable perception of sharpness I believe.
Dave
-
Almost any new camera has magnified live view, so I think they can make full use of the Otus.
True enough. Yet using an SLR with a big, fast & heavy lens in this manner is IMO still a bit of a kludge unless you're working on a tripod. It can be done. I'd personally opt for something different.
-Dave-
-
Well, me too.
But, I think that live view is needed for pinpoint accurate focus. Also, I mostly shoot on tripod and often prefer to look at the camera display instead of the EVF. For accurate focusing I prefer the EVF, though.
Shooting handheld, it is a different thing. But I guess that our ability to do manual focus is different. Some folks are good at it, I am not…
Best regards
Erik
True enough. Yet using an SLR with a big, fast & heavy lens in this manner is IMO still a bit of a kludge unless you're working on a tripod. It can be done. I'd personally opt for something different.
-Dave-
-
Hi,
Almost any new camera has magnified live view, so I think they can make full use of the Otus.
My take is that there are cheaper lenses if the 1.4 aperture is not needed, but for f/1.4 aperture shots the Otus may be worth the money. Zeiss offers some interesting alternatives themselves. The Milvus 85/1.4 and Batis 85/1.4. The 100/2.0 Macro Planar seems also be very sharp, but has poor less than optimal correction of axial chromatic aberration.
Best regards
Erik
The Milvus 85/1.4 looks like a lovely portrait lens, extremely nice rendering, and regarded by some OTUS 85 users as producing better Bokeh too, I think Ming Thein was one of the first to publicly state so after Zeiss loaned him the set. There's also the old 58/1.2 Nikkor, lovely looking images off it, but again difficult to deal with on the D810 or D4S reference manual focussing. I'm surprised the Df isn't more popular amongst OTUS shooters, it, according to Nikon, offers the best manual focusing experience of their DSLR's.
-
Hi,
My take is that Zeiss has gone a long way to eliminate the magenta/green fringing on out of focus objects. So you are playing a lot for that. Nikon has the 85/1.4G that is intended to have very good out of focus rendering, but doesn't correct the axial chroma, so it has a lot of magenta/green fringing, at least in some samples I have seen.
The Milvus family is mostly the older Zeiss line, in new clothes but the Milvus 85/1.4 has been redesigned. Rumor says it doesn't use aspherics just spherical lenses as that would be beneficial for good bokeh.
Personally, I would like to see more lenses that are very well corrected but with moderate apertures and a moderate price tag.
Best regards
Erik
The Milvus 85/1.4 looks like a lovely portrait lens, extremely nice rendering, and regarded by some OTUS 85 users as producing better Bokeh too, I think Ming Thein was one of the first to publicly state so after Zeiss loaned him the set. There's also the old 58/1.2 Nikkor, lovely looking images off it, but again difficult to deal with on the D810 or D4S reference manual focussing. I'm surprised the Df isn't more popular amongst OTUS shooters, it, according to Nikon, offers the best manual focusing experience of their DSLR's.
-
Yes, the problem that still persists is how they're molding these aspheric elements, you still see the onion ring effect on the OTUS. I think Panasonic have almost perfected the molding process, their little 42.5 looks like the best of the lot, but only if you shoot the half-frame sensor, maybe they'll start to outsource their manufacturing tech, see Imaging Resource for the tech review. The OTUS has me a little perplexed, those shots at >f/5.6 are basically indistinguishable to the best of the rest, and at maximum aperture, there are better looking options IMO, for portraiture especially. The old Canon 85L looks pretty sublime wide-open and superbly corrected by f/2 (as do most good Canon primes). For landscape work, I'd probably just cherry-pick a far cheaper option from a dealer. There's a gal named Lisa Holloway , she does wonderful things with the Canon 85L & 200L.
https://500px.com/lisaholloway
Interesting topic, there's no black & white answer, simply shades of grey.
Cheers,
Chris
Hi,
My take is that Zeiss has gone a long way to eliminate the magenta/green fringing on out of focus objects. So you are playing a lot for that. Nikon has the 85/1.4G that is intended to have very good out of focus rendering, but doesn't correct the axial chroma, so it has a lot of magenta/green fringing, at least in some samples I have seen.
The Milvus family is mostly the older Zeiss line, in new clothes but the Milvus 85/1.4 has been redesigned. Rumor says it doesn't use aspherics just spherical lenses as that would be beneficial for good bokeh.
Personally, I would like to see more lenses that are very well corrected but with moderate apertures and a moderate price tag.
Best regards
Erik
-
I have the the Otus 55mm, 85mm, and the 135mm f/2 (which I consider of similar quality), and the 28mm f/1.4 Otus on order.
I happen to shoot on a tripod, which I don’t consider a shortcoming of any kind. For the stacked, close-up work that I do, it is necessary.
