-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Otus..
- Thread starter fahim mohammed
- Start date
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well, it does seem to be a well designed lens for either Nikon or Canon DSLR's, but I've not discovered any MTF charts to explain what they mean in terms of being able to satisfy the needs of the latest high resolution DSLR sensors. For sure I'd love to have my 50m f 1.2 Canon lens without chromatic aberration, but that can be corrected. I'd like to see how it makes a difference to have this new lens for existing Canon and Nikon DSLRs.
So here's the question. As far as MTF measurements are concerned, what barriers does the new lens knock down?
Also, if you were given such a lens, what would you use it for and which camera would you select to go with it?
Asher
So here's the question. As far as MTF measurements are concerned, what barriers does the new lens knock down?
Also, if you were given such a lens, what would you use it for and which camera would you select to go with it?
Asher
Theodoros Fotometria
New member
Did you see the price of the thing Fahim? ...is it real? ...How good can any lens be to justify this price? ...besides, it's a 55mm which rarely is of much use to photographers, ...my mostly used focal length is of around 35mm, then around 20mm, then around 100mm and then around 200mm... that is more than 90% of the focal lengths I use... in focal length discussions with other photographers, I can't remember any of them having the "standard" focal length as their priority lens.
But even if it was a priority lens, 15times the price of a Nikkor 50mmf1.4G? what the... "F"? ...and did you see the bulk of the thing?
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This lens is perfect for weddings and other dining events with 10 folk around a large table. Either this or an 80 mm MF lens is ideal for the task. It's the most important lens for such events!
Next for photography of a model on a bed, it's just perfect. One does need to back up a bit, but the coverage is just perfect!
I personally love the 50 mm length. Anything from 45mm to 55mm works for these needs!
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well, now, that Cem Usakligil has embraced the Nikon D800 while many of the rest of us are still with Canon, this new Zeiss lens serves us all!
I'm interested in knowing where it serves us best. The price of $4,000 here in the USA is not out of this word. After all, the 2013 premium lenses, (above the 70-200 2.8 IS) demand way above this price level. If we ignore correctable CA of competing Canon and Nikon lenses, which DSLR body would you choose and why/
Asher
I'm interested in knowing where it serves us best. The price of $4,000 here in the USA is not out of this word. After all, the 2013 premium lenses, (above the 70-200 2.8 IS) demand way above this price level. If we ignore correctable CA of competing Canon and Nikon lenses, which DSLR body would you choose and why/
Asher
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Theodoros, I agree. No way can I afford this price for what, after all, is a standard focal length lens.
The Nikkor 50/1.2 AIS is very very good. I regret having sold it.
Besides, it weighs more than I do. Put it on a cam ( more than likely on a tripod + ball head ) and it would be a weight lifters delight.
And MF too!!
Best.
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
PDF document including MTF charts.
The chart is impressive, as it should considering the amount of correction (12 elements!). But I am skeptical of the usefulness of a lens of that size and weight, considering that 50mm f/1.4 based on 40 years old designs are already very good. Sure, they have a much lower contrast at f/1.4 (mainly because of spherical aberration), but that is often an advantage in the situations where a f/1.4 aperture is actually useful...
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Hi Asher,
Apparently they tried to design the best wide aperture lens possible, with more models following (next year). It's supposed to perform extremely well, already at f/1.4, all the way to the corners. It's built to last, and offers very exact focusing due to the long focus ring throw of 248 degrees.
See here for some more background info on their blog.
Low Chromatic Aberration, high contrast (MTF), high performance, all available wide open.
I have not seen actual MTF curves yet, so we'll have to wait a bit for that.
Cheers,
Bart
fahim mohammed
Well-known member
Another contender also claims to be the best 50mm. The Leica 50mm cron asph; at max aperture of f2.
But the Leica weighs 300 grams and costs more than this beast. Traveling? Guess which I would pick?
But the Leica weighs 300 grams and costs more than this beast. Traveling? Guess which I would pick?
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Well, Bart, this lens at 55 mm would be pretty good for my work. Putting it on to a 7D would bring it to a reach of an 83mm lens and that's pretty convenient for portrait work. One lens, two bodies and then the Ricoh 28mm GR for the rest, LOL! With focus confirmation and the camera tethered to a screen, this would make a great studio lens!
In addition, because of the edge to edge perfection, stitching would be a dream.
