Zeiss Otus 85mm 1.4 has arrived

[kers]

The same happened with the 55mm Otus samples- : the lens is great but the samples were bad developed JPG's. Bad publicity i would think...
I have the 85mm Nikkor 1.4G - it has a magenta/green ( color correction) problem until 2.8; after that it is very very good - especially at 5.6
My guess is you need more than a 36mp sensor to show real differences beyond 2.8.
Maybe Lloyd Chambers will do the test(?) but then you have to pay for his Zeiss part...

[D White]

The only thing 3D is the shape of the crater it would leave in my wallet.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

... a 21 made to Otus specs would be really nice (although I'm afraid the price could be in the stratosphere for 35mm lenses).

Hi John,

And its weight would wear-out your camera's lens mount in no time ...

Cheers,
Bart

[JohnBrew]

 

Maybe they would put a tripod mount on it?

[torger]

But they do plan a wide angle, like 24mm, right? I can't wait to hear how much that's going to weigh!

[BernardLanguillier]

I can testify that dropping an Otus 55mm mounted on a D8x0 from 60cm on hard wood can result in costly repairs on the lens side.

The 85mm can only be worse since it is heavier.

The image quality is amazing, but I consider it to be a very delicate item.

Cheers,
Bernard

[melchiorpavone]

It would be interesting to compare it to the 80mm Summilux-R, released in 1981:

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica_80_summilux-R_14.html

http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/leica-lenses/leica-telephoto/419-leica-summilux-r-80mm-f14-e67-lens-review

http://jeremypangilinansblog.tumblr.com/post/20557548294/leica-80mm-summilux-r-f-1-4-lens

[NancyP]

So let's get this straight - 85mm f/1.4 Otus is a killer portrait lens. When you download your images, what do you do? Yes...........mega-retouching of all the pores, wrinkles, etc.   

[Jim Pascoe]

It would be interesting to compare it to the 80mm Summilux-R, released in 1981:

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica_80_summilux-R_14.html

http://slrlensreview.com/web/reviews/leica-lenses/leica-telephoto/419-leica-summilux-r-80mm-f14-e67-lens-review

http://jeremypangilinansblog.tumblr.com/post/20557548294/leica-80mm-summilux-r-f-1-4-lens

Well the SLRreview you referenced has this to say in summary -

"Leica Summilux-R 80mm f/1.4 (E67) is a very interesting medium tele lens. The lens does show somewhat of a 'dual' personality, with somewhat lower resolution and contrast at wider apertures, which is not that untypical for fast lenses. Vignetting, CA and flare, while not strictly speaking minimal for a lens in this focal length, are not particularly bad either, and can be either avoided or corrected during post processing. Price is obviously always a concern with Leica lenses, but other then that its a pretty solid telephoto prime."

so I think the older lens shows it's age! But then for the sort of photography I do a bit of 'character' is no bad thing......

[melchiorpavone]

So let's get this straight - 85mm f/1.4 Otus is a killer portrait lens. When you download your images, what do you do? Yes...........mega-retouching of all the pores, wrinkles, etc.  

LOL

Yes, it may be too sharp after all!

Most fast lenses do improve upon stopping down a little, and Leica's lenses are no exception; that said, Leica lenses generally do outperform others of similar speed and length, especially wide open.

[RobertJ]

Is the Zeiss 135 APO in the same league as Otus lenses, or will there be an Otus 135?

[F2bthere]

I was curious to see how good the results from this lens would be and, I admit, a bit nervous that I would fall in love with the Zeiss 85mm "with no compromise in image quality."

Lucky for me, the Bokeh and 3d quality is disappointing when compared to my gold standard, the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 ZF.2 Planar (which is presumably the same as all the variations for different mounts). That's not to say the Otis is bad, but it isn't as good as the less expensive Planar to my eye in these two critical areas.

Yes, I know the Otis is much better in most of the areas we look at and can measure. But it seems to my eye that all this correction has come at the cost of character.

Edited to correct mistake 1.2 should have been 1.4

[shadowblade]

I was curious to see how good the results from this lens would be and, I admit, a bit nervous that I would fall in love with the Zeiss 85mm "with no compromise in image quality."

