ZEISS FOR Z MOUNT

ZEISS announced 50mm and 85mm lenses for Z mount

Are these too big and heavy or the weight and size is good?

ZEISS OTUS ML 85mmF1.4 and OTUS ML 50mmF1.4 |

--
Regards
MK

nikpharm said:

ZEISS announced 50mm and 85mm lenses for Z mount

Are these too big and heavy or the weight and size is good?

ZEISS OTUS ML 85mmF1.4 and OTUS ML 50mmF1.4 |

Click to expand...

Only one person can answer your question: you.

Few if any of us know your physical condition and your preferences towards camera gear size and weight vs. the features a specific piece of kit offers. So we cannot say.

My own opinion? I look at sharpness, contrast, and utility for the job. If I want to shoot birds and I don't want to spend $4,000 on a lens, I realize I will have to accept a long, relatively heavy zoom. That's the "price" of the compromise I made.

I really don't consider weight or balance because a) I know that sometimes I must trade that for the other features I want; and b) I think arguments about weight and balance are nonsensical. In my career dealing with user interfaces of all kinds, I have learned that humans quickly become used to the tools they use They may complain at first, but a few weeks later they aren't even thinking about those considerations. They have learned to use the tool to achieve the result they require, and they have become used to what they complained about before. There are few exceptions to this.

That 85mm f/1.4 seems to be quite the chonker lens if the little thumbnail image is indded a Z mount version (and not E mount).

Still smaller than the 85mm f/1.2S though. We'll see about the image quality, but pricing seems to target that ultra high end territory. No matter how good the lens is, it will face tough competition there.

Just average fast, manual focus but still big and heavy and probably very expensive. Mmm. I don't the market for those is big.

MJ_Photo38 said:

That 85mm f/1.4 seems to be quite the chonker lens if the little thumbnail image is indded a Z mount version (and not E mount).

Still smaller than the 85mm f/1.2S though. We'll see about the image quality, but pricing seems to target that ultra high end territory. No matter how good the lens is, it will face tough competition there.

Click to expand...

For Nikon Z 85mm lenses, the pinnacle has moved to f1.2. And manual focus only will be a tough sell when we have all sorts of AI eye-detect, face-recognition auto focus. Another issue common to all third-party lenses that are designed to work with multiple mounts is that they must accommodate Sony's narrow E mount and the longer 20mm flange distance for Leica L and Canon RF. For Nikon Z users, that means such lenses are not taking full advantage of the 55mm wide Z mount and its 16mm short flange distance.

Curious as to whether they're completely new optical formulas? They look really nice. Some will sell just based on how they look and feel. Very robust, all-metal build, etc.

These Otus lenses for Z come at a substantial discount from the F-mount versions. The Otus 85/1.4 ZF.2 for F mount is $4500 new, the 55mm/1.4 is $4000. Entirely different shape, also. These are more in the price range of the Milvus line.

They have competition from Voigtlander as well, from the CV 50/2 APO Lanthar at $900, and the 65/2 Macro APO Lanthar at $700 (which receives nothing but rave reviews). The 110/2.5 APO Lanthar isn't available in Z mount currently, I wonder if they'll do one. The CVs are slower, but I rarely shoot my 25/1.4 Milvus wide open anyway as I use it for landscape.

I wouldn't rave about the 65/2 Apo Lanthar - it's easily the most over-hyped Voigtlander there is. Is it good? Certainly. Very good even. Is it up to the standards of the 35/2 and 50/2 Apo Lanthars? Not even close. The only reason I own it still is I like the quirky 65mm focal length. Optically the 85/1.8S Nikkor is better in every aspect of image quality.

The new Zeiss will have very stiff competition now from the best of the Z mount that they didn't have in the F mount days when the Nikon F mount options were somewhat "meh". I expect it now will be more ones preferences in rendering style than one lens being markedly superior to the other like it was in the F mount days. Zeiss weights things in the image quality attributes a bit differently than Nikon does, so there are bound to be some folks who will prefer it and vice versa.

This time around, I don't expect to be as heavy into Zeiss glass I used to be in the F mount era, unless they do an updated 25 for ML mount that offers markedly superior performance to other 24/25mm options currently available. The best of Nikon Z has raised the bar significantly, and along with the two good apo lanthars, there is not a lot of place to go, image quality wise. At some point, even I will call it "good enough" and get off the gear train. We're really close to that point in many focal lengths.... but definitely not 25mm and below, so who knows what Zeiss will do with the line in the future in the wides.

Good to see Zeiss back at it though, for sure.

anotherMike said:

I wouldn't rave about the 65/2 Apo Lanthar - it's easily the most over-hyped Voigtlander there is. Is it good? Certainly. Very good even. Is it up to the standards of the 35/2 and 50/2 Apo Lanthars? Not even close. The only reason I own it still is I like the quirky 65mm focal length. Optically the 85/1.8S Nikkor is better in every aspect of image quality.