I use the Nikon D810 in LiveView, along with an early Zacuto Z-Finder, and find no problem focusing, although anything earlier from Nikon (D800E, etc.), does not quite make it for me in that regard.
I ended up with the Otus lenses only because they are more highly corrected than other lenses that I have, and I have about eighty very high-quality lenses, although since acquiring the Otus series, I am selling off more and more of them, because I never use them anymore.
In my work, sharpness IMO depends on color correction, and many of my older lenses, like the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar are just not corrected well enough, although that lens is sharp. And I am fighting an uphill battle with the Otus series, because they really are not made for close-up work. I use the thinnest of extension on some of these lenses, the Nikon K1 Ring (5.8mm), which allows me to work a bit closer without too much degradation of the lenses.
My point here is that I am sure I am part of a subset of a subset of a subset of photographers and don’t really count, number-wise. I mean: who wants to shoot on a tripod and stack focus, with extension and also viewfinder enhancement, using highly corrected lenses aside from a few?
I did not get where I am by being trendy or going for high prices. I resisted the Otus series of lenses for quite a while for the obvious reasons that they don’t fit my very specialized close-up work… and they are way expensive. Then, based on reviews of people I respect, I broke down and tried the Zeiss 135-f/2 and was shocked at what that lens could do, compared to the other Zeiss lenses I own, like the 50mm, 100mm Makro-Planars, which I, as mentioned, never use.
Perhaps I am an exception because I shoot them (mostly) wide open, where the depth-of-field is razor thin, but I stack focus, which practically amounts to painting (layering) focus to make what I wish stand out, and allow the rest to got to bokeh. Yet, I also find that single-shots at f/16 with the Otus series stand up very well.
For a while I had a shoot-off going on my mind between stacking wide-open and single photos at around f/16, but for me, the stacking won out.
So… as I browse through this thread, I can understand most of the opinions here and why they might be held. I just wanted to add my own: that for very specialized work, these lenses are the best I have ever used and worth every penny.
P.S. I tend to have a whole series of lenses that I love, each of which has its own special style and reason for use, like the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar, the Leica 100mm Elmarit-R APO, and many industrial lenses like the El Nikkor 105mm APO, the CRT-Nikkor, the Printing Nikkors, and others. I feel the same way about ultra-Wide-angle lenses like the Venus 15mm macro, etc.
-
Hi,
I would think that a lot of posters on these forums use best practices, which are (at least in my humble opinion) is to use a tripod, focus magnified live view, cable release or self timer, near optimal apertures and EFSC (Electronic First Shutter Curtain). Personally I do that and also use stacking, both manually and also using a stackshot.
Being the OP, the point I wanted to make is that an immense effort goes into developing a lens that is virtually aberration free at large apertures. A medium aperture lens can be constructed with much less effort.
In a sense, Zeiss has acknowledged this with the APO 135/2.0, which as you say performs on the same level as the Otuses but about half of the price, but also with the new Batis line, like the 85/1.9. On the other hand I don't know how the Batises perform.
Personally, I wanted a really good 85 mm lens that was fully usable at maximum aperture. In that I was considering the following candidates:
- Zeiss Otus 85/1.4 - very good but a bit to expensive and to large, and I definitively did not need f/1.4
- Zeiss 135/2 APO Sonnar - I would have bought this lens, but I feel 135 mm doesn't fit my working style
- Zeiss 85/1.9 Batis - This came out whyle contemplating my choice. It was really all I was asking for, if it was good enough.
- Sony 90/2.8G Macro - a bit on the slow side but being a macro lens more useful
So I put an order for the Batis 85/1.9. But I never got a firm delivery date. Meanwhile the Sony 90/2.8G macro got very good reviews, so I canceled the Batis and bought the Sony. Not so sure it was the best choice.
I have some reflections on chromatic aberrations. Axial chromatic aberration is difficult to correct, there are just a few large aperture lenses that don't suffer from it. But it goes away at moderate apertures, AFAIK. A lens having significant axial chroma is not really usable at large apertures, because it will have magenta/green fringing in OOF areas. That was the exact reason I wanted a well corrected lens.
Lateral chromatic aberration is not dependent on aperture, but it is easy to correct in software. The 90/2.8G is well corrected for this, as far as I know. Did not make a lot of testing, though.
So my take is really, shooting at large apertures, the Otus is worth it's money. Shooting stopped down any well designed lens will do a good service. Once shooting beyond optimal aperture (which is around f/4 - f/5.6 on both Otus and Sony 90/2.8G) we start to loose sharpness to diffraction. Personally I often use f/8, it is a good balance between sharpness and diffraction and it still offers some depth of field.
I enclose the MTF at f/4 charts from Zeiss for the Otus 85/1.4 (top) and the Batis 85/1.9 (bottom). My take from the MTF-plots is that the Otus is quiet a bit sharper on axis but shows astigmatism off axis. The Batis is almost as sharp centrally but has no astigmatism. That is of course not the whole story. But I guess one could buy all three Batis lenses for the price of one Otus.