Lucky for me, the Bokeh and 3d quality is disappointing when compared to my gold standard, the Zeiss 85mm f1.2 ZF.2 Planar (which is presumably the same as all the variations for different mounts). That's not to say the Otis is bad, but it isn't as good as the less expensive Planar to my eye in these two critical areas.

Yes, I know the Otis is much better in most of the areas we look at and can measure. But it seems to my eye that all this correction has come at the cost of character.

I'd rather have a razor-sharp, aberration-free lens with no 'character'.

'Character' is just another word for flaws. If I want loss of sharpness or distortion, I can add them in post-processing. Much harder to remove them once they're already there.

[shadowblade]

Really hoping for some UWAs, and especially some tilt-shifts - a series of Zeiss Otus 24mm and 17mm tilt-shifts would be fantastic and make for incredibly-detailed panoramas.

[F2bthere]

I'd rather have a razor-sharp, aberration-free lens with no 'character'.

'Character' is just another word for flaws. If I want loss of sharpness or distortion, I can add them in post-processing. Much harder to remove them once they're already there.

Perhaps you have misunderstood. By character, I was specifically talking about 3d rendering and Bokeh. Do you consider these flaws?

I would argue that a good 3d rendering is the sign of superior lens design. In any case, this is not a flaw. 

Bokeh is the quality of the rendition of the area outside of the DOF.  Good Bokeh might or might not be caused by a flaw, depending on your taste.

The Otus seems to do less well at rendering brighter backgrounds. The images from the Otus appear to be less true to the shape of the objects which are not sharply focused.  The Planar appears to do a better job at maintaining the shape in backlit objects. I would call this superior performance and not a flaw.

The Otus is a technically superior lens on several objective, quantifiable measures. The Planar is also a superior lens on such measures compared to the vast majority of lenses, although it is not up to the level of the Otis.

The Otus has distinguished itself on several of these measures. It has reduced a set of flaws. That is great.

But there are some ways in which the Planar design is better to my eye.

Character is not a code word for flaws

[AreBee]

F2bthere,

...good 3d rendering is the sign of superior lens design.

Do you have comparison images you can show that demonstrates this?

[MarkL]

The only thing 3D is the shape of the crater it would leave in my wallet.

 

[F2bthere]

AreBee: Side by side shots are ideal but rare. Few people have both lenses at the same time and few of those people will be so meticulous.

If you look at 100s of images from each lens, you can begin to notice the characteristics and reduce the influence of photographer-specific variables (post processing and lighting choices) and the weaknesses tend to reveal themselves. I need to go through large numbers of images before I feel confident, but a variety with backlit background items or brightly lit background items in the OOF area are the most useful.

The funny thing I have found is that as I go through enough images, I will notice that a few seem out of character and each time this has happened I have gone back to check the image and discovered that it was misfiled and taken with a different lens.  .

When I say larger numbers of images are needed, I mean for better lenses. Poorer lenses tend to fail more quickly and noticeably, even under less challenging lighting.

Also, I should add that the 85mm f1.4 Planar lens acts differently wide open in two specific ways that could be a significant negative for many.  It is a special lens, but it isn't for everyone.

1. There is focus shift from f1.4 when you stop down. This is not a problem if you are focusing at your taking aperture with live view or if you focus at f2.8, but it is something a prospective buyer should understand.

2. The lens is softer wide open.  For portrait clients, especially women, this is often a big positive, but for those who live by sharpness, you would be better off with the Zeiss 100mm f2 or the Otus 85mm f1.4.  

To be clear, the 85mm f1.4 Planar is NOT the best choice for everyone and those who are skeptical of the values I am expressing will not be as happy with this lens.

The reason I posted was to point out what I noticed. The Otus is superior in almost all ways in a highly competitive space (there are several great, fast 85mm and 90mm lenses from Canon, Nikon, Leica, Zeiss and Sigma).  But it doesn't do as well in these two characteristics. Granted, these will not matter, at least not on a conscious level, to most people.