The new Zeiss will have very stiff competition now from the best of the Z mount that they didn't have in the F mount days when the Nikon F mount options were somewhat "meh". I expect it now will be more ones preferences in rendering style than one lens being markedly superior to the other like it was in the F mount days. Zeiss weights things in the image quality attributes a bit differently than Nikon does, so there are bound to be some folks who will prefer it and vice versa.

This time around, I don't expect to be as heavy into Zeiss glass I used to be in the F mount era, unless they do an updated 25 for ML mount that offers markedly superior performance to other 24/25mm options currently available. The best of Nikon Z has raised the bar significantly, and along with the two good apo lanthars, there is not a lot of place to go, image quality wise. At some point, even I will call it "good enough" and get off the gear train. We're really close to that point in many focal lengths.... but definitely not 25mm and below, so who knows what Zeiss will do with the line in the future in the wides.

Good to see Zeiss back at it though, for sure.

Click to expand...

I'm not in a position to judge small differences in lens quality either by knowledge, skill or experience. I base my purchases on the opinions of those I trust, including you, though it's been expensive. ;-)

Your opinion of the VC 65/2 AL is at odds with other reviewers like Dustin Abbott who rates the 65/2 slightly higher than the 50/2. He has not reviewed the 35/2. So, I did the only reasonable thing, buying all three. The 65/2 is much more bulky than the other two and extends much further as a consequence of its close focusing ability. It's my only semi-macro lens, so fills a niche. I bought the 50/2 last week for a birthday present to me (73!), as I didn't have a 50mm and YOLO.

But I also have the 85/1.8S, so all the bases are covered. I bought the Zeiss 1.4/25 Milvus and Sigma Art 40/1.4 Art based at least partly on your input, and I'm done. I think there is thing about having too many choices, but it's not a severe problem given the current situation in the world we find ourselves Retail therapy works.

We're planning a trip to Socal coming up via the South Rim, I'm excited to spend some time with two systems and multiple lenses. I'm also off the gear train, maybe I should have disembarked a couple of stops ago?

Thom Hogan is also lukewarm on the 65/2 Apo.

I've run the lenses against each other on complex subjects so often I don't even include the 65 in the tests any longer, and the 50/2 wipes the floor with it. You have to be damned near F/8 on the 65 Apo to get even, no dead-spot performance across the frame when the 50/2 can do that at F/4, as can the 35/2 Apo. It's honestly not a close race there.

Perhaps on a closer centrally based subject one might like the central zone of the 65/2, but I'm interested in excellent across field performance at apertures that are clearly out of the zone of diffraction. And that's where the other two are markedly superior to it.

I no longer look at anything Dustin does - IMO he used to be fairly good, not as thorough as I would have liked, but to me it seems he sold out to promoting lower brand lenses just to get income for his channel. But the point still remains - if you like his work, you have to listen to him of course. I would also say that a) he doesn't shoot Nikon much or at all, and b) do his scenarios in his testing *align* with what you (not me or the other guy) value - in my cases, I find it does not, so his value as a reviewer is diminished - while of course someone who does shoot what he does (or value what he does, attribute wise), might find that it does. That might explain the difference in our thoughts on the 65/2.

As far as the gear train goes, yea, I'm with you. There is a point where one is just buying to experience the latest, when the magnitude of improvement just isn't there. It was one thing with things like the 25/1.4 Milvus - still the best central aperture (but not wide aperture range) lens in it's class from anyone, where nothing really came close back then (the 24/1.8S is closer than it has any right to, but it's different), and the 40/1.4 Art kind of smoked all of our other choices, but really what would Zeiss bring to the table that is notably superior to, say, the 85/1.2S or the Plena? That's a really difficult ask. Just different (but not "better" most likely) rendering. And at some point, with the ways things are going, being a bit more prudent with the cash is a good thing for sure.

That being said, given how much I like 85, in 2026, I might look at the Zeiss. Budget got blown with the 35/1.2S recently LOL

The 50 is definitely smaller than the Nikon f/1.2, and probably much higher quality than the Nikon f/1.4, so there's something there. The 85 is only a little smaller than the Nikon f/1.2, but seems cheaper. As Mike says, the rendering will probably sway decisions more, and I can see hybrid (photo/video) shooters going for the Zeiss.

If the mounts were interchangeable, like their Nanoprimes, that might be another interesting feature. The photos shown in the leak show that the focus rings go in the un-Nikon direction (scales goes to infinity CW), which might lend credence to this, though those could just be the wrong photos.

Zeiss would have to license the Z mount too, so this is a pretty big commitment from them. Maybe the Red announcement or the Z8/9 motivated them to consider Nikon now too.

Zeiss has done some weird things in the past, like the Touits and their Lightroom camera, so I wouldn't assume this came from a place of logic. It would have been a lot more interesting if they had a wide angle lens since we already have plenty of 50s and 85s. But we should see what they're actually like before speculating on whether there's room for them in the market.

--
https://www.instagram.com/lolcar/

In terms of dimensions, the Zeiss Otus 50/1.4 is much more compact than the Z 50/1.2 S.

It is very comparable to the Z 85/1.8 S in terms of dimensions, but the all-metal construction with the claim “with the highest craftsmanship” has an effect on the weight.