Best regards
Erik
I have the the Otus 55mm, 85mm, and the 135mm f/2 (which I consider of similar quality), and the 28mm f/1.4 Otus on order.
I happen to shoot on a tripod, which I don’t consider a shortcoming of any kind. For the stacked, close-up work that I do, it is necessary.
I use the Nikon D810 in LiveView, along with an early Zacuto Z-Finder, and find no problem focusing, although anything earlier from Nikon (D800E, etc.), does not quite make it for me in that regard.
I ended up with the Otus lenses only because they are more highly corrected than other lenses that I have, and I have about eighty very high-quality lenses, although since acquiring the Otus series, I am selling off more and more of them, because I never use them anymore.
In my work, sharpness IMO depends on color correction, and many of my older lenses, like the Zeiss 100mm Makro-Planar are just is not corrected well enough, although that lens is sharp. And I am fighting an uphill battle with the Otus series, because they really are not made for close-up work. I use the thinnest of extension on some of these lenses, the Nikon K1 Ring (5.8mm), which allows me to work a bit closer without too much degradation of the lenses.
My point here is that I am sure I am part of a subset of a subset of a subset of photographers and don’t really count, number-wise. I mean: who wants to shoot on a tripod and stack focus, with extension and also viewfinder enhancement, using highly corrected lenses aside from a few?
I did not get where I am by being trendy or going for high prices. I resisted the Otus series of lenses for quite a while for the obvious reasons that they don’t fit my very specialize close-up work… and they are way expensive. Then, based on reviews of people I respect, I broke down and tried the Zeiss 135-f/2 and was shocked at what that lens could do, compared to the other Zeiss lenses I own, like the 50mm, 100mm Makro-Planars, which I, as mentioned, never use.
Perhaps I am an exception because I shoot them (mostly) wide open, where the depth-of-field is razor thin, but I stack focus, which practically amounts to painting (layering) focus to make what I wish stand out, and allow the rest to got to bokeh. Yet, I also find that single-shots at f/16 with the Otus series stand up very well.
For a while I had a shoot-off going on my mind between stacking wide-open and single photos at around f/16, but for me, the stacking won out.
So… as I browse through this thread, I can understand most of the opinions here and why they might be held. I just wanted to add my own: that for very specialized work, these lenses are the best I have ever used and worth every penny.
P.S. I tend to have a whole series of lenses that I love, each of which has its own special style and reason for use, like the Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 APO-Lanthar, the Leica 100mm Elmarit-R APO, and many industrial lenses like the El Nikkor 105mm APO, the CRT-Nikkor, the Printing Nikkors, and others. I feel the same way about ultra-Wide-angle lenses like the Venus 15mm macro, etc.
-
Hi,
I recalled that Jim Kasson did run a bunch of lens tests back in spring 2015. Here is a test he made on five medium telephotos. What his samples show is that the high end lenses still show significant advantages in corners at f/8. The Canon lens is not included in this comparison: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=9090
Here I link some samples from Jim's article. If you find them soft, keep in mind that this is 200% and with just Lightrooms default sharpening.
Otus 85/1.4 at f/8 extreme corner
(http://blog.kasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/DSC0226-3.jpg)
Nikon 85/1.4 at f/8 extreme corner
(http://blog.kasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/DSC0239-3.jpg)
So this certainly contradicts DxO mark results, unless the 85/1.8 really shines in the corners.
By the way, here are the results of Jim's testing at f/5.6: http://blog.kasson.com/?p=9073
Jim used to be a scientist at Kodak and I think chief of engineering at Rolm later. A very good (and nice) guy sharing a lot of good information on his blog:http://blog.kasson.com
Another site I have checked a lot recently is "The digital picture", they have a lot of test chart images, here is a link that points to the Canon 85/1.8 to Otus 85/1.4 at f/8 comparison: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=5&LensComp=957&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6
Now, I have some reservations about shooting test charts, mostly that they need to be shot at significant distance, like 50 times focal length. Also, test charts don't show out of focus rendition.
Anyway, Jim's findings certainly contradict my expectations that there would be ignorable difference between a decently well designed lens (like the Canon 85/1.8) and the best possible design (like the Zeiss Otus 85/1.4).
Best regards
Erik
-
Just to remind myself of why I value the Zeiss Otus Series, this on with the Otus 55mm APO from last summer comes to mind. Nikon D810.
-
Just to remind myself of why I value the Zeiss Otus Series, this on with the Otus 55mm APO from last summer comes to mind. Nikon D810.
Hello Michael,
Are you certain you can show the difference of an image made with an Otus 50mm to -say- a Sigma art 50mm with the help of this little downsampled example of 963x 1024px
I guess not?