So this lens would be perfect for portraits, full length and head shots as well for events like weddings, fundraisers and the like. DOF control by F stop and isolation when needed for the stars!
I'd have chosen a focal length of 45 mm but at 55mm, it's going to be a very useful lens.
Asher
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Hi Asher,
Yes, studio work, and stitching, but apparently it is also quite good at really close-up ranges (e.g. with extension tube). Anything with lightsources in the scene will hardly suffer from contrast reducing glare or flares.
Here is a review based on a pre-production model.
Here are some example images, full resolution at Right Mouse Button click, although I'm appalled by the sub-standard sharpening that was applied. They do show how well the contrast is, despite bright lightsources in the image. I'm less impressed by the OOF specular highlights, which turn into doughnuts.
Cheers,
Bart
Theodoros Fotometria
New member
I don't see one using f1.4 for a group of 10 people nor for a Model on bed Asher... Nor I can see how one would use a MF 55 on a wedding... I use the 17-35/2.8 (mostly MF) for my wide shots on weddings and the 70-200/2.8VRII (on AF) for distant shots and portraiture... I also cary 24-70/2.8 and 50/1.4G in my bag, but these are rarely used... In fact, I only use the 24-70 when the 17-35 is needed from one of my colleagues for the Nex-mount video camera he operates... On your model/bed example, it would either be the Contax645/MFDB with the 80f2 or the D800E or D4 with the 50f1.4G but no way at less than f2.8 (depending on the desired angle) and up to 5.6... I don't see how the extra performance of the Otus (in MF!!!) would improve considerably ones photography at those apertures... no matter how much better the lens would be... Besides, I doubt that D800E with Otus on it, would improve over C645&MFDB with 80/2 on it...
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
I gave the link in the message above yours.
There is another recent 50mm f/1.4 designed by Carl Zeiss, BTW: the one available in the Sony-Minolta A mount. It was criticized for its high price, but now it looks almost cheap by comparison...
What I find most surprising is the difference in design between the two lenses. The Sony uses 2 aspherical elements for its corrections, the Otus appears to be an entirely spherical lens.
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Hi Jerome,
Yes, I've seen it since I posted my reaction to an even earlier post. It looks like the MTF is reasonably constant from center to corner, even wide open.
What I've been hearing is that the Otus 55mm uses a double(!) sided aspherical element, and something like six rare-glass lens elements were used to compensate for CA.
Cheers,
Bart
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
I saw no mention of aspherical elements on the official pdf from Zeiss, but from that page, the last element is indeed aspheric. It does not appear to include a double aspheric surface, however.
The 35mm f/2.0 in the Sony DSC-RX1 uses 5 aspheric surfaces, including a double aspheric element.
Bart_van_der_Wolf
pro member
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
It is entirely possible that having a USD 4000.00 lens is not so beneficial to shooting a model on a bed as it is to getting a model on a bed.
Best regards,
Doug
Best regards,
Doug
Theodoros Fotometria
New member
Shshshshshshsh.... quiet Doug! ...we are married people here! ...Asher is a bit younger (and thought of the possible use of the lens).
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
So the problem is the bed, right? What about a 4000$ bed?
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The Model on the Bed!
Well there are challenges. One needs someone who in themselves has a projected sense of worth and poetic form, someone who can share and cooperate with feedback from the photographer building the picture. Then one needs perfect light, generally natural light one has predicted and planned for.
Then there's the lens and sensor combination able to capture the contrast, dynamic range and color that interprets and preserves the attributes, detail, importance and the ephemeral sense life and presence of the scene.
After that, practicality: one needs room to move away to get the scene into the frame. For my art, a 50mm lens is just right. With the 55 mm lens, from some angles, I'd have to shoot from outside a doorway to get the entire composition. Still, it's much more appealing than being even more restricted by the narrower view angle of a 70-200. A wider lens allows me to follow the model's new pose or of extending an arm and still having everything in frame.
But the crowning glory of this new Zeiss lens is the the promise of factors of dimensionality and life, as, according to the pictures by Lloyd in his review, the images have a feeling of presence that's unmatched. His examples, especially the curtains on the window show that well.
Until now, my mind was moving towards getting a MF camera. Now having been blown away with Digilloyd's report on this new lens, (thanks Bart), switching to Nikon and the D800E seems a worthy option! Just wonder how Nikon treats skin colors compared to my Canon cameras.
