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.