-
You guess is as good as mine. Not trying to prove anything, just reminding myself as to the virtues of the Otus series.
-
The first thing I noticed in the Michael's example were those two aperture shaped highlights in the lower right displaying onion rings, that's exactly what I see out of my Sony FE 1.8/55, and to my eye something that makes the Sony design somewhat undesirable for shots like this or certain portrait shots with OOF specular highlights. Again, an interesting topic and I appreciate your input Michael, and after looking at the examples on your site, and your explanation of what you are doing, I'd agree the OTUS is probably the best choice for you. However, the OTUS isn't exactly the Holy Grail some like to think it is, but its a darn good lens for people like yourself no-doubt. But for me, its a big square peg (literally), and one requiring an oversized hammer to pound it into that round hole!
Regards,
Chris
Hello Michael,
Are you certain you can show the difference of an image made with an Otus 50mm to -say- a Sigma art 50mm with the help of this little downsampled example of 963x 1024px
I guess not?
-
Yes, I think that was my point in my earlier post, the reasons why, for me, this is a great lens for my work. I am glad to find such a lens and see the interest on the part of Zeiss to make this level of lens available, much less a series of them. I wish more companies would offer this kind of correction at whatever price the market will bear. If all we can think about is the price, that is another story. I paid for my Zeiss APOS by selling lenses I no longer use. As for it being a Holy Grail, I am glad there is a Holy Grail for my work, not that I think of it as that. What about the El Nikkor 105mm APO. That too is a Holy Grail that produces its own kind of special images. Here is one with that lens on the D810. To me this lens too has a special quality, and I have others. No need to buy an Otus if it does not suit your work, right?
-
I'm going the other way to you, spending a great deal of time admiring modern work shot with 150 year-old Petzval lenses to >8x10 Calotype glass plates, when I see those images and the extra special "look" that combination produces I want to bin all my soulless modern kit. Each to his own, and that's what makes art wonderful isn't it!
Namaste,
Chris
Yes, I think that was my point in my earlier post, the reasons why, for me, this is a great lens for my work. I am glad to find such a lens and see the interest on the part of Zeiss to make this level of lens available, much less a series of them. I wish more companies would offer this kind of correction at whatever price the market will bear. If all we can think about is the price, that is another story. I paid for my Zeiss APOS by selling lenses I no longer use. As for it being a Holy Grail, I am glad there is a Holy Grail for my work, not that I think of it as that. What about the El Nikkor 105mm APO. That too is a Holy Grail that produces its own kind of special images. Here is one with that lens on the D810. To me this lens too has a special quality, and I have others. No need to buy an Otus if it does not suit your work, right?
-
I'm going the other way to you, spending a great deal of time admiring modern work shot with 150 year-old Petzval lenses to >8x10 Calotype glass plates, when I see those images and the extra special "look" that combination produces I want to bin all my soulless modern kit. Each to his own, and that's what makes art wonderful isn't it!
Yes. I have been admiring the Petzval look myself. Also looking at the various Helios/Biotar lenses, the Fujinon 55mm, and all of those lenses that have strange bokeh, and are very specialized. I love the CRT-Nikkor, which shares some of these qualities. There are lenses like we are discussing here with a special character that we can learn to use, not for everything, but just for what they can do that delights us. The Zeiss Otus have a very special look, as well. For me they are worth the money. Before the Otus lenses I made due with some of the APO Voiglanders, Leica, the Coastal Optics, etc. But the Zeiss Otus series is better for my work. I just wish they would make a macro lens of that quality and a rectangular fisheye.
-
Jim used to be a scientist at Kodak and I think chief of engineering at Rolm later. A very good (and nice) guy sharing a lot of good information on his blog:http://blog.kasson.com
But he doesn't clean the sensor ;D
-
I like the eclectic mindset of the filmmaker crowd, they're not too bothered with perfection, because then everything simply looks like HD video for them. I discovered these guys over on Newsshooter's site, they have some interesting optics, cool name too. :-)
http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/02/20/in-conversation-with-dog-schidt-optics-an-old-world-alternative-to-modern-lenses/
Like you say, some of those old Nikons are lovely things, but so spendy!
Chris
Yes. I have been admiring the Petzval look myself. Also looking at the various Helios/Biotar lenses, the Fujinon 55mm, and all of those lenses that have strange bokeh, and are very specialized. I love the CRT-Nikkor, which shares some of these qualities. There are lenses like we are discussing here with a special character that we can learn to use, not for everything, but just for what they can do that delights us. The Zeiss Otus have a very special look, as well. For me they are worth the money. Before the Otus lenses I made due with some of the APO Voiglanders, Leica, the Coastal Optics, etc. But the Zeiss Otus series is better for my work. I just wish they would make a macro lens of that quality and a rectangular fisheye.