Asher
Well there are challenges. One needs someone who in themselves has a projected sense of worth and poetic form, someone who can share and cooperate with feedback from the photographer building the picture. Then one needs perfect light, generally natural light one has predicted and planned for.
Then there's the lens and sensor combination able to capture the contrast, dynamic range and color that interprets and preserves the attributes, detail, importance and the ephemeral sense life and presence of the scene.
After that, practicality: one needs room to move away to get the scene into the frame. For my art, a 50mm lens is just right. With the 55 mm lens, from some angles, I'd have to shoot from outside a doorway to get the entire composition. Still, it's much more appealing than being even more restricted by the narrower view angle of a 70-200. A wider lens allows me to follow the model's new pose or of extending an arm and still having everything in frame.
But the crowning glory of this new Zeiss lens is the the promise of factors of dimensionality and life, as, according to the pictures by Lloyd in his review, the images have a feeling of presence that's unmatched. His examples, especially the curtains on the window show that well.
Until now, my mind was moving towards getting a MF camera. Now having been blown away with Digilloyd's report on this new lens, (thanks Bart), switching to Nikon and the D800E seems a worthy option! Just wonder how Nikon treats skin colors compared to my Canon cameras.
Asher
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
Come to think of it, that might be the smarter move.
Theodoros Fotometria
New member
Oh come on Asher... you've turned that back to serious!
The thing is that this new (amazing it seems) lens, is one that its visible (or that would justify the expense) qualities are for its performance on its widest apertures, since all "standard lenses" are of (at least) good quality in medium apertures and that pro photography is mainly based on presentation.. (hence "post processing"). Lets face it Asher... the pros were making great shots with less "worthy" equipment in the past... and will continue to do so in the future, simply because they have the skills to do so and simply because the skills are above any lens.... That said, it is an immediate conclusion that the one with better skills will improve his skills further with better tools... So the real question here is "by how much and under what circumstances the investment would be worhtwhile.... (hence my answer and the jokes that followed)... I believe that this should be the real discussion here.
Back to your enquire about the DSLRs.... I would say that the D800E I own is a step beyond any other DSLR for studio use... It does need much more post processing than a MF camera, but it certainly (if one is prepared to do the post processing) can replace one for fashion studio use... That said, it is not as accurate in colour as an MFDB, nor it bares the same detail... but it is good enough for one to say "what the hey"... and save the money!
P.S. Mind you that the above comment is without having any own experience on the lens, or any sense of how much better it can be... Its purely past experience and sense (about the cost) that makes me wonder on the worth (and wonder) for the new Zeiss (for which I have much respect) series.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jerome,
I enjoyed this comment on the benefits of the Lead Credo 80 MP MF camera v. a Nikon D800.
audijam (Apr 23 said:
I added the !
Made me laugh!
Asher
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Theodoros,
Yes, that's a good question. Let me rephrase it. "When would a lens with the features and promise of the Zeiss 55mm f1.4 be worthwhile for a photographer".
My tentative reply would be that it's appropriate as a choice when one has already accomplished mastery of the composition and use of light such that the new lenses described feature of "presence" develops a few of such pictures from excellent to outstanding.
But this applies to all expensive and advanced instruments in any field. In photography, if one cannot compose well and know what to exclude and how to get light to paint the subject, then, of course, expensive accessories become just a hoarded treasure! More, if a lot of folk didn't buy such optical works of wonder, the prices would become beyond the reach of most artists who could actually use the lens with some benefit!
Asher
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
A used digital MF with its standard lens is not more expensive than a new D800 with that Zeiss lens.
Theodoros Fotometria
New member
Obviously the guy is a fanatic with little skills... Such comments are usual among web users (especially the shouting part)... Never the less, the guy is to some extend right! Lets see were he is false first...Jerome,
I enjoyed this comment on the benefits of the Lead Credo 80 MP MF camera v. a Nikon D800.
I added the !
Made me laugh!
Asher
1. You don't need Leaf than other MF to be better than d800 (or other DSLR).
2. You don't need 80mps to do MF... all MF is better than FF and the difference between a lesser resolution MF to a higher resolution one (if it exists - I claim that with some single shot photography even very cheap S/H 22mp backs are better than modern high res backs) is much less than what the best DSLR (D800E?) at low Iso is from any 22mp Kodak sensor back of the past... (Not to mention current and past 33mp Dalsa sensor backs which I believe are the best among ALL -even current- backs for single shot).