_

Zeiss Otus 1.4/50: 77 x 100mm, 677g

Nikon Z 85/1.8 S: 75 x 99mm, 470g

Nikon Z 50/1.2 S: 89,5 x 150mm, 1090g

_

The Zeiss 85/1.4 is slightly larger than the Z 20/1.8 S.

Zeiss Otus 1.4/85: 88 x 113mm, 1060g

Nikon Z 20/1.8 S: 84.5 x 108.5mm, 505g

Nikon Z 85/1.2 S: 102.5 x 141.5mm, 1160g

_

In terms of dimensions, both lenses are still moderate, I will definitely keep an eye on the Zeiss Otus 50/1.4 Z. ;-)

However, it must also have that very special something, as the price range is likely to be comparable with the Plena and Co. category.

But I have little doubt that Zeiss/Cosina will be able to provide the "special sauce" here, that it takes to sell an MF lens for this price.

As a lover of high-quality lenses, including MF, this is very good news, regardless of whether I end up with an Otus in my kit.

The more high-quality choices in native optics, the better.

In any case, after a rather sobering year 2024 from a Nikon Z-mount lens perspective, the new year is off to a very good start, with the Z 35/1.2 S and the new Zeiss Otus lenses, I'm already looking forward to the in-depth reviews to come.

Given that they are likely manufactured by Cosina, I wonder if they will have the same electronics as the Voigtlanders, which to the camera look like an F-mount lens and support only 3-axis stabilization.

As for quality, I think there is more room for improvement than we might be aware of. Twenty years from now, we might wonder how we could ever tolerate the “obvious” problems of the Plena, CV 50, and other lenses that go as “flawless” now. There’s room for the new Otus line to surprise us. I don’t really think they will, but am keeping an open mind.

- Chris

Re the 50; would possibly could it offer that betters the 50/2 Apo Lanthar?

Less vignetting is the only thing I can think of.... and it would still be a lot larger...

A few things come to mind, all speculative:

The rendering at portrait distances might be nicer

Focus throw might be longer which makes it easier to MF

Closer focusing distance, higher magnification

One more stop of light at max aperture

At infinity, it's probably not much.

That depends on how the lenses are designed, how they are tuned.

As an apochromat and in this price range, you can assume a very high quality corrected lens, but the question will be how the rendering/bokeh/transition is also at close/medium distances.

After all, it is an f/1.4 and with Zeiss and Cosina there are basically two companies behind it that know how to build special lenses.

I assume that we will get a much nicer rendering for people/portrait photography here, without having to expect compromises in other areas.

But it remains to be seen what Zeiss/Cosina have produced there, since the Apo Lanthar lenses come from the same production, they should be aware that you have to set yourself apart here to justify the price.

If they have succeeded in producing a special lens with the Otus 50/1.4, then this would be a wonderful, very high-quality alternative in the Z-mount to the mighty Z 50/1.2 S, in the dimensions of a Z 85/1.8 S.

If they can get a pinch of the rendering of the Voigtlander Nokton 50/1 Z @ 1.4, without its flaws, then this could be a highly attractive lens.

bokesan said:

Voigtlanders, which to the camera look like an F-mount lens and support only 3-axis stabilization.

- Chris

Click to expand...

Any lens without its own VR only has 3-axis stabilisation on the Z cameras - X, Y and Roll.

Pitch and Yaw stab. is supplied by the lens.

Still only 3 axes for a F mount VR lens though, pitch, yaw and roll.

Well, that's what Thom Hogan says, anyway - and who am I to argue?

Wee! More 1950s design manual focus lenses! And they're even overpriced, too. What a time to be alive!

Where are the 3rd party AF lenses? Come on, it can't be that hard to add 2 stepper motors to your glass bucket, dear lens designers.

anotherMike said:

Re the 50; would possibly could it offer that betters the 50/2 Apo Lanthar?

Less vignetting is the only thing I can think of.... and it would still be a lot larger...

Click to expand...

Less vignetting, less cats-eye, weather sealing, larger aperture, rounded aperture blades. Possibly smoother bokeh transitions.

For night street photography, all of those matter to me. Pity about the weight though.

nikpharm said:

ZEISS announced 50mm and 85mm lenses for Z mount

Are these too big and heavy or the weight and size is good?

ZEISS OTUS ML 85mmF1.4 and OTUS ML 50mmF1.4i

Click to expand...

Only you can say: How important, really, do you find some smidge of a something extra in the background blur/bokeh department? The Z 85mm f1.8 S and 50mm f1.8 S are legit superb primes that are lighter, smaller, and vastly less costly. The 50mm f1.8 S has been spoken of as possibly the best fifty ever made. There is also the wonderful CS APO 50mm f2 for a contrasty, delish manual focus option. The perverse and cheeky attraction of the again lighter, and lighter on the wallet, Z "character" 50mm f1.4 non-"S" prime also beckons those who dare.

Personally I think the fetishizing of bokeh blur jumped the shark quite some time ago. But again, only you can say. Zeiss isn't going to let those who can't get enough go without, or get off lightly.