3. The man uses the word "buy" (shouting) as if anyones photography depends on how much he has to spend on it, which is far from truth... One could use MF film and scan it on a 9000ED extracting a NEF or DNG file out of it if he can't afford an MFDB or digital camera and wills (and has the workflow time) to get the outcome...
4. He puts the subject as if a skilful photographer can't get an appreciable result at all (!!!) using a FF DSLR... which is far from truth and can only refer to "equipment junkies"... which of course is an undervalue for photographic skills...
As to where the right is... give your own answers to the above and you are there! ...all MF is better than DSLRs (for what it does), but it's only "better" ...not a necessity! My experience with MF (which is pretty extended) says that only multishot for still life is (currently) irreplaceable... all the rest, skills (and workflow time) can (not replace but) overcome.
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Theodoros,
]
Best regards,
Doug
]
I assume you mean FF MF is better than FF35.
Best regards,
Doug
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Asher,
Well said.
My father, a precision machinist in his early life and later an executive of a machinery manufacturing firm, once told me:
"Always use the best tools you can afford, and always know how to do the best job possible with whatever tools you have."
Neither skill or facilities trump the other (unless of course one is hopelessly inadequate). The MTF of the lens and the MTF of the sensor are both part of the behavior of the camera (unless one is "dreadful").
It is all well and good to emphasize the role of skill, but we should now let our awareness of that denigrate the value of fine tools. Joshua Bell could make fabulous music with any old fiddle - but he doesn't.
Now the next question is: Why is so much MF work done MF?
Best regards,
Doug
Well said.
My father, a precision machinist in his early life and later an executive of a machinery manufacturing firm, once told me:
"Always use the best tools you can afford, and always know how to do the best job possible with whatever tools you have."
Neither skill or facilities trump the other (unless of course one is hopelessly inadequate). The MTF of the lens and the MTF of the sensor are both part of the behavior of the camera (unless one is "dreadful").
It is all well and good to emphasize the role of skill, but we should now let our awareness of that denigrate the value of fine tools. Joshua Bell could make fabulous music with any old fiddle - but he doesn't.
I think he most often uses the Gibson ex Huberman Stradivarius, a fascinating story in its own right. Works for me.
Now the next question is: Why is so much MF work done MF?
Best regards,
Doug
Theodoros Fotometria
New member
No Doug... I mean, all MF (even past) above 36x48mm image sensor is better than any current FF (35mm equiv. Nikon-Canon-Sony etc) DSLR... for what it is dedicated (the MF) to do (studio photography, low iso, usable DR, colour accuracy, detail presentation). I also mean that there is little difference in quality between older 22mp backs and current high res backs, while there is huge difference between MF photography and the best of DSLRs...
I also mean that the truth on the above, doesn't mean that modern DSLRs in the hands of a skilful photographer can't provide a great result in what would normally (ideally) be ...an MF territory.
Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Hi, Theodoros,
I was just puling your leg, part of my ongoing revulsion of the use of "FF" to mean "pertaining to a format size of about 36 mm × 24 mm" because for a certain genre of cameras, that is the (full) frame size.
In my 8 x 10 cameras, full frame is (nominally) 8" × 10", and half-frame is 5" x 7". In a Ricoh GR, full frame is about 23.7 mm × 15.7 mm, but there are smaller formats (not full-frame).
By the usual definition of "MF", we could have an MF camera with a format of 36 mm × 48 mm, which for that camera would be FF MF, while half-frame MF (guess that is HF FF) for that camera would be 36 mm × 24 mm.
Best regards,
Doug
I was just puling your leg, part of my ongoing revulsion of the use of "FF" to mean "pertaining to a format size of about 36 mm × 24 mm" because for a certain genre of cameras, that is the (full) frame size.
In my 8 x 10 cameras, full frame is (nominally) 8" × 10", and half-frame is 5" x 7". In a Ricoh GR, full frame is about 23.7 mm × 15.7 mm, but there are smaller formats (not full-frame).
By the usual definition of "MF", we could have an MF camera with a format of 36 mm × 48 mm, which for that camera would be FF MF, while half-frame MF (guess that is HF FF) for that camera would be 36 mm × 24 mm.
Best regards,
Doug